• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Did Jesus say he was God???

BornAgain

Active Member
Since there's no Vocative in Hebrew, the usual Trinitarian rendering "Thy throne O God" is clearly 100% blatantly wrong and they should probably all know this but they love this "proof text" too much.
YOU DO NOT KNOW WHAT YOU ARE SAYING!

Why would you translate Herbrews 1:8-9 into TANACH Hebrew language when it was originally written in Koine Greek and Psalm 45:6-7 was quoted from the LXX or the Septuagint?

No wonder why soon after A.D. 100 the Jews completely gave up the LXX and went back to the Hebrew version. Why would they abandoned this “DIVINELY INSPIRED BOOK”?

BECAUSE OF CHRIST, THEY SAW CHRIST IN THE SEPTUAGINT, ESPECIALLY HERE IN PSALM 45:6-7.


THE HEBREWS WRITER WROTE “But unto the Son”
PROS DE HO HUIOS. The writer was referring to Christ as the Son of God.


The quotation here is from Ps 45:6-7, which refers to the Son, who is then addressed as "God." His royal state is brought out by the references to the "throne," "scepter," and "kingdom" and by his moral concern for the "righteousness" that is supreme where he reigns. The first occurrence of the word "God" in v.9 as another vocative: "Therefore, O God, your God has set you."

It was not for want of evidence, but because their hearts were made fat, and their ears were heavy.
 
Last edited:

BornAgain

Active Member
In Trinitarian cases, most of the time it is want of evidence as WELL as fat hearts and heavy ears.
WE HAVE EVIDENCE FROM THE BIBLE!

You are wrong!

When the writer was writing the book of Hebrews he was referring to LXX or the Septuangint, the Greek translation of the Old Testastment. This is the exact translation of Psalm 45:6 in the Septuangint or LXX:
Ps 45:6 Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: the sceptre of thy kingdom is a scepter of righteousness.

When you refer another translation from this website

Psalms 45 / Hebrew - English Bible / Mechon-Mamre,

it will of course give you the interpretation that YOU WANTED, BUT it is different from the original LXX or Septuagint translation that the Hebrews writers were using during that time. This translation of yours is from the Tanach.

"It was not for want of evidence, but because their hearts were made fat, and their ears were heavy"
 
Last edited:

captainbryce

Active Member
NO. Jesus is the Son of God, Jesus is not the Father. Jesus is God for us Humans.
That's not what Jesus says.

Mark 10:18
"Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good--except God alone.

Mark 12:28-29
28 One of the teachers of the law came and heard them debating. Noticing that Jesus had given them a good answer, he asked him, “Of all the commandments, which is the most important?” 29 “The most important one,” answered Jesus, “is this: ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one.

John 20:17
Jesus said, "Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, 'I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.'"

Revelation 3:12-13
12 The one who is victorious I will make a pillar in the temple of my God. Never again will they leave it. I will write on them the name of my God and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem, which is coming down out of heaven from my God; and I will also write on them my new name. 13 Whoever has ears, let them hear what the Spirit says to the churches.

And it's not what Paul says:

Ephesians 1:17
I keep asking that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the glorious Father, may give you the Spirit of wisdom and revelation, so that you may know him better.
 

BornAgain

Active Member
This deliberate twisting of a direct quote of Psalm 45 by all the mainstream translations is one of the most glaring proofs of widespread direct dishonesty among Trinitarian translations.
“This deliberate twisting of a direct quote of Psalm 45” is from the LXX or the Septuagint, the Old Testament at that time, WHEN THE HEBREWS WRITER WAS WRITING THE BOOK OF HEBREWS. This LXX in not in use anymore by the Jews since A.D. 100. The Jews abandoned this LXX when they saw Christ in this “DIVINELY INSPIRED BOOK”

There's no "O" in Hebrew and only a "The",(And its use in Greek is questionable as well), so what do you REALLY do with the Article there?

YOU ARE RIGHT!

THERE IS NO “O” IN HEBREW AND IN Greek TOO, BUT, YOU ARE RIGHT, THERE IS THE “HO” IN KOINE Greek THAT TRANSLATES INTO THE WORD “HO/THE” BEFORE THE WORD “THEOS” OR IN OTHER WORDS, -THIS IS FROM YOUR TRANSLATION- HO/THE THEOS/God, OR “THE God” WITH THE DEFINITE ARTICLE.

THE HEBREWS WRITER WAS REFFERING TO WHOM WHEN HE WROTE: “Thronos/THRONE sou/YOUR ho/THE theos/GOD.”

HE WAS REFERRING TO: PROS DE HO HUIOS OR “ABOUT BUT THE SON”

“ABOUT BUT THE SON THRONE YOUR THE GOD”

YOU WROTE:
“(And its use in Greek is questionable as well)”

CAN YOU SEE YOURSELF HERE?

NO MATTER HOW YOU TRANSLATE OR TWIST THE WORD OF GOD IT WILL FIND THE REAL TRUTH.


I HOPE YOU ARE NOT INSINUATING YOUR “MIDRASH ANGEL’S THEORY” ABOUT Christ AGAIN HERE. I PROVED YOU WRONG ALREADY WITH THAT DELUSIONAL THEORY OF YOURS. IF YOU WANT I COULD POST IT AGAIN.

"It was not for want of evidence, but because their hearts were made fat, and their ears were heavy"
 

BornAgain

Active Member
I definitely want to add to my list of things to do before I leave this lifetime to kill the widespread Hebrews 1:8 canard dead among many other verses.
YOU THINK YOU ARE MORE POWERFUL THAN God THAT YOU WANT TO SUPPRESS HIS WORDS, HEBREWS 1:8-9?

1Co 16:22 If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be Anathema Maranatha.
 

Shermana

Heretic
“This deliberate twisting of a direct quote of Psalm 45” is from the LXX or the Septuagint, the Old Testament at that time, WHEN THE HEBREWS WRITER WAS WRITING THE BOOK OF HEBREWS. This LXX in not in use anymore by the Jews since A.D. 100. The Jews abandoned this LXX when they saw Christ in this “DIVINELY INSPIRED BOOK”



YOU ARE RIGHT!

THERE IS NO “O” IN HEBREW AND IN Greek TOO, BUT, YOU ARE RIGHT, THERE IS THE “HO” IN KOINE Greek THAT TRANSLATES INTO THE WORD “HO/THE” BEFORE THE WORD “THEOS” OR IN OTHER WORDS, -THIS IS FROM YOUR TRANSLATION- HO/THE THEOS/God, OR “THE God” WITH THE DEFINITE ARTICLE.

THE HEBREWS WRITER WAS REFFERING TO WHOM WHEN HE WROTE: “Thronos/THRONE sou/YOUR ho/THE theos/GOD.”

HE WAS REFERRING TO: PROS DE HO HUIOS OR “ABOUT BUT THE SON”

“ABOUT BUT THE SON THRONE YOUR THE GOD”

YOU WROTE:
“(And its use in Greek is questionable as well)”

CAN YOU SEE YOURSELF HERE?

NO MATTER HOW YOU TRANSLATE OR TWIST THE WORD OF GOD IT WILL FIND THE REAL TRUTH.


I HOPE YOU ARE NOT INSINUATING YOUR “MIDRASH ANGEL’S THEORY” ABOUT Christ AGAIN HERE. I PROVED YOU WRONG ALREADY WITH THAT DELUSIONAL THEORY OF YOURS. IF YOU WANT I COULD POST IT AGAIN.

"It was not for want of evidence, but because their hearts were made fat, and their ears were heavy"

Once again, you did not prove I was wrong about the Angels, this is a perfect example of someone's signature quote, that arguing with a pigeon involves them knocking over the pieces, relieving themselves on the board, and strutting around like they think they've won. Please don't be like a pigeon and learn to actually argue against people's arguments. As much as you may want to believe that repeating that you "disproved my delusional Angel theory" somehow actually did disprove it, the only person you're going to convince is yourself. You did not disprove me, I don't see how you did, why you would think you did, and I would recommend you learn how to actually disprove an argument. So please by all means post again your response you think disproved me so much.

Now as for "Your the god", the term "Your" is in the possessive, not "you are". Therefore it cannot be "You're God". Do you need a further explanation of this, for both the English and the Greek and the Hebrew?

Did you see the JPS translation of Psalm 45:6? It's a statement of God being the basis of their throne. The Hebrew does not say "About the Son", it's writing about the King in the first place. So whatever it says about the King is referring to the Son. It says "About the son it says, God is YOUR throne". Learn basic English grammar before you even attempt Greek or Hebrew.

It is not me twisting the Hebrew, Greek, and the Truth, and I'd be willing to bet everything I have. You made a big deal about me using the word "may" as if I wasn't sure. Well I'm sure on this. And you apparently aren't by your own logic. Unless you want to take that "intimidating" bet.


It was not for want of evidence, but because their hearts were made fat, and their ears were heavy

That quote definitely applies to Trinitarians like yourself. You knock over the pieces when presented with the evidence and then act as if there's something wrong with the other person and repeat yourself rather than address their claims and then you declare victory as if you somehow brought up something that counters them.

You're welcome.
 
Last edited:

Shermana

Heretic
YOU THINK YOU ARE MORE POWERFUL THAN God THAT YOU WANT TO SUPPRESS HIS WORDS, HEBREWS 1:8-9?

1Co 16:22 If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be Anathema Maranatha.

Wow. So when I disprove you and demonstrate that you are incorrect, you think I am saying that I am more powerful than God.

A little bit of projection here?

The only thing I want to suppress here is the ramblings of people who abuse and distort what the text says (or doesn't say for that matter).

Why don't you want to take my bet? Seriously! You made such a big deal about me using the word "may" as if I wasn't sure on something. Well I'm very sure on this. So take the bet and stop accusing me of "intimidating you".
 

BornAgain

Active Member
And also for the record, the Angels may have been created before the Creation of the world itself.

There's no reason to assume they were created on days 2-5 or even 1.

It may even say that "gods" created the Heavens and Earth, under His direction.

Reading Genesis 1:1 -Tanakh version- *In the beginning of God's creation of the heavens and the earth.

This is your interpretation or exposition of Tanakh version of Genesis 1:1 “It may even say that "gods" created the Heavens and Earth, under His direction.”


I do not think that Jewish midrashic would even support this interpretation of yours. That is blasphemy to any Jewish rabbis
.
THEORY, AND THEORY ON TOP OF THEORIES. AN ENDLESS THEORY ABOUT ANGELS. “ANGELS MAY HAVE BEEN CREATED BEFORE THE CREATION OF THE WORLD ITSELF” YOU ARE NOT EVEN SURE OF YOUR OWN CHAMELOENIC THEORIES ABOUT YOUR ANGELS.

WHO’S GONNA BELIEVE YOU NOW WITH THAT SICK THEORY OF YOURS?

Obviously the people who buy your version of events are brushing off what Genesis says and reading into the text.

I based my argument in the book of Genesis. You should read your own post about your endless theory about angels.
 

BornAgain

Active Member
And if its such blasphemy, I offered you to bring it up to the Judaism DIR and telling them how "twisted" and "delusional" it is regarding the Angels being the "us" in Genesis 1:26, what's stopping you? This is the official Jewish position regarding Genesis 1:26, so why can't it extend to 1:1 as well?

It's not blasphemy to say the Angels (aka "gods") were doing the creating. Calling my position blasphemous is not a valid counterargument. It's not blasphemous at all. What's blasphemous is to say that God is some 3-person entity.

First you claimed angels were created on the 2nd to 5th day of the creation in Genesis, then when challenged you said, “Angels may have been created before the Creation of the world itself. It may even say that "gods" created the Heavens and Earth, under His direction.”

THIS IS A MIDRASH INTERPRETATION OF GENESIS 1:1-2

I forgot to mention how incorrect R. Eliezer ben Hyrkanos is when he states that “Seven things were created before the world was created. They are: The Torah, Gehinnom, the Garden of Eden, the Throne of Glory, the Temple, Repentance, and the Name of the Messiah” (Pirke de Rabbi Eliezer, Chapter III, p. 10-11). If one believes in the truth of the Holy Book, then one would ignore such ridiculousness. R. Eliezer ben Hyrkanos is creating fictions when he says that these things existed prior to creation. Where is your proof R. Eliezer ben Hyrkanos? “To which of the holy ones will you appeal?” (Job 5:1). As R. Eliezer ben Hyrkanos should know, the Holy Book only says, “When God began to create the heaven and earth” (Genesis 1:1). There is no mention of these things existing before the creation.

This is your interpretation or exposition of Tanakh version of Genesis 1:1 “It may even say that "gods" created the Heavens and Earth, under His direction.”

NOW, TELL ME IF YOU DID NOT BLASPHEME THE WORD OF GOD WITH YOUR DELUSIONAL ANGEL'S THEORY.
 

BornAgain

Active Member
SHERMANA, This is your interpretation or exposition of Tanakh version of Genesis 1:1 “It may even say that "gods" created the Heavens and Earth, under His direction.”
 

Shermana

Heretic
First you claimed angels were created on the 2nd to 5th day of the creation in Genesis, then when challenged you said, “Angels may have been created before the Creation of the world itself. It may even say that "gods" created the Heavens and Earth, under His direction.”


Can you remind me where exactly I specifically claimed they were made in the 2nd-5th days as if that was my matter-of-fact statement? I believe I stated the general idea was that they were created before Creation.

THIS IS A MIDRASH INTERPRETATION OF GENESIS 1:1-2

It is. And it's the general Jewish interpretation. Go to the Judaism DIR and ask them "Who is the "Us" and "We" and "Our" in Genesis. Please do, before making another kind of rant about how the Jews deny the word of God because it speaks of Jesus or something.

I forgot to mention how incorrect R. Eliezer ben Hyrkanos is when he states that “Seven things were created before the world was created
.

Wow, you have authority to tell individual Rabbis how wrong they are, because you have some super secret knowledge that no one else knows! Fascinating. Do you claim to be a prophet or something?

They are: The Torah, Gehinnom, the Garden of Eden, the Throne of Glory, the Temple, Repentance, and the Name of the Messiah” (Pirke de Rabbi Eliezer, Chapter III, p. 10-11). If one believes in the truth of the Holy Book, then one would ignore such ridiculousness.

What does believing in the Holy Book have to do with believing in Rabbinical interpretations? Are you under the delusion that the only things we can know are what's in the Bible?

R. Eliezer ben Hyrkanos is creating fictions when he says that these things existed prior to creation.

Ah, you must have some way of proving that they are just fictions of course. Is your argument "If it's not in the Bible, it didn't happen"? Well guess where that logic leaves you with Genesis 1:26.....(Hint: No Trinity).

Where is your proof R. Eliezer ben Hyrkanos? “To which of the holy ones will you appeal?” (Job 5:1). As R. Eliezer ben Hyrkanos should know, the Holy Book only says, “When God began to create the heaven and earth” (Genesis 1:1). There is no mention of these things existing before the creation.

I can't prove or disprove anything. Maybe you should consider this concept as well. Again, please dislodge yourself from this delusion that we know only from what the text says.

This is your interpretation or exposition of Tanakh version of Genesis 1:1 “It may even say that "gods" created the Heavens and Earth, under His direction.”

It very well may. Ask the Jews themselves. They may disagree Theologically, but gramatically it's justifiable. It's one of the few places I agree with Joseph Smith in his Book of Abraham translation of Genesis.
NOW, TELL ME IF YOU DID NOT BLASPHEME THE WORD OF GOD WITH YOUR DELUSIONAL ANGEL'S THEORY.[

I did not blaspheme the word of God whatsoever. And I'm willing to bet everything I have to heaven on that. Are you willing to bet everything you have?

Do you seriously not understand how you have in no way whatsoever disproven what I've said? Your argument is basically hopping up and down and screaming in big capital red letters "It's not in the Bible, so it can't possibly be true!" and calling my belief "Delusional" and "Blasphemy". Hopefully you'll realize that by your own criteria, Genesis 1:26 does not in any way whatsoever promote a Trinitarian view. As I've said, almost all modern Trinitarian scholars are basically PLEADING with their audiences to abandon this Genesis 1:26-Trinity-association blasphemy, and all you did was say "You have no argument so you appeal to the scholars" or something like that, totally revealing your unwillingness to even acknowledge the value of scholars in how to even interpret the text.
 
Last edited:

Shermana

Heretic
SHERMANA, This is your interpretation or exposition of Tanakh version of Genesis 1:1 “It may even say that "gods" created the Heavens and Earth, under His direction.”

There's absolutely nothing blasphemous or gramatically incorrect about it in old Israelite Theology. Since the Masoretic days, there's been an overzealous overreaction to the original Hebrew Henotheism. I'm not saying it DOES say "gods" necessarily. It's ambiguous. You were giving me such a hard time for using the word "May" earlier, now you're saying it's my official interpretation.

Make up your mind!!

I understand you love the Septuagint, so do I. Why don't you tell me your take on Deuteronomy 32:8 in the Septuagint.
 

BornAgain

Active Member
There's absolutely nothing blasphemous or gramatically incorrect about it in old Israelite Theology. Since the Masoretic days, there's been an overzealous overreaction to the original Hebrew Henotheism. I'm not saying it DOES say "gods" necessarily. It's ambiguous. You were giving me such a hard time for using the word "May" earlier, now you're saying it's my official interpretation.

Make up your mind!!

I understand you love the Septuagint, so do I. Why don't you tell me your take on Deuteronomy 32:8 in the Septuagint.

sons of Israel or sons of God?
 

BornAgain

Active Member
Once again, you did not prove I was wrong about the Angels, this is a perfect example of someone's signature quote, that arguing with a pigeon involves them knocking over the pieces, relieving themselves on the board, and strutting around like they think they've won.
"Once again, you did not prove I was wrong about the Angels"

According to your “angel’s theory”, angels were created on the 2nd to 5th day of the creation in Genesis. Therefore, with this delusional angel’s theory of yours, you have claimed that Christ was just an angel of God.

Matthew Henry on Hebrews chapter 1 commentary

Many Jews had a superstitious or idolatrous respect for angels, because they had received the law and other tidings of the Divine will by their ministry. They looked upon them as mediators between God and men, and some went so far as to pay them a kind of religious homage or worship.

Col 2:18 NLT- Don’t let anyone condemn you by insisting on self-denial. And don’t let anyone say you must worship angels, even though they say they have had visions about this. These people claim to be so humble, but their sinful minds have made them proud.

Thus it was necessary that the apostle should insist, not only on Christ's being the Creator of all things, and therefore of angels themselves, but as being the risen and exalted Messiah in human nature, to whom angels, authorities, and powers are made subject.

To prove this, several passages are brought from the Old Testament.

On comparing what God there says of the angels, with what he says to Christ, the inferiority of the angels to Christ plainly appears.

Here is the office of the angels; they are God's ministers or servants, to do his pleasure. But, how much greater things are said of Christ by the Father! And let us own and honour him as God; for if he had not been God, he had never done the Mediator's work, and had never worn the Mediator's crown. It is declared how Christ was qualified for the office of Mediator, and how he was confirmed in it: he has the name Messiah from his being anointed.

Only as Man he has his fellows, and as anointed with the Holy Spirit; but he is above all prophets, priests, and kings, that ever were employed in the service of God on earth.

The most exalted angels are but ministering spirits, mere servants of Christ, to execute his commands.

The saints, at present, are heirs, not yet come into possession. The angels minister to them in opposing the malice and power of evil spirits, in protecting and keeping their bodies, instructing and comforting their souls, under Christ and the Holy Ghost. Angels shall gather all the saints together at the last day, when all whose hearts and hopes are set upon perishing treasures and fading glories, will be driven from Christ's presence into everlasting misery.
 

Muffled

Jesus in me
Jesus saying he existed before Abraham does not mean he was God. I'm still waiting for a quote from the bible where Jesus clearly says "I am God". The fact that people in this thread have had to do so much work to prove this point, makes it clear that he never said he was God.

However Jesus isn't saying that He existed before Abraham. He is saying that He is "I Am" which is a name of God.

I just gave it to you.

I believe this is totally illogical. Arguments do not change reality. The work is required because people do not believe what they hear and make an exerted effort to say that they heard something different. Touche!
 

Muffled

Jesus in me
What's provable exactly? What's not proven here? He says "Let them be one AS we are one". How have you proven that "I and the Father are one" does NOT mean the same kind of "oneness" AS he wants the disciples to be as well?

It is not proven that Jesus was just a man with the purpose of God.

It is the same oneness. However when Jesus is in me I am not a man with the same purpose of God, I am God in the flesh.
 

Philomath

Sadhaka
However Jesus isn't saying that He existed before Abraham. He is saying that He is "I Am" which is a name of God.

I just gave it to you.

I believe this is totally illogical. Arguments do not change reality. The work is required because people do not believe what they hear and make an exerted effort to say that they heard something different. Touche!

No you have not you have given my a verse in which you interpret it to mean that. You still haven't presented and a single bible verse where Jesus says "I am God".
 
Top