Is Jesus God?

[outhouse]

You should look up "scholar".
From 1946 to 1951 he studied philosophy and theology in the Higher School of Philosophy and Theology of Freising and at the University of Munich.
He received his priestly ordination on 29 June 1951.
A year later he began teaching at the Higher School of Freising.

Doesn't change a thing. He is not a historian. Nor is he trained as a biblical historian.

Sorry, he is a theologian. He knows scripture, not history.

 

[JM2C]

"Thou shalt have no other gods before me." (Exodus 20:3)

"I [am] YAHWEH: that [is] my name: and my glory will I not give to another" (Isaiah 42:8)

And that was reason why the Lord Jesus Christ in John 1:1-c cannot be an “a god” or “another/heteros/different gods”

 

[JM2C]

The sons of Yishrael knew this truth that Jesus never claimed to be The God.

Jesus' disciples knew this truth that Jesus Christ never claimed to be The God.

Same arguments deserve the same counter arguments. Please You NEED TO UNDERSTAND John 1:1-b first before commenting on any of the apostle’s writings.

The Pharisees and other Jews tried to kill Jesus several times because he claimed to be the Son of God; but never The God.

Please You NEED TO UNDERSTAND John 1:1-b first before commenting on any of the apostle’s writings.

 

[JM2C]

Claiming a title as the Son of God denotes some divine power from God and that troubled the Pharisees. Besides, Jesus could not be the sinless savior if he had taught his disciples that he is The God, that he is Yahweh.

Please You NEED TO UNDERSTAND John 1:1-b first before commenting on any of the apostle’s writings.

In fact, none of his disciples would have followed him; they would have been righteous in stoning Jesus to death for blasphemy. The Apostle Paul never, ever taught or addressed Jesus Christ as The God Almighty or Yahweh. He taught that Jesus is the Lord, the Son of God, and not The LORD (Ton Theon). Paul taught a mono-theistic religion the same as Moses and the other Biblical prophets of Yahweh taught.

Please You NEED TO UNDERSTAND John 1:1-b first before commenting on any of the apostle’s writings.

 

[JM2C]

Jesus was a god, Moses was a god; but neither of them shared the same glory and title as Yahweh, The GOD (aka The LORD, The Kurios). Jesus the Messiah's divinity (deity) ended and was limited to the power of only the Son of God; and not to the all powerful and all knowing of Yahweh, that is, The Almighty God.

”and the Word was God” If you teach the Jesus that you know as an “a god” then you are teaching polytheism and that is against Exodus 20:3 “You shall have no other/heteros/different gods before me”.

The Jesus that I know is God [and the Word was God who was with The God], and NOT “THE GOD”, but the Son of God. Trinitarians do not teach polytheism, you do by saying Jesus is an “a god”

 

[JM2C]

"Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and [that] no man can say that Jesus is the Lord [kurion], but by the Holy Ghost. (1 Corinthians 12:3)

"And [that] every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ [is] Lord [kurios], to the glory of God the Father." (Philippians 2:11)

You forgot to add this verse, Phil 2:10 so that at the name of Jesus EVERY KNEE WILL BOW, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth,

We Trinitarians do not bow to an “a god” but to God only, i.e., The God/Father, God/Son, and God/Holy Spirit.

 

[JM2C]

This understanding is so easy that even cave man can understand the relationship between the Son of God and The God Father of Souls, YAHWEH (pun intended). Believers of the Trinity have to jump through hoops and use smoking mirrors to twist a 5,000 year old truth:


"Hear, O Israel: YAHWEH our God! YAHWEH [is] one." (Deuteronomy 6:4)

For better understanding the word “one” is “echad”

The ONE/ECHAD HE, is the Lord or The One/Echad/Unified LORD is our God/Elohim, and God/Elohim being plural shows that God, i.e., [God/Father, God/Son, God/Holy Spirit described in John 10:30, John 14:16, and Acts 5:3-4] are all ONE/Echad/Unified LORD, that is more than one, yet is "ONE/ECHAD-SH259 United Jehovah/LORD" and this is what Deuteronomy 6:4 in the OT was saying. Hence, we have the Trinity from the OT to the NT.

 

[JM2C]

Abraham - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

By the beginning of the 21st century, archaeologists had "given up hope of recovering any context that would make Abraham, Isaac or Jacob credible 'historical figures'"

but before this excerpt from wiki it says,


“In the early to mid-20th century, leading scholars such asWilliam F. AlbrightandAlbrecht Altbelieved the patriarchs and matriarchs to be either real individuals or believable composite people living in the "patriarchal age", the 2nd millennium BCE.” -Wiki

“By the middle of the 20th century the work of Albright and his students, notably Nelson Glueck, E. A. Speiser, G. Ernest Wright and Cyrus Gordon, had produced a consensus that biblical archaeology had provided physical evidence for the originating historical events behind the Old Testament narratives: in the words of Albright, "Discovery after discovery has established the accuracy of innumerable details of the Bible as a source of history." -W.F.Albright, The Archaeology of Palestine, 1954 edition, p. 128 –Wiki

William Foxwell Albright (May 24, 1891 – September 19, 1971)[1] was an American archaeologist, biblical scholar, philologist, and expert on ceramics.

From the early twentieth century until his death, he was the dean of biblical archaeologists and the acknowledged founder of the Biblical archaeology movement. Most notably, coming from his own background in radical German historical criticism of the historicity of the Biblical accounts, Albright, through his seminal work in archaeology (and most notably his development of the standard pottery typology for Palestine and the Holy Land) arrived at the conclusion that the biblical accounts of Israelite history were, contrary to the dominant German literary criticism of the day, largely accurate. -Wiki

 

[Clear]

1) Regarding whether Jesus is (a/the) God

Disciple said in post # 651 Why is Jesus called God in the book of Hebrews, by....the father?

Kolibri said in post # 653 “Ah never-mind, mistranslation of Hebrews 1:8. “

Disciple asked in post # 654 : “How, and why, is that a mistranslation? “
.
Kolibri then offers a different translation in post # 658 which reads : “But of the son he says, “God is your throne forever and ever!...”


2) Hebrew 1:8 : The verse in question

Hebrews 1:8 says “Βυτ, τo the son : Your throne O God is for ever and ever…”
“προς δε τον υιον, Ο θρονος σου ο θεος εις τον αιωνα του αιωνος... “

This Greek text is “B” classified in GN-4 (meaning that the text, as it reads, is almost certain to be the most original reading. Also, there are no variants to the first phrase in any significant, known manuscript.




Kolibri, You claim Hebrews 1:8 is a "mistranslation" of the text (which, you tell us, is a quote of hebrew psalms 45:6). Yet the Smith and Goodspeeds translation you offered us is very strange and itself, departs FROM both the Greek AND the Hebrew text.

You explained that the text disagrees with your theological model, but you have not explained why you think the majority translation of this biblical text is “a mistranslation” of Hebrews 1:8.

I believe the majority English translation of this phrase "Thy Throne [o] God is for ever...." in both the Hebrew (t.r.), the greek is perfectly acceptable.

Why do you think the majority translation is a “mistranslation” of the greek text and of the corresponding quote in the Hebrew text? (especially since the greek and hebrew agree AGAINST your re-translation of the extant text...)

Thanks in advance for any information on this specific point. I hope your spiritual journey is good.

Clear
δρσιδρσεω

 

[outhouse]

Your logical fallacy, that you have repeated several times, is refuted.

Sorry apologetic unsubstantiated rhetoric.

Your apologist have nothing on professors and it is factually not refuted.

Thus you insult the Pope because you think you know everything.

I have more historical training then the pope thank you.

You dismiss Paul's teaching of Christ's divinity to the Hellenist's

Your showing intellectual dishonesty here.

Provide sources EXACTLY where I stated this, because I did not.

The definition of divinity is very subjective, and you need an education to know the differences here.

mock the Gospels as not authentic enough for you.

What is authentic enough even mean?


YOU have no clue how these books were written and your completely ignorant to the anthropology behind these pieces

What would satisfy you?

less rhetoric
less mythology
less fiction

Why do you think the Jews wanted Him dead???

But you don't know the first thing about Jews during this period. You have zero education here.

Yea, right. The Jews and the Christians called the emperor god and I am supposed to take you as an authority on history???

You don't have a clue here, not even a small clue.

Christians did not call the Emperor god.

Christians evolved.

For the first hundreds years they had no identity as Christians. They are labeled as Jewish Christian's, But since you don't know the definition of first century Judaism it puts you at a disadvantage here.

These were not cultural Jews. These were Hellenist. Who found importance in Judaism and perverted it for their own needs.

AND these people were actively Proselytizing the Emperors people. The same culture also worshipped the emperor.

"no eye witnesses" fallacy.

Well you need an education here, you don't know what your talking about. Both Harvard and Yale teach what im telling you, as well as Princeton.

You sir are no one to talk down to such credible institutions from a point of severe historical ignorance, lacking in both cultural and physical anthropology.

 

[outhouse]

but before this excerpt from wiki it says,


“In the early to mid-20th century, leading scholars such asWilliam F. AlbrightandAlbrecht Altbelieved the patriarchs and matriarchs to be either real individuals or believable composite people living in the "patriarchal age", the 2nd millennium BCE.” -Wiki

“By the middle of the 20th century the work of Albright and his students, notably Nelson Glueck, E. A. Speiser, G. Ernest Wright and Cyrus Gordon, had produced a consensus that biblical archaeology had provided physical evidence for the originating historical events behind the Old Testament narratives: in the words of Albright, "Discovery after discovery has established the accuracy of innumerable details of the Bible as a source of history." -W.F.Albright, The Archaeology of Palestine, 1954 edition, p. 128 –Wiki

William Foxwell Albright (May 24, 1891 – September 19, 1971)[1] was an American archaeologist, biblical scholar, philologist, and expert on ceramics.

From the early twentieth century until his death, he was the dean of biblical archaeologists and the acknowledged founder of the Biblical archaeology movement. Most notably, coming from his own background in radical German historical criticism of the historicity of the Biblical accounts, Albright, through his seminal work in archaeology (and most notably his development of the standard pottery typology for Palestine and the Holy Land) arrived at the conclusion that the biblical accounts of Israelite history were, contrary to the dominant German literary criticism of the day, largely accurate. -Wiki

Im sorry he was born in horse and wagon days.

Things have been discovered since the time people rode a horse to work

It is obvious you have no clue what the 21rst century actually means

 

[outhouse]

Jesus was not trying to overthrow the government here. This was his Father's house

So what were the Zealots doing 30 years later? playing patty cake with the corrupt Hellenist running the temple ?

Yo do know Zealots are Aramaic Galileans just like Jesus?

They were selling sacrifices within the temple grounds and turning Jehovah's temple into a means of profiteering.

Having clean animals to sell that could not make the long journey to the temple was required by Jewish law.

Your so far out of you own league here. Please study up before getting into thing your blind at.

 

[JM2C]

1) Regarding whether Jesus is (a/the) God


Disciple said in post # 651 Why is Jesus called God in the book of Hebrews, by....the father?


Kolibrisaid in post # 653 “Ah never-mind, mistranslation of Hebrews 1:8. “


Disciple asked in post # 654 : “How, and why, is that a mistranslation? “

.

Kolibri then offers a different translation in post # 658 which reads : “But of the son he says, “God is your throne forever and ever!...”



2) Hebrew 1:8 : The verse in question


Hebrews 1:8 says “Βυτ, τo the son : Your throne O God is for ever and ever…”

“προς δε τον υιον, Ο θρονος σου ο θεος εις τον αιωνα του αιωνος... “


This Greek text is “B” classified in GN-4 (meaning that the text, as it reads, is almost certain to be the most original reading. Also, there are no variants to the first phrase in any significant, known manuscript.





Kolibri, You claim Hebrews 1:8 is a "mistranslation" of the text (which, you tell us, is a quote of hebrew psalms 45:6). Yet the Smith and Goodspeeds translation you offered us is very strange and itself, departs FROM both the Greek AND the Hebrew text.


You explained that the text disagrees with your theological model, but you have not explained why you think the majority translation of this biblical text is “a mistranslation” of Hebrews 1:8.


I believe the majority English translation of this phrase "Thy Throne [o] God is for ever...." in both the Hebrew (t.r.), the greek is perfectly acceptable.


Why do you think the majority translation is a “mistranslation” of the greek text and of the corresponding quote in the Hebrew text? (especially since the greek and hebrew agree AGAINST your re-translation of the extant text...)


Thanks in advance for any information on this specific point. I hope your spiritual journey is good.


Clear

δρσιδρσεω

“I believe the majority English translation of this phrase "Thy Throne [o] God is for ever...." in both the Hebrew (t.r.), the greek is perfectly acceptable.” –Clear.

Did you know that in Hebrews 1:8 and John 1:1-c both verses are talking about the Lord Jesus Christ as God? Now, if your conclusion in Hebrews 1:8 is “Thy Throne, Oh God” then how can you make a different conclusion in John 1:1-c “and the Word was a god”?

Regarding the translation of John 1:1 : I hope the Jehovah’s witnesses and other readers interested understood that the NWT translation of this phrase is perfectly legitimate. Once this point was been made, and unless there is actually any NEW and legitimate data to discuss, the issue is a dead horse.
Clear

 

[outhouse]

At most this would be as a family member forcefully telling unwanted salesmen to get off his Father's property.

How could the people have a shared meal with god in his own house, if they did not get an animal that met the temple requirements?

There were not only wanted they were required.


You have no idea of the politics of the time do you?

 

[outhouse]

Did you mean Matthew and Luke plagiarized Mark’s?

More or less yes.

 

[outhouse]

. Their gods or the gods of the pagans are not the same as the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

But you literally don't have a clue what your talking about here.


History of ancient Israel and Judah - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Israelite monotheism evolved gradually out of pre-existing beliefs and practices of the ancient world.[76] The religion of the Israelites of Iron Age I, like the Canaanite faith from which it evolved[77] and other ancient Near Eastern religions, was based on a cult of ancestors and worship of family gods (the "gods of the fathers").[78] Its major deities were not numerous – El, Asherah, and Yahweh, with Baal as a fourth god, and perhaps Shamash (the sun) in the early period.[79] By the time of the early Hebrew kings, El and Yahweh had become fused and Asherah did not continue as a separate state cult,[79] although she continued to be popular at a community level until Persian times.[80] Yahweh, later the national god of both Israel and Judah, seems to have originated in Edom and Midian in southern Canaan

 

[Clear]

There has been much discussion about the Hebrew word “Echad” אֶחָד and how one “must understand it” in a certain, particular way, before one can understand the mystery of how three individuals are really “one” individual, since the trinity are an “echad”. While I admit that it is often translated by the english word “one”, it is not a strictly numeric designation at all.

In Genesis 2:24, when a man “shall cleave unto his wife : and they shall be ONE flesh.” , the word used for "one" in this verse, IS "echad" אֶחָד

This is NOT a numeric designation, but it is a description of agreement and unity. The man and woman do NOT literally become, numerically, “one” person. They remain TWO separate individuals having different characteristics. Not only can two individuals become united in a single purpose or venture, but any size community of separate individuals can be an אֶחָד (echad).

For example, the name by which the Dead Sea Scrolls Jewish community called itself was an אֶחָד (echad) which translators tended to render by the word “community” instead of using the word "one".

My point is, that the word is not a strict numeric designation, but rather a description of a different type of union which may be used to describe the type of agreement and unity and “oneness” existing between God the Father, His Son and the Holy Ghost as completely separate individuals who are unified in their purpose. And it does this, even more easily than it can be used to somehow show that three individuals are really only one individual.


Good journey

Clear

 

[JM2C]

Im sorry he was born in horse and wagon days.


Things have been discovered since the time people rode a horse to work


It is obvious you have no clue what the 21rst century actually means

Professor Albright’s legacy today rests in his extraordinary record of scholarly publication. In 1941 biblical scholar Harry M. Orlinsky of the Hebrew Union College in Cincinnati assembled and published Albright’s bibliography in honor of his 50th birthday (Orlinsky, 1941). At that time there were approximately 500 entries that spanned 30 years of scholarly work—an incredible amount of research that any scholar would be proud of. But this was only the midpoint in Albright’s scholarly career that continued for another 30 years, with an additional 600 scholarly entries in the ledger. The grand total is just under 1,100 items, including books, peer-reviewed articles, notes, book reviews, and other items that must surely set a record for productivity in the field of ancient Near Eastern studies and related fields. A complete record of Albright’s publications spanning 1916 to 1971 was prepared by one of us (D.N.F.) (Freedman, 1975) and was published as a book by the American Schools of Oriental Research. -By Thomas Levy and David Noel Freedman

Can you name one book under your name? Yup! That’s what I think.

 

[JM2C]

But you literally don't have a clue what your talking about here.


History of ancient Israel and Judah - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Israelite monotheism evolved gradually out of pre-existing beliefs and practices of the ancient world.[76]The religion of the Israelites of Iron Age I,like the Canaanite faith from which it evolved[77]and other ancient Near Eastern religions, was based on a cult of ancestors andworship of family gods(the "gods of the fathers").[78]Its major deities were not numerous –El,Asherah, and Yahweh, withBaalas a fourth god, and perhaps Shamash (the sun) in the early period.[79]By the time of the early Hebrew kings,El and Yahweh had become fusedand Asherah did not continue as a separate state cult,[79]although she continued to be popular at a community level until Persian times.[80]Yahweh, later thenational godof both Israel and Judah, seems to have originated inEdomandMidianin southern Canaan

Iron age? No! the Bronze age is what I’m talking about. Now, you may not have the Bronze age in your theology class because of some of these hypotheses:

“At some stage the oral traditions became part of the written tradition of thePentateuch; a majority of scholars believes this stage belongs to the Persian period, roughly 520–320 BCE.[6]

The mechanisms by which this came about remain unknown,[13]but there are currently two important hypotheses.[14]

The first, called Persian Imperial authorisation, is that the post-Exilic community devised the Torah as a legal basis on which to function within the Persian Imperial system;

the second is that Pentateuch was written to provide the criteria for who would belong to the post Exilic Jewish community and to establish the power structures and relative positions of its various groups, notably the priesthood and the lay "elders". -Wiki

 

[JM2C]

There has been much discussion about the Hebrew word “Echad” אֶחָד and how one “must understand it” in a certain, particular way, before one can understand the mystery of how three individuals are really “one” individual, since the trinity are an “echad”. While I admit that it is often translated by the english word “one”, it is not a strictly numeric designation at all.


In Genesis 2:24, when a man “shall cleave unto his wife : and they shall be ONE flesh.” , the word used for "one" here IS אֶחָד. (Echad)


This is NOT a numeric designation, but it is a description of agreement and unity. The man and woman do NOT literally become a numerically “one” person. They remain TWO separate individuals having different characteristics. No only can two individuals become united in a single purpose or venture, but any size community of separate individuals can be an אֶחָד (echad).


For example, the name by which the Dead Sea Scrolls Jewish community called itself was an אֶחָד (echad) which translators tended to render by the word “community” instead of using the word "one".

or Nu 13:23 And they came unto the valley of Eshcol, and cut down from thence a branch with one/echad cluster of grapes, and they bare it upon a staff between two; they brought also of the pomegranates, and of the figs.

My point is, that the word is not a strict numeric designation, but rather a description of a different type of union which may be used to describe the type of agreement and unity and “oneness” existing between God the Father, His Son and the Holy Ghost as completely separate individuals who are unified in their purpose, even more easily than it can be used to somehow show that three individuals are really only one individual.

Good journey

Clear

as Deuteronomy 6:4 "Jehovah our Elohim is one Jehovah" the word “Elohim” being plural shows that God the Lord, is more than one, yet is "ONE/Echad Jehovah". And not “Yachid” an absolute one.

Never thought I would agree with you.