Scriptural proof that Jesus is in full Godhood

[Desert Snake]

In Hebrews 8:8-9 ,

one notices the reference to God, who brought the Israelites out of Egypt. The 'title', used for Deity, is the same title, which is used for Jesus, that many claim to be a differential, between the 'father', and the son.

Any explanations for this? Refutations?

Thanks.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Are you sure 8:8-9 are the verses?

 

[Valjean]

How does scripture proove" anything?

 

[Desert Snake]

How does scripture proove" anything?

Scriptural debates. Yes, Scripture can prove something, in context. Whether it proves something, aside from that, is going to vary.

In other words, Scriptural debates is in the context of Scripture/

 

[Desert Snake]

How does scripture proove" anything?

I'll explain the original argument a bit further.

There are many people who hold the idea, that certain ''titles'', always refers to the ''son'', Jesus,, and other ''titles'', always refer to the 'father', God,, of course. Now, in the verses I presented, the 'title', being used, is a title that some think always refers to the son. The inference from the verses, if they actually hold that position, is that Jesus led the Israelites out of Egypt, and began the First Covenant. This may refute a position that the father, and Jesus, are distinct, /arguments in the manner that 'Jesus, is not God,, and certainly, would seem to refute the idea that the 'title', being used in the verses, only refers to Jesus, and not the father.

 

[Valjean]

So one could just as well choose The Hobbit or Harry Potter as scripture?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

In Hebrews 8:8-9 ,

one notices the reference to God, who brought the Israelites out of Egypt. The 'title', used for Deity, is the same title, which is used for Jesus, that many claim to be a differential, between the 'father', and the son.

Any explanations for this? Refutations?

Thanks.

Um. I get my last name from my father. My father's last name is from his father and so on back. So, all of our names, as sons and daughters of our parents all have the same name (unless the women marry and take on their husbands names).

In many cultures names have a profound meaning. Then you have family names as well-what Americans call our last name another culture would probably refer to it as their family name.

While we share names, share blood, share characteristics, and shared experiences, we are not each other.

I don't understand why this is hard, really.

Jesus and the Father share the same title because that title is the "family name" of them both. Like Father-Like Son.

Like
representation
mirror
image of
prophet of
son of

the Father is always distinguishing himself from his son by his position and mission but showing how they are related by sharing titles.

While Jesus may be god's son: he is not all knowing, all perfect, and so forth. He isn't an entity. Him being human already excludes him as being god.

How is that hard to understand?

 

[cataway]

no Jesus is not God
(John 20:17) Jesus said to her: “Stop clinging to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father. But go to my brothers and say to them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father and to my God and your God.’”
(1 Corinthians 11:3) But I want you to know that the head of every man is the Christ; in turn, the head of a woman is the man; in turn, the head of the Christ is God.
(1 Corinthians 15:28) But when all things will have been subjected to him, then the Son himself will also subject himself to the One who subjected all things to him, that God may be all things to everyone.
(Philippians 2:5, 6) Keep this mental attitude in you that was also in Christ Jesus, 6 who, although he was existing in God’s form, gave no consideration to a seizure, namely, that he should be equal to God.
(John 14:28) You heard that I said to you, ‘I am going away and I am coming back to you.’ If you loved me, you would rejoice that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I am.

 

[Desert Snake]

no Jesus is not God
(John 20:17) Jesus said to her: “Stop clinging to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father. But go to my brothers and say to them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father and to my God and your God.’”
(1 Corinthians 11:3) But I want you to know that the head of every man is the Christ; in turn, the head of a woman is the man; in turn, the head of the Christ is God.
(1 Corinthians 15:28) But when all things will have been subjected to him, then the Son himself will also subject himself to the One who subjected all things to him, that God may be all things to everyone.
(Philippians 2:5, 6) Keep this mental attitude in you that was also in Christ Jesus, 6 who, although he was existing in God’s form, gave no consideration to a seizure, namely, that he should be equal to God.
(John 14:28) You heard that I said to you, ‘I am going away and I am coming back to you.’ If you loved me, you would rejoice that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I am.

You didn't address the verses in the original argument.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

In Hebrews 8:8-9 ,

one notices the reference to God, who brought the Israelites out of Egypt. The 'title', used for Deity, is the same title, which is used for Jesus, that many claim to be a differential, between the 'father', and the son.

Any explanations for this? Refutations?

Thanks.

Grief! You're kidding, right? 1 Samuel 1:15, Eli is called "my Lord"; later, Saul is referred to as "my Lord" many times. So is David....many, many times!

So they are all God too, then.

 

[Desert Snake]

Grief! You're kidding, right? 1 Samuel 1:15, Eli is called "my Lord"; later, Saul is referred to as "my Lord" many times. So is David....many, many times!

So they are all God too, then.

Why not just comment on the verses in the original argument. Who are the verses referring to.. If you don't think they are referring to Jesus, then why? If you think that they are only referring to the father, then clearly you do not think, that that specific title, is only used in reference to Jesus?

 

[Deeje]

In Hebrews 8:8-9

Hebrews 8:7-9:
"For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion to look for a second.
8 For he finds fault with them when he says:
“Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord,
when I will establish a new covenant with the house of Israel
and with the house of Judah,
9 not like the covenant that I made with their fathers
on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt.
For they did not continue in my covenant,
and so I showed no concern for them, declares the Lord." (ESV)

Paul was quoting Jeremiah 31:31, 32:

"Behold, the days come, saith Jehovah, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: 32 not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was a husband unto them, saith Jehovah". (ASV)

You can see who "the LORD" is it Jeremiah. So this demonstrates how confusing scripture became when God's personal name was removed from the Bible and replaced with the title "LORD", which, as has been mentioned, can apply equally to humans, Jesus and his Father. It is not a title reserved exclusively for God or Christ.

Hebrews 8:8-9 is about Jehovah because Jeremiah is about Jehovah. The new covenant that was made with Jesus' apostles was for a Kingdom; Jesus being the mediator of that new covenant just as Moses was the mediator of the old covenant.

one notices the reference to God, who brought the Israelites out of Egypt. The 'title', used for Deity, is the same title, which is used for Jesus, that many claim to be a differential, between the 'father', and the son.

Any explanations for this? Refutations?

It seems pretty clear to me. Jeremiah explains it. It wasn't Jesus who brought Israel out of Egypt...It was their God, Jehovah.....whose name was revealed to Moses in Exodus 3:15...

" And God said moreover unto Moses, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, Jehovah, the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath sent me unto you: this is my name for ever, and this is my memorial unto all generations" (ASV)

 

[Desert Snake]

Hebrews 8:7-9:
"For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion to look for a second.
8 For he finds fault with them when he says:
“Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord,
when I will establish a new covenant with the house of Israel
and with the house of Judah,
9 not like the covenant that I made with their fathers
on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt.
For they did not continue in my covenant,
and so I showed no concern for them, declares the Lord." (ESV)

Paul was quoting Jeremiah 31:31, 32:

"Behold, the days come, saith Jehovah, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: 32 not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was a husband unto them, saith Jehovah". (ASV)

You can see who "the LORD" is it Jeremiah. So this demonstrates how confusing scripture became when God's personal name was removed from the Bible and replaced with the title "LORD", which, as has been mentioned, can apply equally to humans, Jesus and his Father. It is not a title reserved exclusively for God or Christ.

Hebrews 8:8-9 is about Jehovah because Jeremiah is about Jehovah. The new covenant that was made with Jesus' apostles was for a Kingdom; Jesus being the mediator of that new covenant just as Moses was the mediator of the old covenant.



It seems pretty clear to me. Jeremiah explains it. It wasn't Jesus who brought Israel out of Egypt...It was their God, Jehovah.....whose name was revealed to Moses in Exodus 3:15...

" And God said moreover unto Moses, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, Jehovah, the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath sent me unto you: this is my name for ever, and this is my memorial unto all generations" (ASV)

good afternoon

So, who made the 'mistake', the writers of the Bible, /Greek language, or the translators, or what? If you think that the LORD, and 'Lord', usage is correct, then the verses indicate that it was Jesus, who led the Israelites out of Egypt, and began the first Covenant. This makes sense if you believe that Jesus is God, not so much if think that
/LORD and 'Lord' differentiation, is legitimate as an indication of Godhood
/That Jesus isn't G-d, /full Godhood

Your personal theology aside, do you not realize, that if both titles can refer to Jesus, or His father, then..
/there really is no inherent difference between the Deity references, that do not specify which it is , /the father, or the son
/That according to your own argument, a reference to 'Deity title', per differentiation, cannot be used as a Scriptural argument to indicate 'who' is being referred to.

 

[Deeje]

good afternoon

Or good morning, depending on what part of the world you inhabit. Its around 7 am here in Australia.

So, who made the 'mistake', the writers of the Bible, /Greek language, or the translators, or what?

Do you know what led to removal and substitution of the Divine Name in the first place? The tetragrammaton was replaced almost 7,000 times in the Hebrew scriptures. That is a lot of unauthorized substitution. If God gave his personal name to Moses to tell to his people (Exodus 3:15) and said that this was to be his "memorial" (the way he was to be remembered) and that was to be "forever", then humans have a lot of explaining to do. Exodus 3:15 in many Bibles says that God's name is "the LORD"...that is not true and it set up the confusion that now permeates Christendom. God's name is not "the LORD"...it is YHWH, Yahweh, Jehovah.

If you think that the LORD, and 'Lord', usage is correct, then the verses indicate that it was Jesus, who led the Israelites out of Egypt, and began the first Covenant. This makes sense if you believe that Jesus is God, not so much if think that
/LORD and 'Lord' differentiation, is legitimate as an indication of Godhood
/That Jesus isn't G-d, /full Godhood

The Bible itself teaches that Jesus and his Father are two separate individuals, but only one is the Almighty. (John 17:3)
Jesus is never called "Yahweh" nor is he ever referred to as Almighty....not once.
People have run away with the notion that "theos" means "God" the way Christendom interprets the word. In Greek, a culture with many "gods", "theos" simply means a "mighty one" not necessarily just one god. So Jesus was not "the LORD" who led Israel our of Egypt. Jehovah did, under the leadership of Moses.

Your personal theology aside, do you not realize, that if both titles can refer to Jesus, or His father, then..
/there really is no inherent difference between the Deity references, that do not specify which it is , /the father, or the son
/That according to your own argument, a reference to 'Deity title', per differentiation, cannot be used as a Scriptural argument to indicate 'who' is being referred to.

I hope you can see the glaring flaw in this argument. There is no question that Jesus is the divine son of God, but he is not and never was God Almighty.
There is no God but Jehovah. To put another god in equal standing is to break the first Commandment. (Ex 20:3)

Refer to post #10 to see that the title "Lord" applies even to human beings. Titles are not names. The Almighty God has only one name forever and it isn't "Jesus".

 

[Desert Snake]

Or good morning, depending on what part of the world you inhabit. Its around 7 am here in Australia.

Do you know what led to removal and substitution of the Divine Name in the first place? The tetragrammaton was replaced almost 7,000 times in the Hebrew scriptures.

Deity titles, written in Hebrew, should not have been changed/ my opinion; that being said, not sure how much it should matter, if people are expected to know their theology, anyway.

That is a lot of unauthorized substitution. If God gave his personal name to Moses to tell to his people (Exodus 3:15) and said that this was to be his "memorial" (the way he was to be remembered) and that was to be "forever", then humans have a lot of explaining to do. Exodus 3:15 in many Bibles says that God's name is "the LORD"...that is not true and it set up the confusion that now permeates Christendom. God's name is not "the LORD"...it is YHWH, Yahweh, Jehovah.

Again, my preference would be to leave the /English equivalent, either JHVH, or YHWH.

The Bible itself teaches that Jesus and his Father are two separate individuals, but only one is the Almighty. (John 17:3)
Jesus is never called "Yahweh" nor is he ever referred to as Almighty....not once.
People have run away with the notion that "theos" means "God" the way Christendom interprets the word. In Greek, a culture with many "gods", "theos" simply means a "mighty one" not necessarily just one god. So Jesus was not "the LORD" who led Israel our of Egypt. Jehovah did, under the leadership of Moses.

So, are you making the argument, that the authors of the Bible,/New Testament,, were 'wrong'? If you aren't making that argument, then how do you justify the verses in the original argument?

I hope you can see the glaring flaw in this argument. There is no question that Jesus is the divine son of God, but he is not and never was God Almighty.
There is no God but Jehovah. To put another god in equal standing is to break the first Commandment. (Ex 20:3)

...

Refer to post #10 to see that the title "Lord" applies even to human beings. Titles are not names. The Almighty God has only one name forever and it isn't "Jesus".

This doesn't explain how you are justifying the verses presented /original argument.
You also didn't address the other issues, of Deity inference, from Title. Are you of the position, that there is no differentiation, between titles, used both for Jesus, and the father? If so, then why are you going into the issue of Jesus never being called JHVH, so forth. The verses do not state that JHVH led the Israelites out of Egypt, they /the verses/, use the same title, that is used for Jesus.

/per deity title differentiation, The verses are referring to Jesus.
/without usage of deity title differentiation, the verses /assuming you are making a distinction between Jesus and the father, or Jesus and God, could refer to either, the son, or the father.

Which position are you taking?

Anyways, if the titles are used for both Jesus and the father, then there is really no Scriptural, inherent distinction in many instances, including the many times that Jesus is referred to as Lord, so forth. So, Scripturally, it would be very difficult to arbitrarily state, that Jesus is not being referred to in a 'G-d, sense. That's merely a personal theology position. We would assume, as well, that if there a distinction intended, it would be made more clearly? How 'vague', do you think the Bible is?
/Would not, distinctions, between the father and son, merely be between the aspects, nature of what we observe, in the Godhood? That makes a lot more Scriptural sense, to me.

 

[Deeje]

Deity titles, written in Hebrew, should not have been changed/ my opinion; that being said, not sure how much it should matter, if people are expected to know their theology, anyway.

How many do? How many people just rock up to church and go through the motions and then go home, having done their duty or the weekleaving their Christianity behind?

Again, my preference would be to leave the /English equivalent, either JHVH, or YHWH.

I notice that a lot of scholars favor Yahweh over Jehovah, yet the Divine Name is still missing from their speech and from their Bibles.
The OT Bible writers certainly had no hesitation in addressing or extolling their God using his name freely and with great reverence.

So, are you making the argument, that the authors of the Bible,/New Testament,, were 'wrong'? If you aren't making that argument, then how do you justify the verses in the original argument?

I asked if you knew what led to removal and substitution of the Divine Name in the first place? Do you know? Because this is the reason hy we have so much confusion over these ambiguous titles.

This doesn't explain how you are justifying the verses presented /original argument.

Humans are responsible for the removal of the Divine Name without God's permission. It is why we are having this discussion. God did not change his name nor did he change his identity when Christ came.

You also didn't address the other issues, of Deity inference, from Title. Are you of the position, that there is no differentiation, between titles, used both for Jesus, and the father? If so, then why are you going into the issue of Jesus never being called JHVH, so forth. The verses do not state that JHVH led the Israelites out of Egypt, they /the verses/, use the same title, that is used for Jesus.

The title in question (Lord) is the English equivalent of "Sir". If you see a group of military commanders of different rank, can you rightly address each one as "Sir" regardless of their position in relation to each other? Both Yahweh and Jesus can rightly be called "Lord".
AS for "inference"....I'm sorry but inference doesn't equate to truth. You can't build a foundation doctrine on inference or supposition.

Which position are you taking?

The same position as the Bible takes. There is "one God, the Father....and one Lord Jesus Christ". (1 Corinthians 8:5-6)

Anyways, if the titles are used for both Jesus and the father, then there is really no Scriptural, inherent distinction in many instances, including the many times that Jesus is referred to as Lord, so forth. So, Scripturally, it would be very difficult to arbitrarily state, that Jesus is not being referred to in a 'G-d, sense. That's merely a personal theology position. We would assume, as well, that if there a distinction intended, it would be made more clearly? How 'vague', do you think the Bible is?

If we are well acquainted with the OT and God's dealings with his nation and the issues addressed by his prophets, we will have a very good idea about the position of the son in relation to his Father. Both are divine "mighty ones" (gods) but only one is "THE" Divine Mighty One (ho theos) and that is the father, Yahweh.

Would not, distinctions, between the father and son, merely be between the aspects, nature of what we observe, in the Godhood? That makes a lot more Scriptural sense, to me.

If you read the entirety of scripture you will never see that there is any overlap. Jesus never said he was God, nor did he ever claim equality with his own God and Father.
If you cannot get rid of the trinitarian lenses, you will never see past this lie, planted 300 years after Christ died. It is blasphemous.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Why not just comment on the verses in the original argument. Who are the verses referring to.. If you don't think they are referring to Jesus, then why? If you think that they are only referring to the father, then clearly you do not think, that that specific title, is only used in reference to Jesus?

No, I don't. That's why I mentioned those other Scriptures in 1 Samuel. You have to use the entire Biblical context, all of it.

 

[JesusBeliever]

In Hebrews 8:8-9 ,

one notices the reference to God, who brought the Israelites out of Egypt. The 'title', used for Deity, is the same title, which is used for Jesus, that many claim to be a differential, between the 'father', and the son.

Any explanations for this? Refutations?

Thanks.

Are you referring to the 'title' LORD? Coz if you are I see you're point and have come to believe that it was deliberately left an open question due to this verse:

"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, but by the Holy Ghost." 1 Corinthians 12:3

IOW it must be by revelation, as this verse also supports:

"No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day. It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me." John 6:44-45

See also Jeremiah 31:34 which is referenced in Hebrews 8:10-11 in association with the New Covenant.

 

[Desert Snake]

How many do? How many people just rock up to church and go through the motions and then go home, having done their duty or the weekleaving their Christianity behind?



I notice that a lot of scholars favor Yahweh over Jehovah, yet the Divine Name is still missing from their speech and from their Bibles.
The OT Bible writers certainly had no hesitation in addressing or extolling their God using his name freely and with great reverence.



I asked if you knew what led to removal and substitution of the Divine Name in the first place? Do you know? Because this is the reason hy we have so much confusion over these ambiguous titles.



Humans are responsible for the removal of the Divine Name without God's permission. It is why we are having this discussion. God did not change his name nor did he change his identity when Christ came.

The title in question (Lord) is the English equivalent of "Sir". If you see a group of military commanders of different rank, can you rightly address each one as "Sir" regardless of their position in relation to each other? Both Yahweh and Jesus can rightly be called "Lord".

AS for "inference"....I'm sorry but inference doesn't equate to truth. You can't build a foundation doctrine on inference or supposition.

Eh? Is that what you think I'm doing? I could say he same thing to you, it's arbitrary

The same position as the Bible takes. There is "one God, the Father....and one Lord Jesus Christ". (1 Corinthians 8:5-6)

This verse contradicts the idea of a distinction between the titles; in other words, it literally contradicts your position, as, the title, presented in the verses, in the original argument, use the title for Jesus. And they /the verses,, state that 'Jesus', led the Israelites out of Egypt, and began the first Covenant. This verse, by inference from the verses presented in the original argument, literally confirms, that Jesus is God, and in full Godhood.

If we are well acquainted with the OT and God's dealings with his nation and the issues addressed by his prophets, we will have a very good idea about the position of the son in relation to his Father. Both are divine "mighty ones" (gods) but only one is "THE" Divine Mighty One (ho theos) and that is the father, Yahweh.

If you read the entirety of scripture you will never see that there is any overlap. Jesus never said he was God, nor did he ever claim equality with his own God and Father.
If you cannot get rid of the trinitarian lenses, you will never see past this lie, planted 300 years after Christ died. It is blasphemous.

Blasphemous against what? Certainly not the Bible, as the Bible clearly backs my argument.

By the way, a ''trinitarian'' correlation, whatever similarity may be there, via argumentation, is not directly related to the original argument

 

[Deeje]

Are you referring to the 'title' LORD? Coz if you are I see you're point and have come to believe that it was deliberately left an open question due to this verse:

"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, but by the Holy Ghost." 1 Corinthians 12:3

Sorry, I cringe when I see people using the KJV.

This is the 21st century and we no longer use that archaic language.

That scripture in a more modern English translation reads....

"Therefore I make known to you that no one speaking by the Spirit of God says, “Jesus is accursed”; and no one can say, “Jesus is Lord,” except by the Holy Spirit." (NASB)

Of course this is not literally true, it isn't simply the "saying" of these words, but the heart acceptance or rejection of Jesus as Messiah . (There is actually no such thing as a holy ghost btw.)

Because true Christians walk by holy spirit, they are able to maintain a close relationship with God and his Son. Paul was writing about spiritual gifts and said the words above to fellow believers in Corinth. Any spirit that moves people to pronounce a curse upon Jesus must originate with Satan the Devil. As Christians walking by holy spirit, though, we are convinced that Yahweh raised Jesus from the dead and made him higher than all other creation. (Philippians 2:5-11) We have faith in Christ’s ransom sacrifice and accept Jesus as the Lord appointed over us by God....all things Christ accomplished was "to the glory of God the Father".

IOW it must be by revelation, as this verse also supports:

"No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day. It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me." John 6:44-45

I agree, we need a personal invitation from the Father to come to his son. The Father is the one who taught his son everything he knows.

See also Jeremiah 31:34 which is referenced in Hebrews 8:10-11 in association with the New Covenant.

Yes, this speaks about the conditions that will be enjoyed in the "new earth" (redeemed human subjects of the kingdom) who are ruled by the "new heavens" (God's kingdom with Jesus at the helm.)
This is also described by the apostle John in his Revelation....

Revelation 21:1-5:
"Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth; for the first heaven and the first earth passed away, and there is no longer any sea. 2 And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, made ready as a bride adorned for her husband. 3 And I heard a loud voice from the throne, saying, “Behold, the tabernacle of God is among men, and He will dwell among them, and they shall be His people, and God Himself will be among them, 4 and He will wipe away every tear from their eyes; and there will no longer be any death; there will no longer be any mourning, or crying, or pain; the first things have passed away.”

5 And He who sits on the throne said, “Behold, I am making all things new.” And He *said, “Write, for these words are faithful and true.”


What wonderful prospects we have for the future if we just obey the teachings of the Christ...all of them, not just the convenient ones.