-
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!
Jesus is not God Almighty Himself
- Thread starter iam1me
- Start date
Desert Snake
Veteran Member
And Messiah has only one meaning? Why are you so sure that Messiah has only one meaning? Since they knew the messiah isn't deific, according to you, right, why would they claim that Jesus is God?
Something is off about your theory.
Last edited:
Hello, mindmaster! Greetings!
Please read Judges 16:23, where the Bible writer quotes the Philistines as saying their god, Dagon, is “Elohim”....and he was one god, not a multiple. They simply thought their god was ‘the greatest.’
So a plural noun, like Elohim, can denote something or someone as superlative.
For example, Elohim is a masculine noun with plural. (It implies more than one... or to be "in front" of other gods.) It sort of silently admits there is more than one.
Please read Judges 16:23, where the Bible writer quotes the Philistines as saying their god, Dagon, is “Elohim”....and he was one god, not a multiple. They simply thought their god was ‘the greatest.’
So a plural noun, like Elohim, can denote something or someone as superlative.
iam1me
Active Member
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.
Ingledsva
HEATHEN ALASKAN
Only later Christians claim Jesus is God and part of a trinity.
We have shown over and over that the verses which are being read as Jesus is deity, - do not actually say that.
And of course Jesus said he was the awaited Messiah, - and he never said he was a god, or part of a trinity.
Messiah means anointed, - not God. Special humans are anointed. Such as Jesus, and King David.
*
Ingledsva
HEATHEN ALASKAN
iam1me
Active Member
Context is important - but the context in question is not Psalm 82. The context is where it is referenced in John 10. In this context he is making a point about the usage of the term "God." They accuse him of blasphemy for claiming to be God. He begins his retort by pointing out that the scriptures call them gods. He further clarifies his actual claim: that he is God's Son (not God). Additionally, he asks why they would think any of this blasphemous - because from his superior understanding of the scriptures, he saw no reason why they should consider his words blasphemous.
Also, looking at John 5 instead of John 10 doesn't help your case any. This is simply another place where Jesus is correcting these Jews misunderstanding of the scriptures and the Law.
John 5:8-17 Jesus *said to him, “Get up, pick up your pallet and walk.” 9 Immediately the man became well, and picked up his pallet and began to walk. Now it was the Sabbath on that day. 10 So the Jews were saying to the man who was cured, “It is the Sabbath, and it is not permissible for you to carry your pallet.” 11 But he answered them, “He who made me well was the one who said to me, ‘Pick up your pallet and walk.’” 12 They asked him, “Who is the man who said to you, ‘Pick up your pallet and walk’?” 13 But the man who was healed did not know who it was, for Jesus had slipped away while there was a crowd in that place. 14 Afterward Jesus *found him in the temple and said to him, “Behold, you have become well; do not sin anymore, so that nothing worse happens to you.” 15 The man went away, and told the Jews that it was Jesus who had made him well. 16 For this reason the Jews were persecuting Jesus, because He was doing these things on the Sabbath. 17 But He answered them, “My Father is working until now, and I Myself am working.”
I will have you discern the truth for yourself concerning the wisdom of the jews in question here. Were they correct in persecuting Jesus for instructing this man to carry his pallet and walk, even on the Sabbath? Did Jesus instruct this man to sin? Or are these jews lacking in their understanding of the nature of the Sabbath and the Law, while Jesus did what was good and right?
You cannot have it both ways. Either these jews are to be regarded as sages who know exactly what is going on, or they are fallible humans who are clearly lacking in wisdom and understanding in these matters where they are conflicting with Jesus.
I'm well aware, but thank you for saying as much. This makes it all the easier to point out another aspect of the Trinity that is clearly anti-biblical.
John 3:16“For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.
Scripture not only maintains that Jesus is begotten - he holds the unique claim of being the only begotten Son of God. And the Trinity explicitly rejects this notion. What say you?
He did not here claim divinity. He said that he would be at the right hand of the Mighty One. While this is no small assertion, he is not here claiming to be God. Rather, he is claiming he will be at the right hand of God - thus differentiating himself from God and asserting his subservience to him. Try again.
The difference is that I read the scriptures to understand what they say. The scriptures never once suggest that the manner in which Jesus is less than and subservient to the Father is only a matter of purpose vs nature. Rather, the scriptures simply teach that Jesus is less than God and subservient to him, period.
Go back and re-read what I wrote, and the scripture in question, again. They are not compatible with any Trinity Doctrine. Paul plainly lays out that Jesus is distinct and subserviant to GOD (not the Father, GOD). This goes beyond a mere distinction of persons - its a distinction of who is and is not God Almighty.
If you want to argue that Paul implies the Father here, I would agree with you - because to Paul and the rest of the New Testament authors, there is no distinction between the Father and God Almighty - they are one in the same. Trinitarians have, once again, invented an unbiblical fiction where "Father" refers to only part of God.
There is no "God the Son" in scripture. There is the only begotten Son of God - whom the Trinity rejects, as you noted earlier.
None of these scriptures suggest either that a second God was created or that any scripture suggests that we should worship Jesus as God. Try again.
No one ever suggests that he literally is the Father that he should need to deny it. And if he did claim to literally be the Father, that would pose a serious problem for the Trinity Doctrine. In fact, such a belief was considered heresy in the early church, just as much as other competing Christologies. Patripassianism - Wikipedia
I'm after the truth - rather than blindly following whatever non-sense is handed down at the pulpit. Speaking as one who has been a Christian my entire life and who has studied and debated theology far more than most - I can tell you that MOST Christians aren't interested in the truth. They just take is whatever handed to them by their parents/pastor/etc. and run with it. At best they ignore anything that challenges their beliefs, and worse they will get violent and angry over being confronted on just about any matter. This mindset is far more damning and damaging to the faith than just about anything. It's why all these evangelicals so blindly follow Trump. They have eyes, but do not see. They have ears, but do not hear.
At any rate, my position poses no problems for a Monotheistic Belief System - I am a Monotheist. This isn't a question of Monotheism vs Polytheism. It is a matter of seeking understanding in the scriptures which both claim that there is only one God while simultaneously calling angels God (though they aren't God), calling Moses God (though he isn't God), calling the Jewish people gods (though they aren't God), and calling Jesus God (who has a God and is continually differentiated from God Almighty).
A serious question for you: why do you continue to ignore the point I have made time and again, the primary point of the OP: "God" is liberally applied in scripture to many who are clearly not God. Arguing from the scriptures: why should the term be interpreted literally when applied to Jesus despite the precedent set in the rest of scripture?
Last edited:
iam1me
Active Member
Regarding that particular verse, I suggest you use a better translation like the NASB. The KJV is filled with errors, and it is in old english.
Phil 2:5-7 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.
This far more accurate translation says he did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped. This also flows far better with the rest of the surrounding text: "but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men."
As far as Jesus' death goes: his blood is the blood of the New Covenant. Through his death, we are given the opportunity for salvation. However, eternal life is a reward for our own good works. Everyone wasn't automatically saved by Jesus' death (else there would be no talk of judgement)
Romans 2:6-11 [God] will render to each person according to his deeds: 7 to those who by perseverance in doing good seek for glory and honor and immortality, eternal life; 8 but to those who are selfishly ambitious and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, wrath and indignation. 9 There will be tribulation and distress for every soul of man who does evil, of the Jew first and also of the Greek, 10 but glory and honor and peace to everyone who does good, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. 11 For there is no partiality with God.
Ingledsva
HEATHEN ALASKAN
ING - No there isn't. Nicaean Councils tell us not all believed Jesus was God. Followers believed he was just the Messiah from the beginning.
A Christian by definition needs to believe in the sayings of Christ. He clearly tells us to believe in him as the Son of God, as well as the Father who sent him.
ING - No he doesn't as we have shown.
'Whoever does not honor the Son does not honor the Father, who sent him. ' - John 5:23
ING - This is just the same as saying honor the Pope as he is God's representative.
'Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”
Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven. ' - Matthew 16:16-17
ING - Again Messiah - not God. King David and the Israelites were called sons of God.
For Jesus' disciples who have been taught at Jewish synagogues their whole lives, this leads to a problem with a particular scripture in the Torah:
'“‘You are to have no other gods before me. You are not to make for yourselves a carved image or any kind of representation of anything in heaven above, on the earth beneath or in the water below the shoreline — you are not to bow down to them or serve them; for I, Adonai your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sins of the parents, also the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, ' D'varim (Deuteronomy) 5:7-9
Coming from a Jewish background, Jesus' disciples were well aware of this verse, and yet they still decided to worship Jesus:
'Then those who were in the boat worshiped him, saying, “Truly you are the Son of God.” ' - Matthew 14:33
ING - proskuneō also means to bow/prostrate in homage. This is also done before Kings, special people, etc. The Messiah would be special, = an anointed one.
If you reject the Trinity and yet still attribute divine status to both Yahweh and Yeshua, you are breaking the first three of the ten commandments:
1) You have another god named Yeshua
2) You are worshiping an image of God which is considered idolatry
3) You are violating the exclusive worship which Yahweh commands
The Trinity was therefore an obvious solution to this problem, which the Jewish Christians realized from the very beginning (Hence the Gospel of John was written).
ING - Actually you folks are just reading these texts wrong.
'In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. ' - John 1:1 (KJV)
ING - Logos is YHVH's Law/power/knowledge. So obviously it is God.
It is not Jesus. The human Jesus, as Messiah, is imbued with it so he can teach, and carry out his mission.
*
Ingledsva
HEATHEN ALASKAN
Just wanted to add that King David is a begotten son of YHVH.
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.
Obviously they know Theos has other meanings such as judge, anointed one, etc. This is made plain by Christian concordances which give us these other more obvious meanings actually used in those verses.
I think they are purposely muddying the waters when they always translate Theos as god, or put Lord (making Christians think Jesus) when it actually has YHVH.
This confuses everyone and is not good.
*
iam1me
Active Member
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.
Desert Snake
Veteran Member
.................
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.
Desert Snake
Veteran Member
The Bible makes a differentiation, between, the Abba, and Jesus. It also, calls them both the same name, and name title, God.
Faithofchristian
Well-Known Member
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.
iam1me
Active Member
There is such a thing as spiritual death, but in context that is not being referred to in the passages in question. Or do you think Jesus - the first fruits from the dead - was at any point spiritually dead?
Wrong. There are two deaths, but the second death is not Satan. The second death is what awaits Satan and everyone else who is condemned at the Judgement.
Revelation 20:14
Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire.
Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire.
That verse doesn't say what you want it to say. It says the devil has the power of death - not that the devil is death.
False. You need to study more.
John 5:28-29 Do not marvel at this; for an hour is coming, in which all who are in the tombs will hear His voice, 29 and will come forth; those who did the good deeds to a resurrection of life, those who committed the evil deeds to a resurrection of judgment.
At any rate, this all seems off topic to me. Unless you are going to bring this back 'round to bear on the topic at hand, I'd suggest making a new thread to discuss these issues.
Faithofchristian
Well-Known Member
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
Thinking Homer
Understanding and challenging different worldviews
'I said, “You are gods, And all of you are children of the Most High. But you shall die like men, And fall like one of the princes.” Arise, O God, judge the earth; For You shall inherit all nations.' Psalms 82:6-8
It is the context actually. Everything becomes clear once you read this Psalm.
There is no such thing as a perfect human being. All humans are fallible, no matter how intelligent you may be.
There is also mention that Christ is the firstborn in Colossians. So does that mean Christ was a created being? Not at all. The original Greek for begotten is monogenes. This word is variously translated into English as "only," "one and only," and "only begotten."
According to the Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (BAGD, 3rd Edition), monogenes has two primary definitions.
The first definition is "pertaining to being the only one of its kind within a specific relationship." This is its meaning in Hebrews 11:17 when the writer refers to Isaac as Abraham's "only begotten son" (KJV).
The second definition is "pertaining to being the only one of its kind or class, unique in kind." This is the meaning that is implied in John 3:16
Other scriptures that support that Jesus was not created:
'“You are My witnesses,” says the Lord , “And My servant whom I have chosen, That you may know and believe Me, And understand that I am He. Before Me there was no God formed, Nor shall there be after Me. I, even I, am the Lord , And besides Me there is no savior.' Isaiah 43:10-11
'“But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, Though you are little among the thousands of Judah, Yet out of you shall come forth to Me The One to be Ruler in Israel, Whose goings forth are from of old, From everlasting.”' Micah 5:2 (Jesus never had a time when he did not exist)
God the Son, Son of God; is there much difference in the language? While the phrase God the Son does not appear in the Bible, these are some the titles that Jesus uses that Yahweh only claimed for himself: "The first and the last" (Revelation 1:17; 22:13), "Lord of lords" (1 Timothy 6:15, Revelation 17:14; 19:16); Savior of the world (John 4:42, Isaiah 43:11).
Yahweh is referred to as the Father multiple times in the OT.
'They shall come with weeping, And with supplications I will lead them. I will cause them to walk by the rivers of waters, In a straight way in which they shall not stumble; For I am a Father to Israel, And Ephraim is My firstborn.' - Jeremiah 31:9
'Do you thus deal with the Lord , O foolish and unwise people? Is He not your Father, who bought you? Has He not made you and established you?' - Deuteronomy 32:6
You are the one who is suggesting that Jesus was created, not me.
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?
So how do you interpret this passage then?
The thread clearly states "Jesus is not God Almighty Himself." God Almighty refers to El-Shaddai which is Yahweh. So your stance is that Jesus is not Yahweh Himself, which I am trying to disprove.
And you keep on bringing up the same points I answered already? The term 'God' is used for Moses and the Jewish people to denote their authority, not divinity. Moses never claimed to be divine, neither did the Jews. This is obviously not the case with Jesus, who refers to himself as the Son of God multiple times. Hence the conversation has progressed to the question at hand: Is he merely the Son of God, or God Himself? Please do not regress the conversation back to Moses and the Jews.
You can't use another English version to prove your point (please use Greek). We could be disputing over variances in English versions the whole day which is not the topic of discussion.
Please read the entirety of Romans. Is he saying that our salvation is dependent on doing good works, or are we merely rewarded in heaven for doing good works? I am pretty sure that our concepts on heaven, hell and salvation are quite different; but let us not mistake what the new covenant is all about. The Old covenant based on the Mosaic Law stated that we needed to follow the Law in order to be saved. This is righteousness through works. The New covenant made the Old covenant obsolete, stating that our salvation no longer depended on doing good works, but exclusively through faith in Jesus Christ.
'that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. ' Romans 10:9-10
'For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast. ' Ephesians 2:8-9 [a gift is something you simply receive, not something to work for]
'Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? Of works? No, but by the law of faith. Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law. ' Romans 3:27-28
For the Christian, salvation is the beginning of our Christian faith, not the destination like other religions. From that point onwards, the good deeds come through the Holy Spirit that lives inside us. Hence James said "faith without deeds is dead." Jesus also claimed to Nicodemus that in order to be saved, one needed to be born of water and spirit.
Last edited:
BilliardsBall
Veteran Member
Thank you, I find certain translations are a bit easier for others. The "equality not a thing to be grasped" has to do with not having the need to grasp something already had.
I'm familiar with Romans 2. The same passage says that both things can be one person, their thoughts alternately accusing and defending them--salvation is specifically NOT of works, and in Romans--it's a free gift for the taking/asking.
iam1me
Active Member
No, the context in question is where Jesus is being confronted by the Jews in John 10 for supposed blaspheme. Jesus loosely references Psalms 82 due to the fact that it calls them gods - but he doesn't actual quote the Psalms. It's fine to quote it - but it doesn't change anything concerning the exchange in John 10.
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.”
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.
Furthermore, passages like the following are actually quotes from the Old Testament:
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.
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.
The scriptures declare as much - it is you who must explain away scripture to uphold your beliefs as a Trinitarian. Also Phillippians isn't a call to worship anyone. In no place in scripture is anyone called to worship Christ as God Almighty himself. Doesn't exist. We are to honor the Son - and that in no way contradicts worshiping one God.
The passage where Thomas refers to him as God? I've addressed that point in my OP: The term "God" is liberally applied throughout scripture to those who are not God. You have chosen to ignore this fact - but it won't go away.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Last edited:
iam1me
Active Member
That is not what the scriptures say - he says equality is not something to be grasped, but instead chooses to humble himself. Context is important. Trinitarians want to act like greatness is being claimed here, but in context it is the opposite. It is describing how he humbled himself.
Please see my reply to Homer above. We might need to start a new thread to discuss this in detail.