God will not give His glory to another, or will He?

[genuineoriginal]

What is wrong with your memory?

Hebrews 9:11 KJV
(11) But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building;

Christ (the Messiah) is one role, high priest in another. Two roles, one person.

Please post the scriptures that has Jesus in the role of Christ carrying on a conversation with Jesus in the role of high priest.

You cannot honestly say you have not seen different roles presented in scripture. There's no point in proceeding upon any point when you conveniently forget the most basic items which we already had agreement.

Here is why I am unable to accept your idea that God the Father and the Son of God are two different roles for the same being:

A single being in one role that is speaking to himself in a different role is either insane or is play-acting.
A being that is insane or is play-acting cannot be trusted to be speaking the truth.

If God in one role is telling Himself "You are my Son", then He is either insane or He is play-acting, therefore He cannot be trusted to be speaking the truth.

If God is telling another being "You are my Son", then there are two beings, God and His Son, and both can be trusted to be speaking the truth.

 

[genuineoriginal]

Have you never read the following about the Lord Jesus?:

"Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men" (Phil.2:5-7).​

The Lord Jesus was made flesh and served the Father by doing the will of the Father.

Yes.

Now it is your time to answer my question. Is it just God who is the Alpha and the Omega and the beginning and the end?

If the Lord Jesus served the Father, then the Lord Jesus is not the Father.
What you do about Jesus apparently claiming titles that God also claims is up to you.

 

[Rosenritter]

Seems like you like to read into scripture what it doesn't actually say.

God has never promised to protect the translations of His words to guard them against changes.
Simply comparing the translations we currently have prove that man can change the words of God.

Which translation is preserving the words of God?
The one that says "His ways are always grievous" or the one that says "His ways are always prospering"?

Psalm 10:4-5 KJV 4 The wicked, through the pride of his countenance, will not seek after God: God is not in all his thoughts. 5 His ways are always grievous; thy judgments are far above out of his sight: as for all his enemies, he puffeth at them.​

Psalm 10:4-5 NKJV 4 The wicked in his proud countenance does not seek God; God is in none of his thoughts. 5 His ways are always prospering; Your judgments are far above, out of his sight;​

The first one that says that the ways of the wicked are always grievous is the one that is correct and preserved the meaning.

 

[Rosenritter]

It is not a conspiracy theory, it is reality. Bible translators write what they understand the verses to say. No translator can translate the Bible without altering verses to read closer to the doctrines they believe than to doctrines they don't believe.

No translator can possibly translate correctly ... because with God some things are impossible?

Luke 18:27 KJV
(27) And he said, The things which are impossible with men are possible with God.

There has to be evidence in order for this argument to work.


When there are differences between the Textus Receptus (TR), the Majority Text (MT) and the Novum Testamentum Graece (CT), which one(s) of them has it right?

The Textus Receptus would be correct.

1 John 5:7-8 TR: For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness on earth: the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three agree as one. MT/CT: For there are three that bear witness: the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three agree as one.​

Do we believe the older manuscripts or the newer ones that appear to have been altered?

You believe the text that has grammatical agreement with the Greek and that is attested to its accuracy by other witnesses. Are you wanting to speak in the general sense of textual criticism, which would lead into why the majority readings of the Textus Receptus are superior to contradictory witnesses of one or two abandoned documents? Or would you rather like to talk about 1 John 5:7, one of the few minority readings of the Received Text (albeit with extremely strong support?)

Spoiler

By the way, if you believe that the "oldest and most reliable manuscripts" have never been altered, then you haven't ever taken a physical look at what they're referring to by the alleged "oldest and most reliable manuscripts." Cross-outs and alterations cover the pages of Vaticanus and Sinaicatus.

Do we believe according to the way the Christians did in the first three centuries (Subordinationism) or according to the way Christians did after much debate (Trinitarianism)?

But if you cannot trust the scripture to be preserved and translated accurately, how to you justify trusting that these "Subordinationists" were free from prejudicial bias? That's another step or two removed, and God never issued anything remotely resembling that any particular group was free from error. To the contrary, "Let God be true, but every man a liar." (Romans 3:4)

Genuine, where would this writing fit based on your timeline theory?

It is proved that Jesus was the name of God in the book of Exodus.

"Moreover, in the book of Exodus we have also perceived that the name of God Himself which, He says, was not revealed to Abraham or to Jacob, was Jesus, and was declared mysteriously through Moses. Thus it is written: "And the Lord spake to Moses, Say to this people, Behold, I send My angel before thy face, to keep thee in the way, to bring thee into the land which I have prepared for thee. Give heed to Him, and obey Him; do not disobey Him. For He will not draw back from you; for My name is in Him. Now understand that He who led your fathers into the land is called by this name Jesus, and first called Auses (Oshea). For if you shall understand this, you shall likewise perceive that the name of Him who said to Moses, "for My name is in Him", was Jesus. For, indeed, He was also called Israel, and Jacob's name was changed to this also. Now Isaiah shows that those prophets who are sent to publish tidings from God are called His angels and apostles. For Isaiah says in a certain place, "Send me. And that the prophet whose name was changed, Jesus [Joshua], was strong and great, is manifest to all. If, then, we know that God revealed Himself in so many forms to Abraham, and to Jacob, and to Moses, how are we at a loss, and do not believe that, according to the will of the Father of all things, it was possible for Him to be born man of the Virgin, especially after we have such Scriptures, from which it can be plainly perceived that He became so according to the will of the Father?"

Even if you cannot guess exactly, would you narrow it down for us please? Is that from the first three centuries when Christians were allegedly Subordinationists? Is this author using scripture that was corrupted by "Trinitarian translators?"

 

[Jerry Shugart]

If the Lord Jesus served the Father, then the Lord Jesus is not the Father.
What you do about Jesus apparently claiming titles that God also claims is up to you.

Before He came to the earth He was in the form of God:

"Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men" (Phil.2:5-7).​

What does that mean to you?

So you do believe that the Lord Jesus is not God even though He said the following about Himself?

"And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last" (Rev.22:12).​

 

[genuineoriginal]

Before He came to the earth He was in the form of God:

"Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men" (Phil.2:5-7).​

What does that mean to you?

Is it news to you that a son is similar to his father?

like father, like son Said when a son takes after his father in mannerisms, interests, behavior, etc Fathers and sons resemble each other, and sons tend to do what their fathers did before them. a son's character or behaviour can be expected to resemble that of his father. The Latin version of this expression is qualis pater, talis filius . The female equivalent, like mother, like daughter , is based on Ezekiel 16:44: ‘Behold, every one that useth proverbs shall use this proverb against thee, saying, As is the mother, so is the daughter’. a child is similar to its father/mother in a particular way

​

Did you notice the following verse does not say God exalted Himself and gave Himself a name above all names?

Philippians 2:8 9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:​

So you do believe that the Lord Jesus is not God even though He said the following about Himself?

"And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last" (Rev.22:12).​

Could this be the name above all names that Jesus was given by God in fulfillment of Philippians 2:8?

 

[Rosenritter]

Before He came to the earth He was in the form of God:

"Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men" (Phil.2:5-7).​

What does that mean to you?

So you do believe that the Lord Jesus is not God even though He said the following about Himself?

"And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last" (Rev.22:12).​

I haven't heard anything from Genuine about whether Jesus existed before the virgin birth or not. It would be good to get an answer on that.

 

[genuineoriginal]

I haven't heard anything from Genuine about whether Jesus existed before the virgin birth or not. It would be good to get an answer on that.

You probably missed it.

My beliefs are classical (1st-3rd century) Subordinationism.

Subordinationism Oxford dictionary of the Christian Church Subordinationism, according to Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, "regards either the Son as subordinate to the Father or the Holy Spirit as subordinate to both. It is a characteristic tendency in much Christian teaching of the first three centuries, and is a marked feature of such otherwise orthodox Fathers as" Justin Martyr and Irenaeus. Reasons for this tendency include: "the stress on the absolute unity and transcendence of God the Father, which is common to all forms of theology using the existing categories of Greek thought "the fear of compromising monotheism "the implications of one strand of biblical teaching" represented by John 14:28” By the 4th century, subordinationism was "regarded as clearly heretical in its denial of the co-equality of the Three Persons of the Trinity. The issue was most explicitly dealt with in the conflict with Arius and his followers, who held that the Son was God not by nature but by grace and was created by the Father, though in a creation outside time." Subordination of the Holy Spirit became more prominent in the 4th century Pneumatomachi. The second ecumenical council, Constantinople I, condemned subordinationism in 381. The Westminster Handbook to Patristic Theology Subordinationism. The term is a common retrospective concept used to denote theologians of the early church who affirmed the divinity of the Son or Spirit of God, but conceived it somehow as a lesser form of divinity than that of the Father. It is a modern concept that is so vague that is that it does not illuminate much of the theology of the pre-Nicene teachers, where a subordinationist presupposition was widely and unreflectively shared.​

​

I believe that Jesus was 100% divine and 0% human as the Son of God (not God Himself) before the incarnation, 100% human and 0% divine during the incarnation, and is currently a 100% divine human after the ascension.

 

[Rosenritter]

Is it news to you that a son is similar to his father?

like father, like son Said when a son takes after his father in mannerisms, interests, behavior, etc Fathers and sons resemble each other, and sons tend to do what their fathers did before them. a son's character or behaviour can be expected to resemble that of his father. The Latin version of this expression is qualis pater, talis filius . The female equivalent, like mother, like daughter , is based on Ezekiel 16:44: ‘Behold, every one that useth proverbs shall use this proverb against thee, saying, As is the mother, so is the daughter’. a child is similar to its father/mother in a particular way

​

​

Congratulations Genuine. Now you have explained why the analogy and names of "Father" and "Son" are used.

Did you notice the following verse does not say God exalted Himself and gave Himself a name above all names?

Philippians 2:8 9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:​

I think you missed something here. The name which is above every other name is the name of God. Alpha and Omega, the LORD Almighty, LORD of Hosts, King of Kings and Lord of Lords, first and the last, beginning and the end. There is no other name above all names.

 

[Rosenritter]

You probably missed it.

If you believe that Jesus was divine before the incarnation, then why do you protest that the scripture is corrupt when it tells us that he created all things? Or do you mean "divine" to mean "Not God?"

 

[genuineoriginal]

Congratulations Genuine. Now you have explained why the analogy and names of "Father" and "Son" are used.

Do you think all words that describe the relationship between two beings are analogies?

I think you missed something here.

Not that I can see.

The name which is above every other name is the name of God. Alpha and Omega, the LORD Almighty, LORD of Hosts, King of Kings and Lord of Lords, first and the last, beginning and the end. There is no other name above all names.

Do you have a problem with God giving His Son the titles that He alone had before He gave them to His Son?

 

[genuineoriginal]

If you believe that Jesus was divine before the incarnation, then why do you protest that the scripture is corrupt when it tells us that he created all things?

Jesus was present at the creation, but Jesus says it is God that did the creating.

Mark 13:19 19 [JESUS]For in those days shall be affliction, such as was not from the beginning of the creation which God created unto this time, neither shall be.[/JESUS]​

Or do you mean "divine" to mean "Not God?"

Why would you think "divine" can only refer to only one being?

Exodus 18:11 11 Now I know that the LORD is greater than all gods: for in the thing wherein they dealt proudly he was above them.​

1 Chronicles 16:25 25 For great is the Lord, and greatly to be praised: he also is to be feared above all gods.​

Psalm 95:3 3 For the Lord is a great God, and a great King above all gods.​

Daniel 11:36 36 And the king shall do according to his will; and he shall exalt himself, and magnify himself above every god, and shall speak marvellous things against the God of gods, and shall prosper till the indignation be accomplished: for that that is determined shall be done.​

 

[Right Divider]

Jesus was present at the creation, but Jesus says it is God that did the creating.

Mark 13:19 19 [JESUS]For in those days shall be affliction, such as was not from the beginning of the creation which God created unto this time, neither shall be.[/JESUS]​

Well ... since Jesus is God, what's the problem?

 

[Rosenritter]

Do you think all words that describe the relationship between two beings are analogies?

That's a trick question - there are not "two beings." But if you would amend that for "to describe the relationship between the Father and the Son" then I would probably say yes. If you have specific examples I could answer specifically.

Do you have a problem with God giving His Son the titles that He alone had before He gave them to His Son?

The Son already had the right to those titles by inheritance, he had those titles before the world began. He put aside those titles and that glory for the purpose of walking among us manifest in the flesh.

John 17:5 KJV
(5) And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.

Hebrews 1:1-4 KJV
(1) God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
(2) Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;
(3) Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;
(4) Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.

That glory is the brightness of the glory of God, and it belonged to Jesus as he possessed with the Father before the world was.

Which brings us back to our opening topic statement: will God give his glory to another?

Isaiah 42:5-8 KJV
(5) Thus saith God the LORD, he that created the heavens, and stretched them out; he that spread forth the earth, and that which cometh out of it; he that giveth breath unto the people upon it, and spirit to them that walk therein:
(6) I the LORD have called thee in righteousness, and will hold thine hand, and will keep thee, and give thee for a covenant of the people, for a light of the Gentiles;
(7) To open the blind eyes, to bring out the prisoners from the prison, and them that sit in darkness out of the prison house.
(8) I am the LORD: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise to graven images.

If Jesus made claim to possession of the glory of God the Father before the world was, assuming he was familiar with these scriptures, he was also identifying himself as the LORD.

Isaiah 48:11-12 KJV
(11) For mine own sake, even for mine own sake, will I do it: for how should my name be polluted? and I will not give my glory unto another.
(12) Hearken unto me, O Jacob and Israel, my called; I am he; I am the first, I also am the last.

And by now we all know where "the first and the last" leads.

Revelation 1:17-18 KJV
(17) And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as dead. And he laid his right hand upon me, saying unto me, Fear not; I am the first and the last:
(18) I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.

Jesus claimed the glory of God of which it is said he will not give to another, and even in that same context he claimed the names and titles which God said he will not give to another. Unless Jesus was totally unfamiliar with these scriptures, he said these words for specific meaning, for the purpose of identification.

 

[Rosenritter]

Jesus was present at the creation, but Jesus says it is God that did the creating.

John and Paul tell us that Jesus created all things. You can argue against the wording all day, but it's clear enough for everyone else who reads.

Why would you think "divine" can only refer to only one being?

Because we are presumably speaking in a Christian context, and thus "divine" refers to the True God, not Neptune, or Diana, or Odin. Additionally, when we speak of "divinity" in this context, we speak to identity, not merely "created by" as that designation would be rendered mundane and worthless as then every created star, planet, angel, man, tree, and bug would be "divine" under that rendering.

Speak plainly please. Don't say "Jesus was divine" is you are rendering him less than God.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Is it news to you that a son is similar to his father?

Since before He came to the earth He was in the form of God then He is God.

 

[genuineoriginal]

That's a trick question - there are not "two beings."

Sure there are.

 

[genuineoriginal]

Because we are presumably speaking in a Christian context, and thus "divine" refers to the True God, not Neptune, or Diana, or Odin.

You do realize that the modern Christian context is not the same as was understood by the believers during the time the New Testament was written, right?
During the time the New Testament was written, each culture had their own gods.
The Jewish culture was different from other cultures because the Jews had only one God, but the other cultures had many gods.

Additionally, when we speak of "divinity" in this context, we speak to identity, not merely "created by" as that designation would be rendered mundane and worthless as then every created star, planet, angel, man, tree, and bug would be "divine" under that rendering.

If we limit "divinity" to only the modern Christian beliefs, we are not treating the scriptures right.
The word "divinity" does not refer to identity, neither does the word god.

The creation in the Bible is the creation of the physical universe and does not include the creation or non-creation of the other divine beings that scripture speaks about.
There is no way to say any star, planet, man, tree, or bug is divine, because each of those are part of the creation of the physical universe and as such cannot be divine.

Are angels divine?
Probably, they do not appear to have been created at the creation of the physical universe and they are not constrained by physical laws.

Scripture indicates that Jesus is in the hierarchy of divine beings somewhere between God the Father (at the very top) and the angels.

 

[genuineoriginal]

Speak plainly please. Don't say "Jesus was divine" is you are rendering him less than God.

There is no plainer way to say it.
God is the ultimate divine being who created the heaven and the earth.
God is not the only divine being.
God also has a Son, who is also a divine being.
God is called The Father by the Son of God.
The Son of God says that The Father is greater than He is.

The Bible also speaks of other sons of God (divine beings) and other gods (divine beings).

Jesus is different from the other sons of God mentioned in the Bible because Jesus is the only begotten Son of God.
Jesus calls the Father the only true God.

There are several ways to deal with the testimony of scripture that there are other sons of God and other gods.
The modern Christian context is to ignore those verses because mainstream Christianity teaches that there are no other gods and that God really doesn't have a Son.

 

[Rosenritter]

The creation in the Bible is the creation of the physical universe and does not include the creation or non-creation of the other divine beings that scripture speaks about. There is no way to say any star, planet, man, tree, or bug is divine, because each of those are part of the creation of the physical universe and as such cannot be divine.

Are angels divine?
Probably, they do not appear to have been created at the creation of the physical universe and they are not constrained by physical laws.

Scripture indicates that Jesus is in the hierarchy of divine beings somewhere between God the Father (at the very top) and the angels.

Ezekiel 28:13-14 KJV
(13) Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone was thy covering, the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold: the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created.
(14) Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee so: thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire.

The angels are created beings. The loyal angels tell us that only God is to be worshiped, only the rebellious angels accept ask for or accept worship from others.

Revelation 22:8-9 KJV
(8) And I John saw these things, and heard them. And when I had heard and seen, I fell down to worship before the feet of the angel which shewed me these things.
(9) Then saith he unto me, See thou do it not: for I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren the prophets, and of them which keep the sayings of this book: worship God.

Hebrews 1:6 KJV
(6) And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him.