Jesus is not God Almighty Himself

[Thinking Homer]

Indeed - and in these various cases where the jews are coming and accusing Jesus of heresy, it is clear that they are lacking in understanding as compared to the Lord. That doesn't mean they are stupid. Rather, as with most Christians, they are often blinded by their traditional interpretations and the like - preventing them from seeing the truth on such matters.

In fact, the jews who persecuted Christ needed to be ignorant in order to satisfy the prophecies concerning him. It is also due to their ignorance that Jesus prays for their forgiveness.

Psalm 118:22The stone which the builders rejected Has become the chief corner stone.

Luke 23:34 But Jesus was saying, “Father, forgive them; for they do not know what they are doing.”

Before I reply, let me just be clear that this debate is not a chess match to determine who is right or wrong, but to look at the text and see if our doctrines are biblical. As Christians, we both see the necessity and importance in basing our beliefs on what the Bible says, and not simply accept what we are taught.

Btw I agree completely with the above quote. Next.

Even with the strong Trinitarian bias found in most translations - they all translate it as only begotten - not as "unique" or some such thing. You are grasping at straws here - the meaning is clear: Jesus is the firstborn of creation, the only begotten Son of God. The Trinity clearly contradicts scripture over this - leaving Trinitarians to scramble and invent fictions to try to explain away scripture.

The fact is, if Jesus or the New Testament writers merely intended to say that Jesus was unique - such words existed in Greek. They chose to use the word begotten because that is what they meant. But go ahead and see if you can find any place where anyone translates the term as merely "unique." Everywhere that I see the term used - both in scripture and in other works - the term is applied to an offspring.

I think it's important to differentiate whether a term is used to denote closeness in relation, or a literal interpretation. When the New Testament writers wrote 'begotten son' or 'firstborn' were they referring to the creation of Christ, or the closeness of the Father and the Son? If they wanted to say that Jesus was created why did they not just say "The only created Son of God" but instead they say "The only begotten Son of God?" Begotten describes a relationship between two beings of the same essential nature and being, but we create things of a different essential being and nature than ourselves. A man creates a statue but begets a child.

Besides the obvious question of why Yahweh would create another 'god', what does it even mean for the Son to be created? Is he a diminutive form of Yahweh, and if so, how much of His divinity does he share? Paul answers this question:

'For in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily; ' Colossians 2:9 (NKJV)

If the fullness of Yahweh dwells in the body of Jesus, does this not make Jesus God? Note that we both agree that the Son and the Father are separate persons. The difference is that I claim that they are 3 persons in 1 entity, whereas you say the Father is one entity and the Son is another. Again, if you accept the latter view, you hit the monotheistic contradiction of claiming divinity for 2 separate entities.

Acts 13:33 that God has fulfilled this promise to our children in that He raised up Jesus, as it is also written in the second Psalm, ‘You are My Son; today i have begotten You.’

So how does the Hebrew translate in this passage? The word in Hebrew simply means just that: begotten. It does not mean to be unique. Check and mate.

Just a correction that the New Testament is written in Greek, not Hebrew.

Also if Christ was a created being, that would be a very important thing to know, correct? And yet not a single author in the New Testament writes about this topic in detail. On the contrary, much of the writings deal with the divinity of Jesus Christ and his close standing with the Father.

Indeed he is. In fact, at no point in scripture is "Father" ever restricted to some portion of God - as if there were multiple distinct portions of God - a fiction of the Trinity Doctrine.

Nor does scripture claim that divinity is exclusive to the Father. In fact He shares it with His Son.

You haven't answered this point. Rather, you continue to ignore this vital part of the conversation - the very premise of this thread. The term God is applied to Moses, the Jewish People, to Angels, etc. You say that Moses never claimed to be divine - Christ never claimed to be God either. Jesus claims to be the Son of God - but that is far different from claiming to be God himself. Rather - that is the opposite of claiming to be God - he is explicitly and unmistakably distinguishing himself from God.

This isn't a regression in the conversation - this should be the primary focus of the conversation. Don't run away from what is your burden of proof: to show that when "God" is applied to Christ it means something fundamentally different than when it is applied to everyone else.

Okay let me throw the ball in your court then. How is claiming to be the Son of God different from claiming to be God? You say that claiming to be the Son of God is the opposite of claiming to be God. Not true. The opposite of a divine being is a non-divine being i.e. a human. By denying himself to be a mere human being, and claiming the title 'Son of God', Jesus essentially placed himself on the same divine status as Yahweh Himself. Hence the Jews were outraged with such a claim.

'The Jews answered Him, saying, “For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy, and because You, being a Man, make Yourself God.”' John 10:33

It is perfectly valid to point to a superior translation as being more authoritative than an old english translation that is known to be full of errors. You can pull up the Greek if you'd like and we can take a look - but at the end of the day Jesus never claimed equality with God Almighty. Rather - as this passage notes - he always humbled himself. He is always explicit about how God is greater than he is.

So if an old translation fits in with your doctrine it's fine, but once it starts contradicting your doctrine it's full of errors? Again for the sake of consistency stick with the KJV or NKJV. If you want to disprove a point on the basis of wording, go to the original Greek, not another English translation.

We should probably consider making a new thread to discuss this topic in detail. Long story short here, however, is that you are simply mistaken. As with Romans 2, the New Testament is quite clear that works are required of you for salvation.

James 2:14-20 What use is it, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but he has no works? Can that faith save him? 15 If a brother or sister is without clothing and in need of daily food, 16 and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, o]">[o]be warmed and be filled,” and yet you do not give them what is necessary for their body, what use is that? 17 Even so faith, if it has no works, is dead, being by itself. 18 But someone may well say, “You have faith and I have works; show me your faith without the works, and I will show you my faith by my works.” 19 You believe that God is one. You do well; the demons also believe, and shudder. 20 But are you willing to recognize, you foolish fellow, that faith without works is useless?
You are also mistaken about the relationship between the New Covenant and the Law. The promise of the New Covenant is NOT to be free from the Law. Rather...

Matthew 5:17-18 “Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. 18 For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished.

Jeremiah 31:33 “But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days,” declares the Lord, “I will put My law within them and on their heart I will write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.

Hebrews 8:7-13 For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion sought for a second. 8 For finding fault with them, He says,

“Behold, days are coming, says the Lord,
When I will effect a new covenant
With the house of Israel and with the house of Judah;
9 Not like the covenant which I made with their fathers
On the day when I took them by the hand
To lead them out of the land of Egypt;
For they did not continue in My covenant,
And I did not care for them, says the Lord.
10 “For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel
After those days, says the Lord:
I will put My laws into their minds,
And I will write them on their hearts.
And I will be their God,
And they shall be My people.
11 “And they shall not teach everyone his fellow citizen,
And everyone his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’
For all will know Me,
From the least to the greatest of them.
12 “For I will be merciful to their iniquities,
And I will remember their sins no more.”

13 When He said, “A new covenant,” He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear.

The New Covenant does not do away with God's Law. Rather, the promise of the New Covenant is that the Law will be written on our very hearts and minds.

I'm not going to say much here because this is a separate topic on its own. We can discuss the Old and New covenant then.

 

[74x12]

Jesus' relationship to God has always been a highly controversial and complex topic, so much so that most just throw their hands up in the air and claim that it is beyond our ability to comprehend (while simultaneously insisting their unintelligible view is correct). I am of the mind that much of this confusion stems from an attempt to interpret those passages that call Jesus God, in some sense, in the most literal of ways. In fact, there is plenty of precedent in scripture for those who are clearly not God himself being addressed as God or as "gods." And they insist upon this literal interpretation despite the abundance of scriptures which clearly differentiate Jesus from God.

Let us start by considering others who have been addressed as God/god: angels, such as the angel in the burning bush (Exodus 3), Moses (Exodus 7:1), and more generally the Jewish People (John 10:34). In none of these cases do we interpret these individuals as either literally being God or blasphemous. Rather, these are God's agents, his mediators, his people. Jesus, as the sole mediator between men and God under the New Covenant, as the one who has perfectly followed God's will, may thus appropriately be addressed as God in the same sense as others in the scripture without any need for a literal interpretation.

In fact, if we look at passages like Hebrews 1:8-9, while Jesus is addressed as God here, it simultaneously makes reference to Jesus' God (does God have a God?).

And if we look at passages like 1 Cor 15:20-28, Paul makes clear that Jesus is both distinct and lesser than God:


1 Cor 15:20-28 But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. 21 For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. 22 For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. 23 But each in turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him. 24 Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. 25 For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. 26 The last enemy to be destroyed is death. 27 For he “has put everything under his feet.”[c] Now when it says that “everything” has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ. 28 When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all.


If you disagree, then please explain why the term "God" should be interpreted literally when applied to Christ instead of in the precedent established by scripture with others who have been addressed as God.

Context is everything. In John 1:1 we have no context to translate it as saying "The Word was with God and the Word was a God". That makes no sense for a Jew to write. John was a Jew and he believed in one God: Jehovah.

If John really meant to bring a doctrine of two gods then he should have explained it better than that. He obviously meant one God.

 

[74x12]

You have no understanding of the trinity at all, and I'm a Satanist.

it works like this

Son is God
Father is God
Holy spirit is God

But none of those are each other....

God is basically a composite of these based on Christian doctrine or encompasses all of them, but also exists independently... Best to say these other things are manifestations of the one.

That's just the trinity doctrine. I believe God is only one person.

 

[Deeje]

I will chime in at @Thinking Homer's invitation.....This is from the 'Bible Translation' thread....FWIW

There is actually an interesting debate going on about this. Feel free to check it out.

Jesus is not God Almighty Himself

https://www.religiousforums.com/threads/jesus-is-not-god-almighty-himself.211765/

Revelation 3:14....
“The words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of God's creation." (ESV) As the one delivering the Revelation to John by means of an angel, Jesus identifies himself as "the faithful and true witness, the beginning of God's creation". This is confirmed by Paul in Colossians 1:15...."He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation."

He also says in Revelation 3:12...."The one who conquers, I will make him a pillar in the temple of my God. Never shall he go out of it, and I will write on him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem, which comes down from my God out of heaven, and my own new name."

Here Jesus is in heaven after he has returned to his Father. If Jesus is God, why is he still addressing him as "my God"? How does God have a God in heaven?

In the Hebrew scriptures YHWH (Jehovah) has only one name (Psalm 83:18 KJV) But Jesus has many names which are all tied in with the various roles he plays in the outworking of God's purpose.

In Isaiah 9:6-7 the "son" is given various titles.....
"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, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace."

What "government" is this? God's Kingdom...upon the shoulders of its appointed King, Jesus Christ. Who appointed him? His God and Father.

The titles that he carries all reflect his roles in that arrangement. Who can doubt that he is a "Wonderful Counselor"? A "Mighty God" (but not an "Almighty one) and in what capacity is Jesus a father? In Strongs it gives four meanings for the word "'ab" translated "father".

1. father of an individual
2. of God as father of his people
3. head or founder of a household, group, family, or clan
4. ancestor

Genesis 1:1 (NASB)

It is obvious that Jesus cannot be "the Father" (even trinitarians do not believe this) but he can be "the head or founder of a household". His sacrifice is the means by which everlasting life is granted to the faithful, making him an "everlasting father".

He is also called "the Prince of Peace"...a Prince is the son of a King.

None of those titles carries the thought of any equality with the Father, but they certainly describe Jesus' roles in the Kingdom arrangement.

Another scripture that clinches it for me is Jesus' clear statement in John 17:3...
" And this is eternal life, that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent." Jesus identifies his Father as "the only true God" without including himself. As one that God "sent", Jesus is also an "apostle" (Hebrews 3:1) and as a servant of his Father, (Acts 3:13) he is certainly not his equal, doing nothing of his own initiative or will....but only what the Father instructed him. (John 5:30; John 8:28; 1 Corinthians 11:3)

His response to satan's temptations also reveal which God we should all serve. (Luke 4:8) After the devil offered Jesus all the kingdoms of the world in exchange for one act of worship, Jesus quoted Deuteronomy 10:20 which states..."Jehovah your God you should fear, him you should serve, to him you should cling, and by his name you should swear." The tetragrammaton was used there in Deuteronomy, so Jesus is saying that only "Jehovah" was to be worshipped. Jesus is not Jehovah.

There are so many more.....

 

[Deeje]

Following on....

Not true. God only officially reveals his true name to Moses in Exodus:
'God spoke to Moshe; he said to him, “I am Adonai . I appeared to Avraham, Yitz’chak and Ya‘akov as El Shaddai , although I did not make myself known to them by my name, Yud-Heh-Vav-Heh [ Adonai ]. ' Sh'mot (Exodus) 6:2-3 [CJB]

Well, right from the get go, you are as mistaken as the information in your video.

If you refer to the Tanach, you will see that God's name is not, and never was, "I AM". Do you know how many times Jesus said "I am" without ever once indicating that he was God? It was a very common expression picked up by trinitarians in just a couple of instances as if Jesus was then declaring his godship.....he never did.
He only ever said he was "the son of God"....NEVER did he ever call himself "God the Son".

This is where translation issues manifest themselves..and why we must do our own homework when reading God's word.

Here is Exodus 3:14-15 with the Hebrew from the Jewish Tanach......

"And Moses said to God, "Behold I come to the children of Israel, and I say to them, 'The God of your fathers has sent me to you,' and they say to me, 'What is His name?' what shall I say to them?"
יגוַיֹּ֨אמֶר משֶׁ֜ה אֶל־הָֽאֱלֹהִ֗ים הִנֵּ֨ה אָֽנֹכִ֣י בָא֘ אֶל־בְּנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵל֒ וְאָֽמַרְתִּ֣י לָהֶ֔ם אֱלֹהֵ֥י אֲבֽוֹתֵיכֶ֖ם שְׁלָחַ֣נִי אֲלֵיכֶ֑ם וְאָֽמְרוּ־לִ֣י מַה־שְּׁמ֔וֹ מָ֥ה אֹמַ֖ר אֲלֵהֶֽם:


14God said to Moses, "Ehyeh asher ehyeh (I will be what I will be)," and He said, "So shall you say to the children of Israel, 'Ehyeh (I will be) has sent me to you.'"
ידוַיֹּ֤אמֶר אֱלֹהִים֙ אֶל־משֶׁ֔ה אֶֽהְיֶ֖ה אֲשֶׁ֣ר אֶֽהְיֶ֑ה וַיֹּ֗אמֶר כֹּ֤ה תֹאמַר֙ לִבְנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל אֶֽהְיֶ֖ה שְׁלָחַ֥נִי אֲלֵיכֶֽם:


15And God said further to Moses, "So shall you say to the children of Israel, 'The Lord God [יְהֹוָ֞ה] of your forefathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you.' This is My name forever, and this is how I should be mentioned in every generation.
טווַיֹּ֩אמֶר֩ ע֨וֹד אֱלֹהִ֜ים אֶל־משֶׁ֗ה כֹּ֣ה תֹאמַר֘ אֶל־בְּנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵל֒ יְהֹוָ֞ה אֱלֹהֵ֣י אֲבֹֽתֵיכֶ֗ם אֱלֹהֵ֨י אַבְרָהָ֜ם אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִצְחָ֛ק וֵֽאלֹהֵ֥י יַֽעֲקֹ֖ב שְׁלָחַ֣נִי אֲלֵיכֶ֑ם זֶה־שְּׁמִ֣י לְעֹלָ֔ם וְזֶ֥ה זִכְרִ֖י לְדֹ֥ר דֹּֽר:"

Shemot - Exodus - Chapter 3 (Parshah Shemot)

Why did trinitarian scholars decide to change the meaning of God's name in their Bible translations unless they were subtly influenced by God's enemy to do so? Why did they eliminate the divine name altogether from most of their translations? What has that resulted in?
I'll leave you to contemplate those questions.

The first thing you will notice is that God's name is NOT a statement of his being, but a statement of his intentions. It is future tense...."I Will Be What I Will Be". God's name was telling Israel what he would "BE" or "BECOME" for them as their God. He provided Moses as mediator, prophet and deliverer for the nation in captivity.
But Moses indicated that a 'prophet greater than himself' was to be expected in the future. (Deuteronomy 18:15) Jesus proved to be that prophet who spoke about things to come....he was also a mediator, not just for fleshly Jews but for Gentile Christians as well....and by his death he proved to be their deliverer from slavery to sin and death.

Your video blurs the line between the Father and his role as the prime mover in man's salvation, and that of his primary servant in the outworking of his purpose to redeem fallen humanity.

There are many titles used in the scriptures to describe God's role, AND others that describes the roles given to Christ as Messiah. The trinity doctrine has saturated the thinking of "the Church" so thoroughly down through many centuries, that most cannot even contemplate that it might just be the greatest blasphemy perpetrated on Christianity by the one sowing "weeds" among the "wheat". It is almost inconceivable to them!

But, why would the Greatest entity in existence need to become a mere human in order to carry out his will? He has servants to fill that role. His most trusted son (his only begotten) volunteered to be that servant and offer to become our redeemer because God loved us that much and provided the means to rescue us. (John 3:16)

Do you understand the role of a redeemer (or repurchaser) in Israel? What qualified one as a redeemer? (Leviticus 25:25-27)

Why did Jesus need to be born as a human child, rather than just 'arriving' as other spirit beings had done, and simply materialized in the flesh to carry out his mission?

Why did he need to be baptized in order to begin his Messianic course? And why did God need to audibly confirm the role of his son as Messiah?

The understanding is in the detail, not in slick videos designed to tug at emotions.

Can you use the scriptures to answer those questions?

Over to you Thinking Homer...what do you think?

 

[Deeje]

You are the one who is suggesting that Jesus was created, not me.

Can you show us where Christ is said to be uncreated? Eternal?

If he is the "firstborn of all creation" as Paul says, then "monogenes" (used in all references to "only children") must mean that Christ is an "only child" in another sense. Since he is the very first or "beginning of God's creation" as it says in Revelation 3:14, it must mean that his creation is unique.....how? He is the first and only direct creation of Jehovah. All other things came into existence through the agency of the son. (Colossians 1:15-17; Proverbs 8:30-31)

So you do not worship Jesus then? If not then that's fine, but that goes contrary to what Yahweh wanted in Philippians 2:5-11. If you say that is not worship, what exactly do you consider to be worship?

"Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, 6 who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. 8 Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. 9 For this reason also, God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name, 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, 11 and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." (NASB)

People do not really read this scripture or are reading it from poorly translated versions.

Think it through.....Jesus existed in God's "form"......what form was that? Prior to his becoming a human he was a spirit.....like God.

He did "NOT regard equality with God a thing to be grasped"...IOW he had no desire to be equal to his Father in the eyes of men.

He took on the role of a "bond servant".... can God become his own servant?

He became "obedient to the point of death"....is God obedient to himself?

"God highly exalted him".....how does God highly exalt an equal part of himself? If Jesus is God, then is there anyone more highly exalted than what he already is?

God "bestowed on him a name which is above every other name".....how can God give himself a name that is above the one he already has? (Psalm 83:18)

In the end, "every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord".....to the glory of the son? NO!...."to the glory of God the Father".

The trinity has no foundation in scripture at all.....it is only inferred by those who want to push a blasphemous doctrine that breaches the first Commandment. (Exodus 20:3) All I see is a satanic agenda here.

 

[Deeje]

@Thinking Homer I think you might be sorry you asked me to join this thread.....

the obvious question of why Yahweh would create another 'god', what does it even mean for the Son to be created? Is he a diminutive form of Yahweh, and if so, how much of His divinity does he share? Paul answers this question:

'For in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily; ' Colossians 2:9 (NKJV)

There is no "godhead" in the Bible. The word is more accurately translated "deity", meaning that Jesus is this instance is considered "divine" and who can deny his divine origins? But is he the Almighty?

The NASB renders that verse..."For in Him all the fullness of Deity (Gr "theotēs") dwells in bodily form". Was Jesus a deity? a god? In Greek terms he was. This word appears only once in the Greek scriptures.

So, understanding the word "theos" in Greek is important there. There is no way that Jews would have accepted a Messiah that claimed to be 'God"....that would have been blasphemy....so because all the first Christians were Jewish, perhaps we are missing something in the Greek translation of the word "god"?

The primary meaning of the word "theos" in Greek, according to Strongs is...."a god or goddess, a general name of deities or divinities".

If we remember that the Greeks were polytheists, we will understand that their gods had names and that each was referred to individually by their names. Collectively, they were simply referred to as "the gods". With the one God of the Jews however, they had ceased from uttering his name so the Greeks were hard pressed to define this single God with no name. Hence they used the definite article "THE" to denote "THE GOD" (ho theos). We can understand this because we do it in English....if some person was named Brad Pitt for example, and we saw his name on a guest list, we would automatically ask if this was "THE" Brad Pitt.

Jesus is referred to as "theos" (a mighty or divine one) but he is not ever referred to as "THE God". (ho theos)

In John 1: 1 we see that there are two "gods" mentioned there....but only one is "THE God" (ho theos) the other is simply "theos"...a god or someone divine. In the later part of John 1 in verse 18 it says that "No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him." (NASB) The use of capitals is missing in Greek so no "god" was written in capital letters...English translators did that. But the point is...if no man has seen God at any time" we have to ask how many people saw Jesus? And if Jesus is an "only begotten god" who was his begetter?
Also understanding what the "bosom of the Father" means is important.....it is a position of divine favor. Abraham occupied this favored position....so did Jesus. Its hard to be a 'favorite' if you're an equal.

Taking the trinity apart is like showing you a slice of Swiss cheese.

 

[nPeace]

Nah, you aren't getting this. God is god, in all the facets. When you say God, you are including the aspects of God, which includes Jesus.

Not according to scripture.
Revelation 3:12-13 English Standard Version (ESV)
12 The one who conquers, I will make him a pillar in the temple of my God. Never shall he go out of it, and I will write on him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem, which comes down from my God out of heaven, and my own new name. 13 He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches.’

I don't think you believe mighty ones are God.
Exodus 7:1
International Standard Version
The LORD told Moses, "Listen! I've positioned you as God to Pharaoh, and your brother Aaron will be your prophet.

 

[Thinking Homer]

@Thinking Homer I think you might be sorry you asked me to join this thread.....

Nah it's fine. Welcome to the thread haha...

 

[Thinking Homer]

There's no great mystery about what these terms mean - your questions are a little odd?

The dead refers to anyone who has died."Fallen asleep" is just a euphemism for one who has died.

Death is just that - death. Death, according to scripture, is the punishment for sin. To be rid of death is to be rid of sin.

Resurrection of the dead means that those who were once dead will be brought back to life.

First that's where your wrong at, in the Bible, the dead is in reference to a certain group of people, Which are Spiritually dead.
They are not dead, like in the grave, But Spiritually dead.
Take for instance, Atheists, they don't believe in God or Christ Jesus, So they are what the Bible calls Spiritually dead.
That they have no awareness of God.
Therefore they have fallen asleep.
In a Spiritual sleep.

Well seeing that you have no idea, that in the Bible there are two types of death,
The one being of course, a natural death.
And the other death is Satan, who is called death.
That's because Satan is death.

Hebrews 2:14---"Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil"

Seeing the devil, which is Satan has the power of death, Death is another name for the devil,Satan.

You also made mention
( Resurrection of the dead means that those who were once dead will be brought back to life)

The Resurrection of the dead, are those who are Spiritually dead.that do not believe in God or Christ Jesus.

You guys are both correct. Paul uses the phrase "those who have fallen asleep" in many different contexts. It can either mean those who have died, or those who are alive but spiritually dead. You just need to read the context to make sense of which one he's referring to.

 

[Desert Snake]

Not according to scripture.
Revelation 3:12-13 English Standard Version (ESV)
12 The one who conquers, I will make him a pillar in the temple of my God. Never shall he go out of it, and I will write on him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem, which comes down from my God out of heaven, and my own new name. 13 He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches.’

I don't think you believe mighty ones are God.
Exodus 7:1
International Standard Version
The LORD told Moses, "Listen! I've positioned you as God to Pharaoh, and your brother Aaron will be your prophet.

Explain how you interpret the word god used, in
Genesis 1:26

 

[Ingledsva]

He is said to be begotten, though clearly not in the same way that Jesus is said to be the only begotten Son of God. I could be wrong, but in the New Testament - being born again is a big topic. Perhaps the manner in which David is said to be begotten is in the same/similar manner to being born again - for that is also being begotten of God.

I do not think this particular passage applies to David. At least, the authors of Hebrews and Acts interpret this passage as speaking of Christ.

Acts 13:33 God has fulfilled this promise to our children in that He raised up Jesus, as it is also written in the second Psalm, ‘You are My Son; today i have begotten You.’

There is certainly a good deal of tradition and background information needed to be able to properly interpret such passages - which will cause the casual reader to stumble. I do not think this is necessarily a bad thing - it simply means that in order to truly understand what is going on you need to study. But the church should be providing adequate education to enable people to do this - something that they are terrible about nowadays.

Psalm 2 is a Tanakh text about King David.

Any of our Jewish members can tell you this is King David.

Acts 4:25 tells us this is King David speaking.

Act 4:25 Who by the mouth of thy servant David hast said, Why did the heathen rage, and the people imagine vain things?

Psa 2:1 Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing?

Psa 2:2 The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against YHVH, and against his anointed, saying,

Psa 2:3 Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us.

Psa 2:4 He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the Lord shall have them in derision.

Psa 2:5 Then shall he speak unto them in his wrath, and vex them in his sore displeasure.

Psa 2:6 Yet have I set my king upon my holy hill of Zion.

Psa 2:7 I will declare the decree: YHVH hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.

*

 

[Ingledsva]

.................

Actually, the verses do say that Jesus is God. Very plainly. You don't understand some basics of name and name title usage, for Deific names.

Where? We will discuss them.

*

 

[Thinking Homer]

Okay I'm going to stick with the NASB throughout this discussion since you guys are saying that the KJV is corrupt.

Revelation 3:14....
“The words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of God's creation." (ESV) As the one delivering the Revelation to John by means of an angel, Jesus identifies himself as "the faithful and true witness, the beginning of God's creation". This is confirmed by Paul in Colossians 1:15...."He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation."

Let's look at Revelation 3:14, when John writes that Christ is the beginning of God's creation what is he actually referring to? Is he saying that Christ was the first being created by God, or is John saying that all things have been created through Christ (Christ being the origin of all things?) John and Paul is both clear on this matter:

'He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities-all things have been created through Him and for Him. He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together. He is also head of the body, the church; and He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, so that He Himself will come to have first place in everything. For it was the Father's good pleasure for all the fullness to dwell in Him, ' Colossians 1:15-19 (NASB)

When you read this passage in full, what is the impression that you get? Is Paul trying to make Jesus less than Yahweh, or is he elevating Jesus to the level of the Creator, which Yahweh holds? Note that i know what the NWT says about this passage and you are going to notice the difference as well. However the word 'other' never appear in the original Greek.

As I mentioned earlier, using the word firstborn/begotten just emphasizes the closeness between Yahweh and Jesus, him being the Son of God (hence firstborn).

John also agrees on this notion:
'In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being. ' John 1:1-3 (NASB) [Again making Jesus the ultimate Creator, a position which Yahweh holds]

He also says in Revelation 3:12...."The one who conquers, I will make him a pillar in the temple of my God. Never shall he go out of it, and I will write on him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem, which comes down from my God out of heaven, and my own new name."

'But of the Son He says, " your throne , o God , is forever and ever , and the righteous scepter is the scepter of his kingdom . " you have loved righteousness and hated lawlessness ; therefore God , your God , has anointed you with the oil of gladness above your companions ."' Hebrews 1:8-9

Note that Yahweh refers to Jesus as God. And Yahweh also refers to Himself as Jesus' God. Sounds a lot like a doctrine I know...

In the Hebrew scriptures YHWH (Jehovah) has only one name (Psalm 83:18 KJV) But Jesus has many names which are all tied in with the various roles he plays in the outworking of God's purpose.

That's not really an argument. Many different people in the Old Testament referred to Yahweh in different ways according to the way he revealed himself. To the patriarchs he reveled himself as El-shaddai (God Almighty), to Hagar he revealed himself as El-roi (the God who sees me), and so forth.

The titles that he carries all reflect his roles in that arrangement. Who can doubt that he is a "Wonderful Counselor"? A "Mighty God" (but not an "Almighty one) and in what capacity is Jesus a father? In Strongs it gives four meanings for the word "'ab" translated "father".

So you are saying there is a difference between Mighty God and Almighty God? Either way you are accepting that Jesus is a God. And Jesus is referred to as Almighty anyways:
"I am the Alpha and the Omega," says the Lord God, "who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty." ' Revelation 1:8 (NASB)

And Yahweh is also referred to as Mighty God, sharing the same title as the Son.
'A remnant will return, the remnant of Jacob, to the mighty God.' - Isaiah 10:21 (NASB)

Can we also look back on what they called Jesus?
'" behold , the virgin shall be with child and shall bear a son , and they shall call his name immanuel ," which translated means, " God with us ." ' Matthew 1:23

Another scripture that clinches it for me is Jesus' clear statement in John 17:3...
" And this is eternal life, that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent." Jesus identifies his Father as "the only true God" without including himself. As one that God "sent", Jesus is also an "apostle" (Hebrews 3:1) and as a servant of his Father, (Acts 3:13) he is certainly not his equal, doing nothing of his own initiative or will....but only what the Father instructed him. (John 5:30; John 8:28; 1 Corinthians 11:3)

Yeah can we just read a bit more of the passage from John:
'This is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent. I glorified You on the earth, having accomplished the work which You have given Me to do. Now, Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was. [v10] and all things that are Mine are Yours, and Yours are Mine; and I have been glorified in them. ' John 17:3-5,10

It says here that Jesus was with God before the world was created. Which means that Jesus dwelt outside the realm of space and time from the very beginning. And Jesus also makes the bold claim that everything that belongs to the Father is his. I'll repeat this as many times as I have to: Being subservient does not mean being inferior in nature. If a wife is subservient to her husband does it mean she is inferior? NO, they are both the same, it just means that they have different purposes in the relationship. Same as with the Father and the Son. Subservient in purpose not nature.

 

[Desert Snake]

Not according to scripture.
Revelation 3:12-13 English Standard Version (ESV)
12 The one who conquers, I will make him a pillar in the temple of my God. Never shall he go out of it, and I will write on him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem, which comes down from my God out of heaven, and my own new name. 13 He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches.’

Using your methodology, one could interpret that to mean
Zeus, etc.

 

[Thinking Homer]

Jesus is referred to as "theos" (a mighty or divine one) but he is not ever referred to as "THE God". (ho theos)

Note that in the Gospel of John, Yahweh is referred to as just 'theos' multiple times in the first chapter alone [v6 ,12, 13, 18]. Whether you are 'the divine', or just 'divine', did not matter to the NT writers. To Jewish authors, the claim of divinity meant you were making yourself God, period.

 

[Ingledsva]

My point is, that upon reading the Tanakh, I found in so many ways it's saying the same thing as the Christian bible is.

The only thing that I did notice in reading the Tanakh, is that it brings things out more clearly.

Such as in the book of Genesis 6:4, Where in the Christian bible it has ( Giants )

And in the Tanakh it has ( Nephilim )

Which I already had an understanding who the Giants were. Being the Nephilim Giants

No, Tanakh is not saying the same thing as the Christian Bible.

As to Nephilim -

There is absolutely no reason to take this as a mating between angels and humans.

The "Sons of God" are the Hebrew. They started mixing with other people "daughters of men". Nephilim means mighty/stature, etc., not actually giants.

Gen 6:2 That the sons of Elohiym/God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.

Gen 6:4 There were nephilim/giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.

"2. Mixed marriages (Gen_6:2): The sons of God (that is, the professors of religion, who were called by the name of the Lord, and called upon that name), married the daughters of men, that is, those that were profane, and strangers to God and godliness. ..." Matthew Henry's Commentary On The Whole Bible

Here is the second use - showing absolutely that the nephilim are just mighty men.

Num 13:27 And they told him, and said, We came unto the land whither thou sentest us, and surely it floweth with milk and honey; and this is the fruit of it.

Num 13:28 Nevertheless the people be strong that dwell in the land, and the cities are walled, and very great: and moreover we saw the children of Anak there.

Num 13:29 The Amalekites dwell in the land of the south: and the Hittites, and the Jebusites, and the Amorites, dwell in the mountains: and the Canaanites dwell by the sea, and by the coast of Jordan.

Num 13:32 And they brought up an evil report of the land which they had searched unto the children of Israel, saying, The land, through which we have gone to search it, is a land that eateth up the inhabitants thereof; and all the people that we saw in it are men of a great stature.

Num 13:33 And there we saw the nephilim/giants, the sons of Anak, which come of the nephilim/giants: and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight.

Anak is a Canaanite, - not an actual giant. Look him up.

They were afraid because the people of that land had reputations as mighty warriors. Thus they felt small, like grasshoppers that are going to get squished, - going up against them.

*

 

[Thinking Homer]

No, Tanakh is not saying the same thing as the Christian Bible.

As to Nephilim -

There is absolutely no reason to take this as a mating between angels and humans.

The "Sons of God" are the Hebrew. They started mixing with other people "daughters of men". Nephilim means mighty/stature, etc., not actually giants.

Gen 6:2 That the sons of Elohiym/God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.

Gen 6:4 There were nephilim/giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.

"2. Mixed marriages (Gen_6:2): The sons of God (that is, the professors of religion, who were called by the name of the Lord, and called upon that name), married the daughters of men, that is, those that were profane, and strangers to God and godliness. ..." Matthew Henry's Commentary On The Whole Bible

Here is the second use - showing absolutely that the nephilim are just mighty men.

Num 13:27 And they told him, and said, We came unto the land whither thou sentest us, and surely it floweth with milk and honey; and this is the fruit of it.

Num 13:28 Nevertheless the people be strong that dwell in the land, and the cities are walled, and very great: and moreover we saw the children of Anak there.

Num 13:29 The Amalekites dwell in the land of the south: and the Hittites, and the Jebusites, and the Amorites, dwell in the mountains: and the Canaanites dwell by the sea, and by the coast of Jordan.

Num 13:32 And they brought up an evil report of the land which they had searched unto the children of Israel, saying, The land, through which we have gone to search it, is a land that eateth up the inhabitants thereof; and all the people that we saw in it are men of a great stature.

Num 13:33 And there we saw the nephilim/giants, the sons of Anak, which come of the nephilim/giants: and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight.

Anak is a Canaanite, - not an actual giant. Look him up.

They were afraid because the people of that land had reputations as mighty warriors. Thus they felt small, like grasshoppers that are going to get squished, - going up against them.

*

I feel like this is a discussion to be had on a different thread... The way Christians interpret the Hebrew Bible and the way those of the Jewish faith interpret the Tanakh is completely different...

 

[Ingledsva]

Not according to scripture.
Revelation 3:12-13 English Standard Version (ESV)
12 The one who conquers, I will make him a pillar in the temple of my God. Never shall he go out of it, and I will write on him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem, which comes down from my God out of heaven, and my own new name. 13 He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches.’

I don't think you believe mighty ones are God.
Exodus 7:1
International Standard Version
The LORD told Moses, "Listen! I've positioned you as God to Pharaoh, and your brother Aaron will be your prophet.

People are getting into trouble here because they keep insisting that Elohiym and Theos mean only God in these verses, which is ridiculous.

Exodus 7:1 And said YHVH to Moses, behold, I make thee ELOHIYM to Pharaoh, and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet.

PSALM 82:6 I have said, Ye are ELOHIYM; and all of you are children of the most High. (Psalm 82 is taking the anointed judges to task for not doing their job.)

1Sa 2:25 If one man sin against another, the judge (Elohiym) shall judge him: but if a man sin against YHVH, who shall intreat for him? Notwithstanding they hearkened not unto the voice of their father, because the LORD would slay them.

In all three verses the word means magistrate/judge.

*

 

[Ingledsva]

I feel like this is a discussion to be had on a different thread... The way Christians interpret the Hebrew Bible and the way those of the Jewish faith interpret the Tanakh is completely different...

That is the problem.

Christians are trying to say another religion's holy book says something it doesn't.

*