Does the Judeo-Christian Bible say Jesus is God?

[Desert Snake]

The english Bible maintains pretty good 'name inference', though it does deviate on occasion. The english bible is 'interpreted', in other words, though usually is pretty direct.

They didn't 'interpret'
Matthew 22:37-46

For example, it's literalistic, and they didn't ' interpret', 'angel of the Lord',
And they didn't interpret
2 Corinthians 6:18

So, mostly, it's direct.

 

[Desert Snake]

Some modern bibles 'interpret' by use of the larger letters...this can just be something one can ignore, or, read it like that, literally.

In the New Testament, that usage, the big letters, just presumably matches the way it is interpreted in the Old Testament.

So,
Matthew 22:37-45
Big letter usage, they just made a parallel to the OT verse, where they did that.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

God isn't a 'singular specific' correlate to elohim.

Elohim has many meanings:
A plural honorific for the One True God
many gods, as in pagan gods
angels or other heavenly beings
judges

 

[Desert Snake]

Elohim has many meanings:
A plural honorific for the One True God
many gods, as in pagan gods
angels or other heavenly beings
judges

Great. You aren't following your own argument.

So, 'God of gods'
The Highest God
So forth.

you do not follow that methodology.

If you did
I am Tetragrammaton your god
Genesis 1:26 elohim

So forth,

Would all be vague.

 

[THE HOOD APOLOGIST]

First of all, just because the NT is written by Jews doesn't mean it is Judaism, thus it is not "Judeo."

But in addition to this, Christians mistranslate many verses of the Tanakh to make them more messianic. Some of this is due to the fact that Christians translate form the terribly translated Septuagint rather than the Hebrew. The Dead Sea Scrolls manuscripts show how faithful the Hebrew texts are.

Who said the NT is Judeo because it was written by Jews? Not me. That's a Strawman.
It's Judeo because it contains the Tanakh. It's Christian because it contains the NT. "Judeo-Christian Scriptures

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Great. You aren't following your own argument.

So, 'God of gods'
The Highest God
So forth.

you do not follow that methodology.

If you did
I am Tetragrammaton your god
Genesis 1:26 elohim

So forth,

Would all be vague.

Genesis 1:26 clearly does not use the sacred name of God. It uses a title: God. The name of God was not revealed until the Exodus. And yes, we see the phrase, "I am [name of God], your God."

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Who said the NT is Judeo because it was written by Jews? Not me. That's a Strawman.
It's Judeo because it contains the Tanakh. It's Christian because it contains the NT. "Judeo-Christian Scriptures

Let's face it, Christians appropriated the Jewish sacred texts, and then added their own.

Jews never offered their texts, and utterly reject the Christian scriptures. Furthermore, we reject the Christian translations of our Tanakh. What Christians have is not connected to Judaism.

 

[THE HOOD APOLOGIST]

Let's face it, Christians appropriated the Jewish sacred texts, and then added their own.

Jews never offered their texts, and utterly reject the Christian scriptures. Furthermore, we reject the Christian translations of our Tanakh. What Christians have is not connected to Judaism.

First off Paul who wrote most of the NT letters, was a Jew from the tribe of Benjamin, and also a Pharisee. So he knew scripture better than anybody. When he quoted Scripture he was quoting from the Tanakh being there was no such thing as a NT. In his letters he showed how the Tanakh applied to Jesus as the Messiah.
Secondly, you can reject the NT all you want, fact is most of it was written by Jews who believe the prophecies about the Messiah was fulfilled in Jesus Christ. Also the Dead Sea Scrolls show that what we have today for the OT is basically identical to what the Jews had in the B.C era. Facts are facts, and they don't care about your feelings

 

[Subduction Zone]

First off Paul who wrote most of the NT letters, was a Jew from the tribe of Benjamin, and also a Pharisee. So he knew scripture better than anybody. When he quoted Scripture he was quoting from the Tanakh being there was no such thing as a NT. In his letters he showed how the Tanakh applied to Jesus as the Messiah.
Secondly, you can reject the NT all you want, fact is most of it was written by Jews who believe the prophecies about the Messiah was fulfilled in Jesus Christ. Also the Dead Sea Scrolls show that what we have today for the OT is basically identical to what the Jews had in the B.C era. Facts are facts, and they don't care about your feelings

Do you know how old the Dead Sea Scrolls are?


At any rate many theistic writings are rather vague and may have more than one interpretation. The problem with many of the Christian "prophecies" is that they are not prophecies, but merely verses taken out of context. When read in context they do not tend to make the claimed prophecies.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

First off Paul who wrote most of the NT letters, was a Jew from the tribe of Benjamin, and also a Pharisee. So he knew scripture better than anybody. When he quoted Scripture he was quoting from the Tanakh being there was no such thing as a NT. In his letters he showed how the Tanakh applied to Jesus as the Messiah.
Secondly, you can reject the NT all you want, fact is most of it was written by Jews who believe the prophecies about the Messiah was fulfilled in Jesus Christ. Also the Dead Sea Scrolls show that what we have today for the OT is basically identical to what the Jews had in the B.C era. Facts are facts, and they don't care about your feelings

Oh please. Paul created a new religion.

 

[THE HOOD APOLOGIST]

Do you know how old the Dead Sea Scrolls are?


At any rate many theistic writings are rather vague and may have more than one interpretation. The problem with many of the Christian "prophecies" is that they are not prophecies, but merely verses taken out of context. When read in context they do not tend to make the claimed prophecies.

Sure I do. All the scrolls weren't written at the same time though. But what is important is the oldest scroll(The Isaiah Scroll) which is dated to 100 B.C and precedes the King James Bible by about 1500 yrs, is nearly identical to the Masoretic text. Check it out.

As far as Christian prophecies being verses taken out of context, that's your opinion

 

[THE HOOD APOLOGIST]

Oh please. Paul created a new religion.

Please elaborate. Claims mean nothing without facts or some kinda evidence backing them up

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sure I do. All the scrolls weren't written at the same time though. But what is important is the oldest scroll(The Isaiah Scroll) which is dated to 100 B.C and precedes the King James Bible by about 1500 yrs, is nearly identical to the Masoretic text. Check it out.

As far as Christian prophecies being verses taken out of context, that's your opinion

No, that the prophecies are taken out of context is a fact. There is a very good reason that Jesus was not well accepted by the Jews. He did not match the messianic prophesies. Instead followers had to quote mine the Old Testament. And sometimes even make up prophecies that did not exist.

 

[THE HOOD APOLOGIST]

No, that the prophecies are taken out of context is a fact. There is a very good reason that Jesus was not well accepted by the Jews. He did not match the messianic prophesies. Instead followers had to quote mine the Old Testament. And sometimes even make up prophecies that did not exist.

Firstly Again, that's your opinion until you back up your claim with facts.
Secondly, the Jews didn't even understand their own scriptures referring to the Messiah for the simple reason they were looking for a warrior king like David to come in and crush their enemies. Well the scriptures said the Messiah would die and the city and sanctuary would be destroyed(Daniel 9:26) Jesus also predicted his death and the temple being destroyed(Matthew 20:19,Matthew 24:2)
History tells us that happened when Jesus was crucified, and Jerusalem and the temple were destroyed in A.D 70 by Titus.
See how they missed that prophecy?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Firstly Again, that's your opinion until you back up your claim with facts.
Secondly, the Jews didn't even understand their own scriptures referring to the Messiah for the simple reason they were looking for a warrior king like David to come in and crush their enemies. Well the scriptures said the Messiah would die and the city and sanctuary would be destroyed(Daniel 9:26)
That happened when Jesus was crucified, and Jerusalem and the temple were destroyed in A.D 70.
See how they missed that prophecy?

Since you have not brought up any supposed prophecies that would be rather difficult for me to do. And the Daniel prophecy was not even a prophecy. It was history written as if it were prophecy. That is why all sorts of mental gymnastics were necessary to make it "come true". It described a past event after the fact. Not a future one.

Surely you can do better than that.

 

[sooda]

Great. You aren't following your own argument.

So, 'God of gods'
The Highest God
So forth.

you do not follow that methodology.

If you did
I am Tetragrammaton your god
Genesis 1:26 elohim

So forth,

Would all be vague.

Vague?

When there isn't enough information the too few facts you do have will fit any number of theories.

 

[THE HOOD APOLOGIST]

Since you have not brought up any supposed prophecies that would be rather difficult for me to do. And the Daniel prophecy was not even a prophecy. It was history written as if it were prophecy. That is why all sorts of mental gymnastics were necessary to make it "come true". It described a past event after the fact. Not a future one.

Surely you can do better than that.

No no no. That's what we call in logic the Burden of Proof fallacy. The burden of proof regarding the truthfulness of a claim lies with the one making the claim. If this burden is not met, the claim is unfounded, and its opponents need not argue further in order to dismiss it. "Hitchen's Razor."
Also with the Daniel prophecy mentioned, never was Daniel written after A.D 70. Sorry but you still haven't proven anything or backed up any of your claims. So Im just going to take it that you can't and I'll leave it alone

 

[sooda]

No no no. That's what we call in logic the Burden of Proof fallacy. The burden of proof regarding the truthfulness of a claim lies with the one making the claim. If this burden is not met, the claim is unfounded, and its opponents need not argue further in order to dismiss it. "Hitchen's Razor."
Also with the Daniel prophecy mentioned, never was Daniel written after A.D 70. Sorry but you still haven't proven anything or backed up any of your claims. So Im just going to take it that you can't and I'll leave it alone

Daniel wrote about Babylon as history.. He wrote about the Maccabean revolt contemporaneously in 165 BC.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No no no. That's what we call in logic the Burden of Proof fallacy. The burden of proof regarding the truthfulness of a claim lies with the one making the claim. If this burden is not met, the claim is unfounded, and its opponents need not argue further in order to dismiss it. "Hitchen's Razor."
Also with the Daniel prophecy mentioned, never was Daniel written after A.D 70. Sorry but you still haven't proven anything or backed up any of your claims. So Im just going to take it that you can't and I'll leave it alone

You misused that fallacy. When you make claims about the failed prophecies of the Bible the burden of proof is upon you. I made a general observation, that prophecies as seeing something in the future fail in the Bible. Almost all of them fail on being overly vague alone. A vague prophecy with a poorly defined timeline can be "fulfilled" multiple times. That alone makes it a failed prophecy since there is more than one supposedly valid interpretation for it. This article is a good read:

Biblical prophecies - RationalWiki

And it starts rather early on with reasonable standards for a prophecy. If this was not applied to your religion of choice you would probably agree to all of its stipulations. For example if a Muslim claimed a prophecy you would probably demand that:

1. It must be accurate. A statement cannot be Biblical foreknowledge if it is not accurate, because knowledge (and thus foreknowledge) excludes inaccurate statements. TLDR: It's true.
2. It must be in the Bible. A statement cannot be Biblical foreknowledge if it is not in the Bible, because Biblical by definition foreknowledge can only come from the Bible itself, rather than modern reinterpretations of the text. TLDR: It's in plain words in the Bible.
3. It must be precise and unambiguous. A statement cannot be Biblical foreknowledge if meaningless philosophical musings or multiple possible ideas could fulfill the foreknowledge, because ambiguity prevents one from knowing whether the foreknowledge was intentional rather than accidental. TLDR: Vague "predictions" don't count.
4. It must be improbable. A statement cannot be Biblical foreknowledge if it reasonably could be the result of a pure guess, because foreknowledge requires a person to actually know something true, while a correct guess doesn't mean that the guesser knows anything. This also excludes contemporary beliefs that happened be true but were believed to be true without solid evidence. TLDR: Lucky guesses don't count.
5. It must have been unknown. A statement cannot be Biblical foreknowledge if it reasonably could be the result of an educated guess based off contemporary knowledge, because foreknowledge requires a person to know a statement when it would have been impossible, outside of supernatural power, for that person to know it. TLDR: Ideas of the time don't count.

In the above change "Bible" into the book of whatever faith one is referring to. I can't refute a specific prophecy unless you tell us what the prophecy is and what your interpretation of it is. The so called Daniel prophecy fails because there is no reasonable original date. What believers tend to do is to take the date of the event that they want to be the goal of the prophecy and work backwards and try to justify the date that they chose. This is not how prophecy is done.

 

[Desert Snake]

Genesis 1:26 clearly does not use the sacred name of God. It uses a title: God. The name of God was not revealed until the Exodus. And yes, we see the phrase, "I am [name of God], your God."

Right. That's the idea, you don't read Genesis 1:26 as vague, yet that is the concept of your argument.
•
Again, the second part of that verse, g- d, not vague, as you follow it, yet your argument is that it actually is vague.

Your argument is 'theoretical', in other words, doesn't infer anything. Not even sure why you are 'arguing' this if you are reading the discussion.