Jesus is God

[7djengo7]

I have one sovereign lord, namely the Father and one Lord, namely Jesus Christ, who is a lord of lords.

Here, devil-led NWL is flat out telling us that he has at least two lords ("lords many"), despite the fact that Paul, in 1 Corinthians 8:5-6, writes:

For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,)
But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.

NWL, being a Bible-despising anti-Christ, refuses to abide by what Paul teaches. NWL declares that, to NWL, there are at least two lords, whereas Paul declares that, to Paul (and to all Christians (NWL is not a Christian)), there is no more than one lord.

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again 7djengo7,

Here, devil-led NWL is flat out telling us that he has at least two lords ("lords many"), despite the fact that Paul, in 1 Corinthians 8:5-6, writes:
NWL, being a Bible-despising anti-Christ, refuses to abide by what Paul teaches. NWL declares that, to NWL, there are at least two lords, whereas Paul declares that, to Paul (and to all Christians (NWL is not a Christian)), there is no more than one lord.

I decided to have a quick look at this thread that has now run to 471 pages. My thought was that possibly this issue had been resolved by now, but even this Post shows that your position and language has not changed.

The following speaks of Yahweh, God the Father as the Lord of heaven and earth. In Psalm 8 David addresses Yahweh as “our Lord” and Jesus is speaking to God, His Father when quoting and alluding to Psalm 8:1-3:
Psalm 8:1–3 (KJV): 1 O LORD our Lord, how excellent is thy name in all the earth! who hast set thy glory above the heavens. 2 Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings hast thou ordained strength because of thine enemies, that thou mightest still the enemy and the avenger. 3 When I consider thy heavens, the work of thy fingers, the moon and the stars, which thou hast ordained;

Matthew 11:25–26 (KJV): 25 At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes. 26 Even so, Father: for so it seemed good in thy sight.


The following distinguishes between the One God Yahweh, God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ, David’s Lord:
Psalm 110:1 (KJV): The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.

Acts 2:32–36 (KJV): 32 This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses. 33 Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear. 34 For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself, The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, 35 Until I make thy foes thy footstool. 36 Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[NWL]

No way would the Bible say that Satan is the First and the Last.

If you can show where Satan is called the First and the Last, then what you say wouldn’t be a gross lie.

The bible doesn't directly refer to Satan being the F&L but he is the first and the last of something as many people are of many things. Hence the reason I'm waiting for you to answer my question of "is Satan the first adversary of God and the last adversary of God, or better put is Satan the 'first and the last adversary of God'?"

What does Jesus say about glory?
What about Jesus and glory? Do you want to explain who the Father shares His glory with, Jesus?
That is more proof Jesus is God.

I don't know why don't you tell me what Jesus says about glory, and yes, please explain to me who the Father shares his glory with. Since you equate someone having the Fathers glory to them being God please explain why the angel when appearing to shepherds had the glory of God in Luke 2:9, "Suddenly the angel of the Lord stood before them, and God's glory gleamed around them", I would naturally claim that since the Angel was sent by God he possessed Gods glory as he was delivering a message on behalf of God, but since you equate Gods glory as ONLY belonging to God please explain how this angel isn't God. Explain why in Revelation when the holt city Jerusalem was coming down from God that it had the glory of God, was this city God itself?

Jesus stated he was given glory by the Father and that he gives this same glory to his followers, since followers of Jesus were given God's glory I'll assume that you too worship them as God no!? "I have given them the glory that you have given me, in order that they may be one just as we are one" (John 17:22). Even in 2 Cor 2:18, it states "And we, who with unveiled faces all reflect the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into His image with intensifying glory". ONCE AGAIN, your arguments are NOT consistent with what the bible teaches.

When it states God does not share his glory this is always in relation to false Gods. God does share his glory with others if it glorifies him. For example, God sent Jesus to do his works, Jesus was glorified and in turn, the father was glorified because of him, this does not detract that God does not share his glory, as ultimately, anything done in his name ultimately glorifies the Father. Hence why when all knees bend to Jesus it isn't to Jesus glory but to the Father glory. "so that in the name of Jesus every knee should bend—of those in heaven and those on earth and those under the ground— and every tongue should openly acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father. (Phil 2:10,11)

God’s names are not used flippantly as you use them.

I clearly showed how God being called the F&L was different to Jesus being the first and the last by the context, you have not shown me otherwise but only made an empty-statement.

It makes no difference.

The other translations make a heap of difference, they change the understanding of the verse from Jesus having the ability to raise himself from the dead to Jesus having the right to live again. You have made another empty statement that proves nothing. Once again, Jesus entrusted his spirit/life to the Father and the Father raised him on the third day, it makes no sense for Jesus to do or say he was entrusting his spirit with the Father if he himself was raising it up again..

Who was Jesus speaking to when he said "Father, into your hands I entrust my spirit" before dying?

What do you think? He is dying in the flesh.

You have failed to answer the question and are trying to create a strawman by asking me a question instead of answering my question, answer the question.

Who was Jesus speaking to when he said, "Father, into your hands I entrust my spirit" before dying?

I proved it with scripture. You are defiant of the truth. I gave you scriptures that plainly say GOD, the ONLY King of kings, the ONLY Lord of lords…and it is said of Jesus. So that proves the Father and Jesus are one and the same.

No, you showed me 1 Tim 6:5 which states God is the only sovereign, it then goes onto list other epithets of God such as King of kings and lord of lords, what more I asked you to show me where he is called "Sovereign Lord" (Deut 3:23), "Almighty God" (Exo 6:3), "God of Gods" (Joshua 22:22), the "True God" (1 Kings 8:60), the "One God" (1 Cor 8:6), the "only true God" (John 17:3), you couldn't show me a single time Jesus was ever called any of these things, you attempted to show Jesus was called "Almighty God" by Isaiah 9:6 which calls Jesus a "Mighty God", this, of course, is not an example as a mighty God expresses something completely different to "Almighty God", you can have hundreds of Mighty God but there would still only be one "Almighty God", the terms are not interchangeable. You did the same with "Sovereign Lord", you tried to use Jesus being called "Lord of Lords" as proof Jesus is called the "Sovereign Lord" despite "lord of Lords" not being the same term as "Sovereign Lord".

Again you fail to answer my simple questions:

Does Jesus have the title "Sovereign Lord" anywhere in the Bible, yes or no?

Does Jesus have the title "Almighty God" anywhere in the Bible, yes or no?

 

[NWL]

How does any of the above answer "does God take the scroll from his own hand?"

I've explained it to you and now you are going to badger like an out of control money or a little child.

I'm sorry but stating "There are three, and the three are one. One means ‘the same’" does not answer "if God take the scroll from his own hand?". Since you refuse to directly answer the question I've asked over and over again am I correct in saying that by you saying "There are three, and the three are one. One means ‘the same’" you believe God takes the scroll from his own hand? Am I correct or incorrect?

Are you daft? I've been telling you how they are one and the same, so how do you ever get to ask me if they are separate?

God the Father is Spirit and lives in heaven and at the same time He came as a man in the flesh and those are two who are one and the same but one as a Father and one as a Son.

Again, you are clearly avoiding answering the question directly as by answering directly will make you look the fool. You can't directly say "the lamb who is the one sitting on the throne walks up the one sitting on the throne who is also himself and takes the scroll out of the right hand of the one sitting on the throne, despite him being the one sitting on the throne. Instead you result in saying "God the Father is Spirit and lives in heaven and at the same time He came as a man in the flesh and those are two who are one and the same but one as a Father and one as a Son" as if this somehow answers if you believe Jesus walked up to the one sitting on the throne and took the scroll from him despite him being the one on the throne according to you. You are embarrsed by your own mental gymnatics that you have to apply and run from admitting it directly.

As you imply you're agreeing what I'm posing in my previous question, when the verse states the lamb/Jesus "came forward" to the one of the throne and "took it out of the right hand of the One seated on the throne" how is this possible if Jesus is the one sitting on the throne? I understand you believe they are one and the same, but as you believe God is one how is it possible Jesus walks up to himself and takes something out of his own hand if he is one being?

(Revelation 5:1,6-8) And I saw in the right hand of the One seated on the throne a scroll written on both sides, sealed tight with seven seals... And I saw standing in the midst of the throne...a lamb...At once he came forward and took it out of the right hand of the One seated on the throne.."

You calling me a fool is a dangerous thing for you, since I speak the truth.

Lol, your answer literally makes no sense according to the text, do you actually think that people who read what you're saying are going to think for one second you're making any sense whatsoever, you can't even answer and admit your own beliefs directly as you're embarrassed by what they imply. Jesus walked up to himself and took the scroll out of his own hand, you actually expect people to buy that this is what John was trying to convey, complete and utter absurdity.

Jesus says the Father and his hands are the same.

This scripture proves that Jesus made the earth. There are also scriptures that show Jesus and the Father have the same hands.

Isaiah 64:8 Yet, O LORD, you are our Father. We are the clay, you are the potter; we are all the work of your hand.

You have previously failed to address my questions to you about who created the world through who, I will simply raise this point again. Again Jesus has certain names and attributes of the Father as the Father did things through Jesus, Jesus is God's agent. Hebrews 1:1, 2 states in regards to the Father "Long ago God spoke to our forefathers...Now at the end of these days he has spoken to us by means of his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe", the verse talking about the creation of the universe states the Father made it through his son, 1 Cor 8:6 states "the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ,through whom all things came", this parallels what Hebrews 1:1,2 states about the Father, that he created the universe through his Son, that things are from the Father and through Jesus.

So I do not deny Jesus created the world, I just understand it according to the bible that confirms it was the Father who made the world through Jesus, that it is the Father who is the source and ultimate creator, not Jesus, as Jesus is merely an agent God used to create the world through. So again I ask, how is it possible that the Father created the world through his son if the son is the Father who became the son upon coming to earth?

Whose hand?

You who say Jesus is not God the Father, whose hand?

Isaiah 48:12 Listen to me, Jacob,
Israel, whom I have called:
I am he;
I am the first and I am the last.
13 My own hand laid the foundations of the earth,
and my right hand spread out the heavens;
when I summon them,
they all stand up together.

John 10:28 I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one will snatch them out of my hand. 29 My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all ; no one can snatch them out of my Father’s hand. 30 I and the Father are one.”

Notice that Jesus says no one can snatch them out of his hand, and then he says no one can snatch them out of his Father's hand.

This is caveman's understanding of the verse my friend, Jesus is hardly implying he is the Father by John 10:28 as he states things like "My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all", if Jesus and the Father being one is in relation to identity then why would he state the Father is "greater than all" which would include himself, if he was the Father, Jesus elsewhere made it clear the Father was greater than him (John 14:28. Also for the Father to give something to Jesus they would both have to be separate persons and existing separately, how else could the Father do the action of giving unless the person Jesus was existing separate from him. People unable to being snatched out of the hand of the Father and also of Jesus was figurative language expressing the unionship of Jesus and the Father, Jesus being "one with the Father" was expressing they had the same aim and ultimate goal, it has nothing about identity. Hence the reason why in John 17:21 Jesus asks for all his followers to be one with him and the same way he and the Father are one, "just as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be in us".

Whose hand? They are one and the same.
They are one. 'One' means 'same'!

If your arguments are not consistent then they are not correct, if "one means the same" as you say then followers of Christ are also God since they are "one with him and Jesus". John 17:21 states "I want all of them to be one with each other, just as I am one with you and you are one with me. I also want them to be one with us", if Jesus says for followers to be one "just as" he was one with the Father and "'One' means 'same", according to you, then Jesus followers are also God. You can't have a rule that works only when you want it to work.

Those without understanding such as yourself have the truth hid from them for a reason. Jesus says he reveals himself to those who obey him. You prove there is something wrong with your relationship with God, just listen to how you talk to me. Your are rude and prideful.

I'm rude and prideful says the one that claims God is with him and has blinded me from the truth, rich!

I don't even read what you write when it has so much insult. Try to debate without the insults. I don't like spending time defending myself from a person such as yourself. Learn how to say things without the ignorant insults, monkey, child, waffler, foolish, etc.

Nowhere did I call you a monkey, do not try and make it seem like I did, I used the common phrase "monkey see monkey do" which relates to one copying someone without understanding why they're doing it and applied it to you, this is hardly me calling you a monkey. What's more, you stated "I've explained it to you and now you are going to badger like an out of control money or a little child" no doubt because you were offended at what I said to you, this makes you a hypocrite (try not to add the word hypocrite to your list), you can't knock me for using certain words or phrases to me and then turn around and use the same or worse expressions of them and then claim I'm being rude since you you've now sunk to the level you initially challenged which is hypocritical.

Waffle isn't an insult, its an expression to indicate your speaking/writing stuff which makes no sense. Rather than me say, "you're writing a lot which I believe doesn't add or take away from the conversation" I use a single word to express what would be a far longer sentence by the word "waffle", you're getting upset over nothing.

"Foolish" is another word that expresses someone is "lacking good sense or judgement", I have never called you a fool directly but simply stated it would be foolish to say x, y or z. It is a stretch to say I'm being rude when I say "it would be foolish of you to claim x, y or z", again, you're getting upset over nothing, we're all adults here, let's start acting like adults and not get upset over the most trivial of things.

Now let's get back to the point I was making before you accused me of all the things you did. Again, Rev 5:1 states "in the right hand of the One seated on the throne a scroll", then in v5,6 it states "a lamb...came forward and took it out of the right hand of the One seated on the throne". Therefore to ask you to confirm that by your beliefs of Jesus being the one sitting on the throne that the Lamb is taking the scroll out of his own hand. How is this folly when all I'm asking you to do is confirm what the text says according to your belief?

Even if you want to take out a scripture here and there, you still can't disprove the truth.

You blatantly ignored my question again and made a "nothing statement". Deal with what I said.

Do you agree with scholars that the "three in one" passage in 1 John 5:7 is spurious or do you go against what scholars say?

Again, on what basis should the verse [1 John 5:7] read the way you think it does?

Let's wait and see who is the one who actually goes against scholars...the cheek of it.

Let me refute this, I claim you are wrong because of "purple". Any disagreement with my answer I will claim is a bad debate tactic by you.

That is more waffling from you. Nothing you just said makes sense or has any truth to it. What you said is deceitful really.

Nope, just me showing how stupid it is to claim you've answered the questions when you cleary nowhere answered the question, answering a question by a statement of faith or doctrine that nowhere actually answers what is being asked is as a sufficient answer to my question as my answer of "purple" was to yours. I clearly answered and addressed your points with my answer of purple.

How many times are you going to keep saying that after you failed with it the first time?

You can't make up something that isn't in the Bible to try to prove biblical truth.

Well let's see, is Satan the first adversary of God and the last adversary of God, or better put, is Satan the 'first and the last adversary of God'?

Also, is Jesus Almighty God, and God of Gods?

No, I don't agree with that idiot reasoning. Jesus is called 'God', and you suggesting he isn't true is just wrong on many levels, since the Bible says there is ONLY ONE GOD who is the King of King and Lord of lords and the First and the Last. Those are things said about Jesus. Yet, you say Jesus doesn't have all the names of God because of the word 'true'. That is pathetic defiance of the truth

You fail to realize I could have used any one of the expressions, I simply chose "true God" out of the list. The term "true God" is a title, therefore for you to try and use the word game "Jesus is God" and is true, therefore he is a true God is bad reasoning plain and simple. The Angels are called Gods (Psalms 82:1, Ps 8:5), God's holy angels are also true are they not, therefore by your reasoning they are the true Gods of scripture too! No doubt such reasoning is incorrect. Regardless my point still stands, you claim Jesus has all the names/titles of God, I have shown this to be false, Jesus does not possess any of the ultimate or highest names of the Father, he is never called the "Sovereign Lord" (Deut 3:23), "Almighty God" (Exo 6:3), "God of Gods" (Joshua 22:22), the "True God" (1 Kings 8:60), the "One God" (1 Cor 8:6), the "only true God" (John 17:3) or the "Most High" (Ps 83:18). As I've said many times now you fail to acknowledge why or how Jesus came to be called the names and titles he has.

You say "I don't agree with that idiot reasoning" should I start making a list and try and excuse myself out of answering your questions by raising all the means things you've called me? It doesn't matter that you don't agree with me, it goes without saying you don't hence why we're in a discussion, what is more,
important is you can't express why my reasoning is idiot reasoning. You keep saying "there is ONLY ONE GOD who is the King of King and Lord of lords" yet you fail to realize NO SCRIPTURE states this, you tried and failed to prove this with 1 Tim 6:5 and I showed you that wasn't what the verse was expressing. Your whole theology is built around such scripture, including 1 John 5:7 that do not say the things you think they say.

 

[NWL]

I am aware that some saved ones go to the spiritual realm, how does this fact do to anything I have said?

No. All of the saved are in the spiritual realm.

So instead of actually explain what your point does to anything I said you repeat yourself. Gods original purpose for man, prior to him falling into sin, was to subdue the earth and live in it forever (see Gen 1:28), Rev 21:1 states there will be a "new heaven and a new earth", Jesus also stated "Happy are the meek, since they will inherit the earth", a psalmist once wrote "The righteous will possess the earth, And they will live forever on it". There are two prospects, some will go to heaven and rule over the earth (see Rev 5:9,10), and some will remain on the earth and live forever upon it as the scriptures clearly state. Therefore to claim "All of the saved are in the spiritual realm" is unscriptural and not taught in the bible, you have been fed lies.

This isn't a discussion on what happens in the lake of fire. No matter what your beliefs about the end times---no spirits have died or die.

Lol, of course you need to try and divert attention away from the meaning of the lake of fire, as it completely demolishes you claim that spirits cannot die. Once again it is outright dishonest to say that Satan who gets thrown in the lake of fire which the bible describes as the "second death" does not die. What you're in effect saying is despite the bible saying cleary showing Satan being put in a place where other people are clearly dead and no longer in existence, namely death itself, false prophets and the symbolic wild beast, when Satan is put there "he isn't dead", according to you. Pure dishonesty. Spirirt die! Unless you show me otherwise according to what I have shown my position can be the only one assumed to be correct. You asked me to prove it and I did, now either show me how I'm incorrect according to what I've showed, or show me where it states/expresses spirits are eternal.

Are the false prophets who are in the lake of fire also "not dead" according to you?

Soul sleepers also use a few scriptures in Psalms to try to say the spirits of humans die with the body. There is no scripture in Psalms that says that. One must remember too that the Old Testament people did not yet have the entire gospel. Ecclesiastes is about earthly man. Read what Solomon says in Ecclesiastes in 3:18-21 I also thought, “As for men, God tests them so that they may see that they are like the animals. 19Man’s fate is like that of the animals; the same fate awaits them both: As one dies, so dies the other. All have the same breath; man has no advantage over the animal. Everything is meaningless. 20 All go to the same place; all come from dust, and to dust all return. 21 Who knows if the spirit of man rises upward and if the spirit of the animal goes down into the earth?”

Did you read how Solomon says, “Who knows if the spirit of man rises upward and if the spirit of the animal goes down into the earth?” Solomon says, “Who knows…” Surely, the New Testament teaches us about what is spiritual and about what happens to us spiritually.

As I have said spirit is simply another term of the life-force of a man, even the verse you showed (Ecc 3:19-20) expresses this, in the translation you used it states "As one dies, so dies the other. All have the same breath; man has no advantage over the animal", the YLT renders the verse "as the death of this, so is the death of that; and one spirit is to all, and the advantage of man above the beast is nothing". The word there for "breath" in Greek is "wə-rū-aḥ" and means "spirit", its the same word used when Eccl 12:7 states in regards to when a man dies, "the dust returns to the ground it came from, and the spirit returns to God who gave it". Even in Ellicott's commentary of Ecc 3:19 it states "Breath.--The same word as 'spirit'." in regards to when breath is used in Ecc 3:19. So when its stating man and beast have but one breath/spirit it's saying they have one life. When the verse states "Who really knows whether the spirit of humans ascends upward" its referring to their life force, the breath of life that makes a man alive returns to God and his collective power from whence it came, it's not talking about a spirit person of a man returning to God to exist alongside him, hence the reason why Solomon writes "man has no superiority over animals, for everything is futile. 20 All are going to the same place.They all come from the dust, and they all are returning to the dust", if a man spirit does go to God and lives alongside him then man is superior and are NOT going to the same place as the beast as the verse states. Isaiah 25:19 doesn't say that those who are dead dwell in a feiry hell, or in heaven but rather "dwell in the dust!", just as all the other verses, such as Ecc 3:19-22, show that when a man dies he is simply dead.

The NT teaches the same thing as the old in regards to death, God said to Adam after he sinned "[because you] ate from the tree concerning which I gave you this command, ‘You must not eat from it...In the sweat of your face you will eat bread until you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken. For dust you are and to dust you will return.”, Adam's price for sinning was death, no more, no less. Likewise today the wages for sin is death, no more, no less, just like the OT, "For the wages sin pays is death" (Romans 6:23).

Well that's because it is about the physical body and not the spirit.

That is an assumption based on a false premise. You wrongly believe man has a spirit so you read the verse and presuppose that the verse is talking about man separate from his spirit, you assume "it is about the physical body and not the spirit" despite the verse-making no such distinction, take the bible for what it says and not what you want it to say. Nowhere does the verse say "his thoughts as a human perish" but this is what you assume it states, the verse states "on that very day his thoughts perish", as it makes no distinction we can ONLY take the verse to mean what it says, that the person, irrespective if he has a spirit that lives after death, thoughts perish on that day.

Jesus' Spirit was alive and he went to prison/hell in his Spirit where the spirits were of people who died even a long time ago. Then he raised himself..

You are ignorant of much, my friend. Jesus was made alive as a spirit but he certainly didn't go to hell and preach to the spirit of the dead, again, Hell is not a literal place, you are confused, as I will show.

1 Peter 3:18-20 states "He was put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit.  And in this state he went and preached to the spirits in prison, who had formerly been disobedient when God was patiently waiting in Noah’s day, while the ark was being constructed, in which a few people, that is, eight souls, were carried safely through the water." The "spirits" mentioned who were disobedient in Noah's day were not the wicked men of Noah's day but rather the wicked Angels/spirits who disobeyed God and fathered the Nephilim with the daughters of men. The "spirits in prison" Peter writes about are the same Angels he mentions in 2 Peter 2:4 where he states "Certainly God did not refrain from punishing the angels who sinned, but threw them into Tarʹta·rus, putting them in chains of dense darkness to be reserved for judgment. If he did not refrain from punishing an ancient world, but kept Noah, a preacher of righteousness, safe with seven others", Jude 6 also says about these angels "And the angels who did not keep their original position but forsook their own proper dwelling place, he has reserved with eternal bonds in dense darkness for the judgment of the great day". The Spirit Jesus preached to weren't in Hell, they were in a spiritual prison! The spirits weren't the spirits of men who had died but were Angels, you have much to learn, you do not know the basics!

Nowhere in the bible is it taught that if you do bad you go to hell or that hell is a literal place of torment. Please also note, Tarʹtarus is not Hell, nowhere in the bible is the Greek term ever linked with hell, death or Gehenna, it is the only time the bible uses the term, as the context shows, the Tarʹtarus is a spiritual prison.

Again, Jesus entrusted his spirit/life to the Father and the Father raised him.

It is simple---you say humans are NOT in the realm of heaven, but I give you scriptures that say we are.
You think your giving false information about the Bible was some kind of great explanation? You spoke error and I corrected you.
When a saved person lives in the spirit realm, they are not living just to please their bodies. They obey Jesus' teachings and that is how the Spirit lives through them and how they live through the Spirit.

I believe people who are dead are dead, some saved have been resurrected as spirits to heaven whilst others remain dead awaiting the resurrection to a new earth. There are many definitions of "spirit" in the bible, to name a few, the holy spirit relates to Gods spirit that he has, a spirit person as in an angel or demon, the spirit of man in regard to his life force and breath, the spirit of man in relation to his thoughts and feelings or mental disposition.

Man does not have a spirit but he can become a spirit, when a man dies his "spirit/breath goes out", as in, he died, that life-force goes back to God, this does not deny that Man can become a spirit, the two different definitions of the word are not to be confused. Nowhere have denied man can live as a spirit person in heaven, this has nothing to do with the spirit/breath that goes back to God as the definition of both verses/terms refer to two different spirits.

1 Corinthians 15:40,51-52 states in regards to human and spirit bodies "And there are heavenly bodies and earthly bodies; but the glory of the heavenly bodies is one sort, and that of the earthly bodies is a different sort... Look! I tell you a sacred secret: We will not all fall asleep in death, but we will all be changed, in a moment, in the blink of an eye, during the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised up incorruptible, and we will be changed.." Notice what Paul states, he states man will be changed, namely from a human to a spirit. If man already has a spirit then they are not changed, if a man already has a spirit and what is flesh dies, you don't change, you simply carry on what is left of you, whereas Paul states upon going to heaven you do not die but are changed from a human to a spirit in a blink of an eye. The verse uses language such "raised up a spiritual body", how can man if he already has a spiritual body have a spiritual body "rasied up", the type of language only makes sense if the verse is talking about a changing from one type of body to another which couldn't be true if man already has a spirit.

 

[God's Truth]

The bible doesn't directly refer to Satan being the F&L but he is the first and the last of something as many people are of many things. Hence the reason I'm waiting for you to answer my question of "is Satan the first adversary of God and the last adversary of God, or better put is Satan the 'first and the last adversary of God'?"

There are so many false denominations and doctrines because of the type of thing you are doing right now.
The Bible doesn’t call Satan the first and the last, so you can’t use it as an argument against Jesus who is the First and the Last.
You are not smarter than God.
There is a reason only God is called the First and the Last and why Jesus is called that.

I don't know why don't you tell me what Jesus says about glory, and yes, please explain to me who the Father shares his glory with. Since you equate someone having the Fathers glory to them being God

Isaiah 42:8 I am the LORD: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise to graven images.

Isaiah 43:11 I, yes I, am the LORD, and there is no Savior but Me.

Matthew 16:27 For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works.

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

2 Corinthians 4:6 For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.

If you read those scriptures, you should see that God is of course the greatest glory, and He will not give glory to another, but we can see too from the scriptures that Jesus comes in the glory of his Father, had the glory of God before the world was, and is the face of the glory of God, and how Jesus is the Savior, even though God says NO Savior but Me.
They are one and the same. Jesus is the physical of the Spirit, and is the Spirit.

please explain why the angel when appearing to shepherds had the glory of God in Luke 2:9, "Suddenly the angel of the Lord stood before them, and God's glory gleamed around them",

God’s glory gleamed around them---it does not say He shared His glory with them!

 

[NWL]

There are so many false denominations and doctrines because of the type of thing you are doing right now.
The Bible doesn’t call Satan the first and the last, so you can’t use it as an argument against Jesus who is the First and the Last.
You are not smarter than God.
There is a reason only God is called the First and the Last and why Jesus is called that.

With one breath you claim "The Bible doesn’t call Satan the first and the last, so you can’t use it as an argument against Jesus who is the First and the Last" and with your next breath you'll claim Jesus is Almighty God, Sovereign Lord, the true God and all the other titles that Jesus is never called and that only belong to the Father. You cannot claim Jesus is Almighty God despite the bible never calling him that and then lecture me on what I can or can not reason with according to scripture, another incident where you show hypocrisy.

I'm not claiming Satan is ever called the title the "first and the last", I'm simply expressing that he is the 'first and the last' adversary of God according to the overall message of the bible, again do you agree with this or not, is Satan the 'first and the last' adversary of God? Yes or no, stop avoiding the question and answer it.

Isaiah 42:8 I am the LORD: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise to graven images.

Isaiah 43:11 I, yes I, am the LORD, and there is no Savior but Me.

Matthew 16:27 For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works.

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

2 Corinthians 4:6 For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.

If you read those scriptures, you should see that God is of course the greatest glory, and He will not give glory to another, but we can see too from the scriptures that Jesus comes in the glory of his Father, had the glory of God before the world was, and is the face of the glory of God, and how Jesus is the Savior, even though God says NO Savior but Me.
They are one and the same. Jesus is the physical of the Spirit, and is the Spirit.

Isaiah 42:8 is in relation to God sharing his glory with false gods and false idols, that is the context. "I am Jehovah. That is my name; I give my glory to no one else, Nor my praise to graven images"

What you said about Isaiah 43:11 - Jesus is a savior as the Father is a savior through Jesus. Isaiah 43:11 was stated in the OT, but remember how despite God saying there were no saviors but him the scriptures name Ehud and Othenial as saviors? This was because God was the one who raised Ehud and othenial as savior and saved Israel through them. Likewise, the Father sent Jesus and saves through Jesus.

What you said about Matthew 16:27 - Jesus came in the Fathers glory the same way the angel in Luke 2:9 came in his fathers glory, the same way new Jerusalem descended from heaven with the Father's glory, the same way followers of Christ have the father glory, nothing states that Jesus, the angel or the city was the Father.

What you said about John 17:5 - Jesus had his own glory when existing alongside God, what does this prove or disprove?

What you said about 2 Cor 4:6 - Jesus is the reflection of Gods glory, this is precisely what Hebrews 1:3 states "He is the reflection of God’s glory", Jesus reflects the father's glory, the father reflects no ones glory, Jesus does, therefore he is not the Father. The same way Jesus followers reflect like mirrors the glory of God is the same way Jesus himself and his face reflects the glory of God.

God’s glory gleamed around them---it does not say He shared His glory with them!

Lool how low you have sunk my friend, an angel of God appears to shepherds with text saying "Gods glory gleamed all around them" when he appears and this ISN'T a case of an angel having the glory of God, it truly is saddening you'd stoop so low to ignore what is so plain in front of you. The angel had the glory of God, its plain to see.

You failed to mention anything about new Jerusalem having the glory of God, was this city God, I thought God does not share his glory with anyone?

Why does God allow humans to have his glory, 2 Cor 3:18 states "So our faces are not covered. They show the bright glory of the Lord, as the Lord's Spirit makes us more and more like our glorious Lord"

John 17:22 states "I have given them the glory that you [Father] have given me", since you've claim Jesus having the Father's glory makes him God, do followers of christ having God's glory in John 17:22 make them God, if your answer is no then explain why?

Again you fail to realize the simple context of scripture, when scripture states God does not share his glory this is in relation to sharing his glory with false gods and idols, it is not in relation to sharing his glory to his son and his followers since they are all in union with him. If God allows someone to reflect his glory the does not take away from him, rather any praise directed at that person is praise to God, hence why we find passages such as "I tell you the truth, anyone who welcomes my messenger is welcoming me, and anyone who welcomes me is welcoming the Father who sent me. (John 13:20). The same principle of receiving can relate to praise, hence why bending the knee to Jesus equates to giving glory to the Father since it is the Father who has shared his glory among all who worship him when he allows.

 

[God's Truth]

I would naturally claim that since the Angel was sent by God he possessed Gods glory as he was delivering a message on behalf of God,

You accused me of assuming things in the Bible, but it is you who does that.

but since you equate Gods glory as ONLY belonging to God please explain how this angel isn't God. Explain why in Revelation when the holt city Jerusalem was coming down from God that it had the glory of God, was this city God itself?

Are you saying you don’t believe that?

Jesus stated he was given glory by the Father and that he gives this same glory to his followers, since followers of Jesus were given God's glory I'll assume that you too worship them as God no!? "I have given them the glory that you have given me, in order that they may be one just as we are one" (John 17:22). Even in 2 Cor 2:18, it states "And we, who with unveiled faces all reflect the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into His image with intensifying glory". ONCE AGAIN, your arguments are NOT consistent with what the bible teaches.

It is because of Jesus that we are reconciled to God in this way.
It proves Jesus is God. We are not God because we don’t do the saving, only Jesus does.
We can only have glory through Jesus.

"But he that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord. For not he that commendeth himself is approved, but whom the Lord commendeth . . . Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God."
1 Corinthians 10:17-18, 31, KJV

When it states God does not share his glory this is always in relation to false Gods. God does share his glory with others if it glorifies him. For example, God sent Jesus to do his works, Jesus was glorified and in turn, the father was glorified because of him, this does not detract that God does not share his glory, as ultimately, anything done in his name ultimately glorifies the Father. Hence why when all knees bend to Jesus it isn't to Jesus glory but to the Father glory. "so that in the name of Jesus every knee should bend—of those in heaven and those on earth and those under the ground— and every tongue should openly acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father. (Phil 2:10,11)

You have a few problems with what you say.
One problem is that it is ONLY to Jesus, and not to others like you claim.
Another problem is that you aren’t considering the whole passage and you might be leaving it out because it goes against your beliefs.

Read this passage carefully:

Philippians 2
5Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: 6Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: 7But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: 8And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. 9Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: 10That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; 11And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.


Did you read how the scripture says Jesus was equal to God but made himself of no reputation and came in the likeness of men?
Jesus was equal to God but humbled himself and came as a man and even died on the cross. WHEREFORE God highly exalted him back to the same glory he had with God before the creation of the world. So at the NAME OF JESUS, every knee should bow. That gives God glory.

I clearly showed how God being called the F&L was different to Jesus being the first and the last by the context, you have not shown me otherwise but only made an empty-statement.

You are not speaking the truth about me.
I gave you scripture where in the same scripture God is called the only KING of kings and First and the Last. Jesus is called both those names. You were given many scriptures proving the truth. You keep claiming Jesus is another God, and another King, another Savior, and another first and last. NONSENSE, because the Bible says there is only one of those things.

 

[God's Truth]

Revelation 17:14 They will make war against the Lamb, and the Lamb will triumph over them, because He is Lord of lords and King of kings; and He will be accompanied by His called and chosen and faithful ones."

1 Timothy 6:15 which God will bring about in His own time--He who is blessed and the only Sovereign One, the King of kings and Lord of lords.


The scriptures say GOD, the ONLY SOVEREIGN One, the King of kings and Lord of lords.
Those are JESUS' names.

Jesus the Almighty God is the one coming:

It is the great day of God Almighty---it is the day of the Lord Jesus.

Revelation 16:13-15

¹³ And I saw three unclean spirits like frogs come out of the mouth of the dragon, and out of the mouth of the beast, and out of the mouth of the false prophet.

¹⁴ For they are the spirits of devils, working miracles, which go forth unto the kings of the earth and of the whole world, to gather them to the battle of that great day of God Almighty.

¹5 Behold, I come as a thief. Blessed is he that watcheth, and keepeth his garments, lest he walk naked, and they see his shame.


1 Corinthians 5:5
To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.


2 Corinthians 1:14
As also ye have acknowledged us in part, that we are your rejoicing, even as ye also are our's in the day of the Lord Jesus.

 

[God's Truth]

Read all these scriptures.
These scriptures all show that God will repay; that He will come; that He will reward; that He is the Savior that is coming to repay and reward.
These scriptures say that He is the Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, and the first and the last.
These scriptures say that he is the only one who searches minds and hearts.
That is what it says about Jesus too.

Psalm 28:4 Repay them according to their deeds, and for their works of evil. Repay them for what their hands have done; bring back on them what they deserve.

Isaiah 40:10 Behold, the Lord GOD comes with might, and His arm establishes His rule. His reward is with Him, and His recompense accompanies Him.

Isaiah 62:11 Behold, the LORD has proclaimed to the ends of the earth, "Say to Daughter Zion: See, your Savior comes! Look, His reward is with Him, and His recompense goes before Him."

Jeremiah 17:10 I, the LORD, search the heart; I test the mind to reward a man according to his way, by what his deeds deserve.

1 Kings 8:39 then hear in heaven Your dwelling place, and forgive and act and render to each according to all his ways, whose heart You know, for You alone know the hearts of all the sons of men,


Matthew 16:27 For the Son of Man will come in His Father's glory with His angels, and then He will repay each one according to what he has done.

Revelation 22:13 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.

Revelation 2:23 Then I will strike her children dead, and all the churches will know that I am the One who searches minds and hearts, and I will repay each of you according to your deeds.

Revelation 3:11 I am coming soon. Hold fast to what you have, so that no one will take your crown.

 

[God's Truth]

The other translations make a heap of difference, they change the understanding of the verse from Jesus having the ability to raise himself from the dead to Jesus having the right to live again. You have made another empty statement that proves nothing. Once again, Jesus entrusted his spirit/life to the Father and the Father raised him on the third day, it makes no sense for Jesus to do or say he was entrusting his spirit with the Father if he himself was raising it up again..

That is more of your assumptions and denial of the truth that plainly says Jesus was commanded to raise himself.
Now do you think Jesus disobeyed his Father?
Yes or no? Answer yes or no. Why won't you answer yes or no? You fail to answer the question.

John 10:18 No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.

You have failed to answer the question and are trying to create a strawman by asking me a question instead of answering my question, answer the question.

The only strawman is you saying it is a strawman.

Who was Jesus speaking to when he said, "Father, into your hands I entrust my spirit" before dying?

Jesus was speaking to God the Father in heaven.

No, you showed me 1 Tim 6:5 which states God is the only sovereign, it then goes onto list other epithets of God such as King of kings and lord of lords, what more I asked you to show me where he is called "Sovereign Lord" (Deut 3:23), "Almighty God" (Exo 6:3), "God of Gods" (Joshua 22:22), the "True God" (1 Kings 8:60), the "One God" (1 Cor 8:6), the "only true God" (John 17:3), you couldn't show me a single time Jesus was ever called any of these things, you attempted to show Jesus was called "Almighty God" by Isaiah 9:6 which calls Jesus a "Mighty God", this, of course, is not an example as a mighty God expresses something completely different to "Almighty God", you can have hundreds of Mighty God but there would still only be one "Almighty God", the terms are not interchangeable. You did the same with "Sovereign Lord", you tried to use Jesus being called "Lord of Lords" as proof Jesus is called the "Sovereign Lord" despite "lord of Lords" not being the same term as "Sovereign Lord".

I gave you scriptures that say the King of kings and only Savior.
There is only ONE King of kings, and only one Lord of lords, and God says only Savior.

Again you fail to answer my simple questions:
Does Jesus have the title "Sovereign Lord" anywhere in the Bible, yes or no?

Does Jesus have the title "Almighty God" anywhere in the Bible, yes or no?

I gave you the scriptures that prove it.

 

[God's Truth]

I'm sorry but stating "There are three, and the three are one. One means ‘the same’" does not answer "if God take the scroll from his own hand?". Since you refuse to directly answer the question I've asked over and over again am I correct in saying that by you saying "There are three, and the three are one. One means ‘the same’" you believe God takes the scroll from his own hand? Am I correct or incorrect?



Again, you are clearly avoiding answering the question directly as by answering directly will make you look the fool. You can't directly say "the lamb who is the one sitting on the throne walks up the one sitting on the throne who is also himself and takes the scroll out of the right hand of the one sitting on the throne, despite him being the one sitting on the throne. Instead you result in saying "God the Father is Spirit and lives in heaven and at the same time He came as a man in the flesh and those are two who are one and the same but one as a Father and one as a Son" as if this somehow answers if you believe Jesus walked up to the one sitting on the throne and took the scroll from him despite him being the one on the throne according to you. You are embarrsed by your own mental gymnatics that you have to apply and run from admitting it directly.

As you imply you're agreeing what I'm posing in my previous question, when the verse states the lamb/Jesus "came forward" to the one of the throne and "took it out of the right hand of the One seated on the throne" how is this possible if Jesus is the one sitting on the throne? I understand you believe they are one and the same, but as you believe God is one how is it possible Jesus walks up to himself and takes something out of his own hand if he is one being?

(Revelation 5:1,6-8) And I saw in the right hand of the One seated on the throne a scroll written on both sides, sealed tight with seven seals... And I saw standing in the midst of the throne...a lamb...At once he came forward and took it out of the right hand of the One seated on the throne.."



Lol, your answer literally makes no sense according to the text, do you actually think that people who read what you're saying are going to think for one second you're making any sense whatsoever, you can't even answer and admit your own beliefs directly as you're embarrassed by what they imply. Jesus walked up to himself and took the scroll out of his own hand, you actually expect people to buy that this is what John was trying to convey, complete and utter absurdity.



You have previously failed to address my questions to you about who created the world through who, I will simply raise this point again. Again Jesus has certain names and attributes of the Father as the Father did things through Jesus, Jesus is God's agent. Hebrews 1:1, 2 states in regards to the Father "Long ago God spoke to our forefathers...Now at the end of these days he has spoken to us by means of his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe", the verse talking about the creation of the universe states the Father made it through his son, 1 Cor 8:6 states "the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ,through whom all things came", this parallels what Hebrews 1:1,2 states about the Father, that he created the universe through his Son, that things are from the Father and through Jesus.

So I do not deny Jesus created the world, I just understand it according to the bible that confirms it was the Father who made the world through Jesus, that it is the Father who is the source and ultimate creator, not Jesus, as Jesus is merely an agent God used to create the world through. So again I ask, how is it possible that the Father created the world through his son if the son is the Father who became the son upon coming to earth?



This is caveman's understanding of the verse my friend, Jesus is hardly implying he is the Father by John 10:28 as he states things like "My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all", if Jesus and the Father being one is in relation to identity then why would he state the Father is "greater than all" which would include himself, if he was the Father, Jesus elsewhere made it clear the Father was greater than him (John 14:28. Also for the Father to give something to Jesus they would both have to be separate persons and existing separately, how else could the Father do the action of giving unless the person Jesus was existing separate from him. People unable to being snatched out of the hand of the Father and also of Jesus was figurative language expressing the unionship of Jesus and the Father, Jesus being "one with the Father" was expressing they had the same aim and ultimate goal, it has nothing about identity. Hence the reason why in John 17:21 Jesus asks for all his followers to be one with him and the same way he and the Father are one, "just as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be in us".



If your arguments are not consistent then they are not correct, if "one means the same" as you say then followers of Christ are also God since they are "one with him and Jesus". John 17:21 states "I want all of them to be one with each other, just as I am one with you and you are one with me. I also want them to be one with us", if Jesus says for followers to be one "just as" he was one with the Father and "'One' means 'same", according to you, then Jesus followers are also God. You can't have a rule that works only when you want it to work.



I'm rude and prideful says the one that claims God is with him and has blinded me from the truth, rich!



Nowhere did I call you a monkey, do not try and make it seem like I did, I used the common phrase "monkey see monkey do" which relates to one copying someone without understanding why they're doing it and applied it to you, this is hardly me calling you a monkey. What's more, you stated "I've explained it to you and now you are going to badger like an out of control money or a little child" no doubt because you were offended at what I said to you, this makes you a hypocrite (try not to add the word hypocrite to your list), you can't knock me for using certain words or phrases to me and then turn around and use the same or worse expressions of them and then claim I'm being rude since you you've now sunk to the level you initially challenged which is hypocritical.

Waffle isn't an insult, its an expression to indicate your speaking/writing stuff which makes no sense. Rather than me say, "you're writing a lot which I believe doesn't add or take away from the conversation" I use a single word to express what would be a far longer sentence by the word "waffle", you're getting upset over nothing.

"Foolish" is another word that expresses someone is "lacking good sense or judgement", I have never called you a fool directly but simply stated it would be foolish to say x, y or z. It is a stretch to say I'm being rude when I say "it would be foolish of you to claim x, y or z", again, you're getting upset over nothing, we're all adults here, let's start acting like adults and not get upset over the most trivial of things.

Now let's get back to the point I was making before you accused me of all the things you did. Again, Rev 5:1 states "in the right hand of the One seated on the throne a scroll", then in v5,6 it states "a lamb...came forward and took it out of the right hand of the One seated on the throne". Therefore to ask you to confirm that by your beliefs of Jesus being the one sitting on the throne that the Lamb is taking the scroll out of his own hand. How is this folly when all I'm asking you to do is confirm what the text says according to your belief?




You blatantly ignored my question again and made a "nothing statement". Deal with what I said.

Do you agree with scholars that the "three in one" passage in 1 John 5:7 is spurious or do you go against what scholars say?

Again, on what basis should the verse [1 John 5:7] read the way you think it does?

Let's wait and see who is the one who actually goes against scholars...the cheek of it.


Nope, just me showing how stupid it is to claim you've answered the questions when you cleary nowhere answered the question, answering a question by a statement of faith or doctrine that nowhere actually answers what is being asked is as a sufficient answer to my question as my answer of "purple" was to yours. I clearly answered and addressed your points with my answer of purple.



Well let's see, is Satan the first adversary of God and the last adversary of God, or better put, is Satan the 'first and the last adversary of God'?

Also, is Jesus Almighty God, and God of Gods?



You fail to realize I could have used any one of the expressions, I simply chose "true God" out of the list. The term "true God" is a title, therefore for you to try and use the word game "Jesus is God" and is true, therefore he is a true God is bad reasoning plain and simple. The Angels are called Gods (Psalms 82:1, Ps 8:5), God's holy angels are also true are they not, therefore by your reasoning they are the true Gods of scripture too! No doubt such reasoning is incorrect. Regardless my point still stands, you claim Jesus has all the names/titles of God, I have shown this to be false, Jesus does not possess any of the ultimate or highest names of the Father, he is never called the "Sovereign Lord" (Deut 3:23), "Almighty God" (Exo 6:3), "God of Gods" (Joshua 22:22), the "True God" (1 Kings 8:60), the "One God" (1 Cor 8:6), the "only true God" (John 17:3) or the "Most High" (Ps 83:18). As I've said many times now you fail to acknowledge why or how Jesus came to be called the names and titles he has.

You say "I don't agree with that idiot reasoning" should I start making a list and try and excuse myself out of answering your questions by raising all the means things you've called me? It doesn't matter that you don't agree with me, it goes without saying you don't hence why we're in a discussion, what is more,
important is you can't express why my reasoning is idiot reasoning. You keep saying "there is ONLY ONE GOD who is the King of King and Lord of lords" yet you fail to realize NO SCRIPTURE states this, you tried and failed to prove this with 1 Tim 6:5 and I showed you that wasn't what the verse was expressing. Your whole theology is built around such scripture, including 1 John 5:7 that do not say the things you think they say.

You wasted your time writing this one, because I am not going to read it. It is too full of your ego and tactics. Maybe you could rewrite it with a better tone I might read it.

 

[God's Truth]

With one breath you claim "The Bible doesn’t call Satan the first and the last, so you can’t use it as an argument against Jesus who is the First and the Last" and with your next breath you'll claim Jesus is Almighty God, Sovereign Lord, the true God and all the other titles that Jesus is never called and that only belong to the Father. You cannot claim Jesus is Almighty God despite the bible never calling him that and then lecture me on what I can or can not reason with according to scripture, another incident where you show hypocrisy.

I'm not claiming Satan is ever called the title the "first and the last", I'm simply expressing that he is the 'first and the last' adversary of God according to the overall message of the bible, again do you agree with this or not, is Satan the 'first and the last' adversary of God? Yes or no, stop avoiding the question and answer it.

Satan is not called the first and the last in the Bible, so I will not ever say that is what the Bible says of him.

Isaiah 42:8 is in relation to God sharing his glory with false gods and false idols, that is the context. "I am Jehovah. That is my name; I give my glory to no one else, Nor my praise to graven images"

What you said about Isaiah 43:11 - Jesus is a savior as the Father is a savior through Jesus. Isaiah 43:11 was stated in the OT, but remember how despite God saying there were no saviors but him the scriptures name Ehud and Othenial as saviors? This was because God was the one who raised Ehud and othenial as savior and saved Israel through them. Likewise, the Father sent Jesus and saves through Jesus.

You are teaching falseness, for God does not say Ehud and Othenial are the Saviors of the world.

God says that He is the Savior and there is no other---same thing about Jesus.

What you said about Matthew 16:27 - Jesus came in the Fathers glory the same way the angel in Luke 2:9 came in his fathers glory, the same way new Jerusalem descended from heaven with the Father's glory, the same way followers of Christ have the father glory, nothing states that Jesus, the angel or the city was the Father.

Show where I said an angel came in God's glory.

The New Jerusalem in heaven is built up with ALL the saved.

Revelation 3:12
The one who is victorious I will make a pillar in the temple of my God. Never again will they leave it. I will write on them the name of my God and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem, which is coming down out of heaven from my God; and I will also write on them my new name.

1 Peter 2:5 you also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.

Galatians 4:26 But the Jerusalem that is above is free, and she is our mother.

Galatians 4:25
Now Hagar stands for Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present city of Jerusalem, because she is in slavery with her children.

Hebrews 12:22
But you have come to Mount Zion, to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem. You have come to thousands upon thousands of angels in joyful assembly,

Revelation 12:1
A great sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet and a crown of twelve stars on her head.

Revelation 21:2
I saw the Holy City, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride beautifully dressed for her husband.

Revelation 21:10
And he carried me away in the Spirit to a mountain great and high, and showed me the Holy City, Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God.


Revelation 21
²² And I saw no temple therein: for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it.

²³ And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof.

What you said about John 17:5 - Jesus had his own glory when existing alongside God, what does this prove or disprove?

Could you be more careful when you say I say something?
They have the same glory.
It proves Jesus is God.

Lool how low you have sunk my friend, an angel of God appears to shepherds with text saying "Gods glory gleamed all around them" when he appears and this ISN'T a case of an angel having the glory of God, it truly is saddening you'd stoop so low to ignore what is so plain in front of you. The angel had the glory of God, its plain to see.

You are the one who stoops low. The scripture says the glory of the Lord shone around them. The scripture doesn't say the angel's glory shone around them.

You failed to mention anything about new Jerusalem having the glory of God, was this city God, I thought God does not share his glory with anyone?

Stop saying I failed at something. You are passive aggressive. It is God's glory. Where does the scripture say it is yours? It is God's and Jesus'. Not your's, God's, and Jesus'.

Why does God allow humans to have his glory, 2 Cor 3:18 states "So our faces are not covered. They show the bright glory of the Lord, as the Lord's Spirit makes us more and more like our glorious Lord"

You aren't disproving anything. You are mixing things up about God sharing His glory.
It means we don't worship you and angels, or any other man along with God.

Psalm 24:10 Who is this King of glory? The LORD of hosts, he is the King of glory. Selah.

Isaiah 6:3-5
And one cried unto another, and said, Holy, holy, holy, is the LORD of hosts: the whole earth is full of his glory…

 

[NWL]

I would naturally claim that since the Angel was sent by God he possessed Gods glory as he was delivering a message on behalf of God,

You accused me of assuming things in the Bible, but it is you who does that.

There is a difference in an assumption and a presumption, I have come to a conclusion based on evidence (presumption) that the angel appeared with the glory of God, this is based on the very evidence provided in the scripture and other passages that show others having the glory of God. You, however, assume things, for example Jesus is the F&L, you assume God being called the F&L and Jesus being called the F&L relate to the same thing, nothing suggests this and the evidence shows the opposite.

Are you saying you don’t believe that?

You're creating another strawman argument, deal with the question! And no it is not what I believe, it is what you unwittingly believe when you say Jesus having the glory of God is evidence he is God.

Since you equate Gods glory as ONLY belonging to God please explain how this angel isn't God, or explain why the glory of God shone as soon as the Angel appeared?

Explain why in Revelation when the holt city Jerusalem was coming down from God that it had the glory of God, was this city God itself?

It is because of Jesus that we are reconciled to God in this way.
It proves Jesus is God. We are not God because we don’t do the saving, only Jesus does.
We can only have glory through Jesus.

"But he that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord. For not he that commendeth himself is approved, but whom the Lord commendeth . . . Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God."
1 Corinthians 10:17-18, 31, KJV

Earlier you stated "[God] will not give glory to another", now you've said "We can only have glory through Jesus" are you now claiming and can you confirm it is possible for others to have God's glory?

You have a few problems with what you say.
One problem is that it is ONLY to Jesus, and not to others like you claim.
Another problem is that you aren’t considering the whole passage and you might be leaving it out because it goes against your beliefs.

Read this passage carefully:

Philippians 2
5Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: 6Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: 7But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: 8And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. 9Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: 10That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; 11And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.


Did you read how the scripture says Jesus was equal to God but made himself of no reputation and came in the likeness of men?
Jesus was equal to God but humbled himself and came as a man and even died on the cross. WHEREFORE God highly exalted him back to the same glory he had with God before the creation of the world. So at the NAME OF JESUS, every knee should bow. That gives God glory.

Notice the following translation of Phil 2:7

New American Bible: "Your attitude must be that of Christ: Though he was in the form of God, he did not deem equality with God something to be grasped at."
American Translation: Have the same attitude that Christ Jesus had. Though he possessed the nature of God, he did not grasp at equality with God."
Weymouth: "The attitude you should have is the one that Christ Jesus had. He always had the very nature of God. Yet he did not think that by force he should try to become equal with God."
The Emphatic Diaglott:"Let this disposition be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus, who, though being in God's form, did not meditate a usurpation to be like God."

The Greek word often translated as robbery/grasped in Phil 2:7 is harpagmon, The Expositor's Greek Testament, (1967, pp. 436, 437, vol. III) states regarding the word:

"We cannot find any passage where [harpazo] or any of its derivatives [which include harpagmos] has the sense of `holding in possession,' `retaining'. It seems invariably to mean `seize', `snatch violently'. Thus it is not permissible to glide from the true sense [`snatch violently'] into one which is totally different, `hold fast.' "

The meaning of harpagmon relates to taking something that does not belong to you, hence why the above transactions render the verse in such a way that expresses that although he existed in the same form as God, he gave no consideration to a seizure, namely, that he should be equal to God. What the verse is not saying and is often translated as is that Jesus existing in Gods form did not think it to be a robbery to be equal with God.

You said "One problem is that it is ONLY to Jesus, and not to others like you claim", I don't believe people are given worship or glorified in the same sense as Jesus. The glory one might give is by acting like a chrisitan (Ephesians 4:23, 24), which in turn brings glory to God since we as Christians are his representatives who have and give of his glory. "And all of us, while we with unveiled faces reflect like mirrors the glory of the Lord, are transformed into the same image from one degree of glory to another" (2 Cor 3:18)

You are not speaking the truth about me.
I gave you scripture where in the same scripture God is called the only KING of kings and First and the Last. Jesus is called both those names. You were given many scriptures proving the truth. You keep claiming Jesus is another God, and another King, another Savior, and another first and last. NONSENSE, because the Bible says there is only one of those things.

How many times do I have to tell you, 1 Tim 6:15 does NOT state God is the ONLY King of king, it states he is the ONLY ruler/sovereign, it then goes on to list "king of kings" and "lord of lord" which is separate from the word only in the verse, again, the word "only" relates to God as being the ruler.

GWT: "..At the right time God will make this known. God is the blessed and only ruler. He is the King of kings and Lord of lords.."

 

[NWL]

That is more of your assumptions and denial of the truth that plainly says Jesus was commanded to raise himself.
Now do you think Jesus disobeyed his Father?
Yes or no? Answer yes or no. Why won't you answer yes or no? You fail to answer the question.

How is it an assumption of me to say the translations I quoted of John 10:18 convey something different to the translation you quoted. Let me put them side by side for all to see:

WNT: I am authorized to lay it down, and I am authorized to receive it back again. This is the command I received from my Father."
NKJV: but I lay it down of Myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This command I have received from My Father.”

Jesus taking his life back suggest he was the one who did the action of resurrection as the NKJV reads, however, Jesus receiving his lifeagain expresses that someone else has given it back to him. If you "receive" an item from a shop you aren't the one who has given it, someone else has, if you go "take" an item from a shop you are the one who has done the action. To claim I'm assuming anything by the two different translations is absurd.

The command the Father gave to Jesus was for him to lay down his life to act as the ransom, it wasn't in regards to him receiving his life again.

John 10:18 No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.

Who was Jesus speaking to when he said, "Father, into your hands I entrust my spirit" before dying?

Jesus was speaking to God the Father in heaven.

But you say Jesus is the Father, so how was he speaking to the Father who was in heaven if Jesus who is also the Father is on earth?

Again you fail to answer my simple questions:
Does Jesus have the title "Sovereign Lord" anywhere in the Bible, yes or no?

Does Jesus have the title "Almighty God" anywhere in the Bible, yes or no?

I gave you the scriptures that prove it.

Where!? Where have you ever shown the specific titles "Sovereign Lord" or "Almighty God" being applied to Christ, show me where you have done this or where the bible states such a thing and I swear I will rebuke my God and accept your theology and God. You have only ever shown me Isaiah 9:6 in reference to Jesus being which calls Jesus a "Mighty God" which is NOT the same title as "Almighty God" and you did the same with "Sovereign Lord", you tried to use Jesus being called "Lord of Lords" as proof Jesus is called the "Sovereign Lord" despite "lord of Lords" not being the same term as "Sovereign Lord"

Humble yourself God's Truth and just admit when you are wrong, admit the bible never calls Jesus "Sovereign Lord" or "Almighty God".

I asked "does Jesus have the title "Sovereign Lord" anywhere in the Bible, yes or no?" was your answer of Jesus being a "Mighty God" your proof that he is called "Almighty God", yes or no?

I asked "does Jesus have the title "Almighty God" anywhere in the Bible, yes or no?", was your answer that Jesus was a "lord of lord" your proof Jesus is the called the "Sovereign Lord", yes or no?

No, you showed me 1 Tim 6:5 which states God is the only sovereign, it then goes onto list other epithets of God such as King of kings and lord of lords, what more I asked you to show me where he is called "Sovereign Lord" (Deut 3:23), "Almighty God" (Exo 6:3), "God of Gods" (Joshua 22:22), the "True God" (1 Kings 8:60), the "One God" (1 Cor 8:6), the "only true God" (John 17:3), you couldn't show me a single time Jesus was ever called any of these things, you attempted to show Jesus was called "Almighty God" by Isaiah 9:6 which calls Jesus a "Mighty God", this, of course, is not an example as a mighty God expresses something completely different to "Almighty God", you can have hundreds of Mighty God but there would still only be one "Almighty God", the terms are not interchangeable. You did the same with "Sovereign Lord", you tried to use Jesus being called "Lord of Lords" as proof Jesus is called the "Sovereign Lord" despite "lord of Lords" not being the same term as "Sovereign Lord".

I gave you scriptures that say the King of kings and only Savior.
There is only ONE King of kings, and only one Lord of lords, and God says only Savior.

God's Truth are you actually being serious?? You've stated numerous times "Jesus has all of God's names", I've denied this and claim and stated Jesus has only some of the Father's names/titles. You keep asserting you've shown me a scripture that states there is only one "King of kings", and only one "Lord of lords", no such verse is in existence, 1 Tim 6:15 does not attribute the "only" to "king of Kings" and "lord of lords", you keep ignoring this.

If your claim is true show me where Jesus is ever called "Sovereign Lord" (Deut 3:23), "Almighty God" (Exo 6:3), "God of Gods" (Joshua 22:22), the "True God" (1 Kings 8:60), the "One God" (1 Cor 8:6), the "only true God" (John 17:3) or the "Most High" (Ps 83:18). Telling me over and over again that you've showed me where Jesus is shown to be "king of kings" or "lord of lords" are none of these names or titles I've asked for, so stop repeating yourself over and over.

 

[NWL]

You wasted your time writing this one, because I am not going to read it. It is too full of your ego and tactics. Maybe you could rewrite it with a better tone I might read it.

Your response here shows your untruthful character since for someone to say "I am not going to read it. It is too full of your ego and tactics" they either needed to have read it all to know its "full of ego and tactics", in which case you lied about not reading it, or you lied that it's full my "ego and tactics" as how could someone "who hasn't read" it claim such a thing. So in either case you're a liar, you either lied and did read it, or you didn't read it and lied, which is again ironic considering you keep trying to make out that I'm the bad one.

I could care less if you answer it. Less anyone forget however, here are the questions that have failed to be addressed:

As you imply you're agreeing what I'm posing in my previous question, when the verse states the lamb/Jesus "came forward" to the one of the throne and "took it out of the right hand of the One seated on the throne" how is this possible if Jesus is the one sitting on the throne, I understand you believe they are "one and the same", but since you believe "God is one" how is it possible Jesus walks up to himself and takes something out of his own hand if he is one being?

Since you refuse to directly answer the question I've asked over and over again am I correct in saying that by you saying "There are three, and the three are one" and "One means ‘the same’" you believe God takes the scroll from his own hand? Am I correct or incorrect?

How is it possible that the Father created the world through his son if the son is the Father who became the son upon coming to earth?

Do you agree with scholars that the "three in one" passage in 1 John 5:7 is spurious or do you go against what scholars say?

Again, on what basis should the verse [1 John 5:7] read the way you think it does?

Well let's see, is Satan the first adversary of God and the last adversary of God, or better put, is Satan the 'first and the last adversary of God'?

Also, is Jesus Almighty God, and God of Gods?

 

[NWL]

again do you agree with this or not, is Satan the 'first and the last' adversary of God? Yes or no, stop avoiding the question and answer it.

Satan is not called the first and the last in the Bible, so I will not ever say that is what the Bible says of him.

I'm not asking you to state whether Satan is called the "first and the Last" in the Bible, I'm merely asking is Satan the first and the last adversary of God, I'm speaking and using English my friend, the words "first" and "last" did not come into existence because of the bible, again, is Satan the first and the last adversary of God?

If you cant answer that simply tell me who is the first adversary of God and tell me who the last adversary of God is?

You are teaching falseness, for God does not say Ehud and Othenial are the Saviors of the world.

God says that He is the Savior and there is no other---same thing about Jesus.

Isaiah 43:11 doesn't say "I am Jehovah, and besides me there is no savior of the world", it states "I am Jehovah, and besides me there is no savior”, so how is it a false teaching for me to say "Ehud and Othenial" are saviors? Take scripture for what it says, not what you want it to say.

Show where I said an angel came in God's glory.

I've never claimed you admitted to an angel having God's glory for me to need to show you where you've said such a thing.

The New Jerusalem in heaven is built up with ALL the saved.

Revelation 3:12
The one who is victorious I will make a pillar in the temple of my God. Never again will they leave it. I will write on them the name of my God and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem, which is coming down out of heaven from my God; and I will also write on them my new name.

1 Peter 2:5 you also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.

Galatians 4:26 But the Jerusalem that is above is free, and she is our mother.

Galatians 4:25
Now Hagar stands for Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present city of Jerusalem, because she is in slavery with her children.

Hebrews 12:22
But you have come to Mount Zion, to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem. You have come to thousands upon thousands of angels in joyful assembly,

Revelation 12:1
A great sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet and a crown of twelve stars on her head.

Revelation 21:2
I saw the Holy City, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride beautifully dressed for her husband.

Revelation 21:10
And he carried me away in the Spirit to a mountain great and high, and showed me the Holy City, Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God.

Revelation 21
²² And I saw no temple therein: for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it.

²³ And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof.

How does this explain why the city has God's glory if he does not share it?

What you said about John 17:5 - Jesus had his own glory when existing alongside God, what does this prove or disprove?

Could you be more careful when you say I say something?They have the same glory.It proves Jesus is God.

I was never quoting you, friend, I was paraphrasing part of the verse myself, when I quote you I always tend to use quotation marks.

You said in regards to John 17:5 "they have the same glory.It proves Jesus is God.", I'm sorry I fail to see how the words of Jesus of "Father, glorify me at your side with the glory that I had alongside you before the world was" they had the same glory or that Jesus is God. Please pin-point where it expresses "the glory" being the same glory God had and not simply his own glory as a divine spirit being and please pin-point how Jesus "existing alongside God before the world was" expresses he is God?

Angels existed with God, does this prove they are God (see Job 38:4,7)? I wouldn't think so, so why does Jesus "existing alongside God before the world was" prove he is God, we must be consistent, we can't just assume. Nowhere in John 17 does Jesus claim the glory he had was the same glory God has, such a thought it assumed, according to the verse Jesus was simply asking for the glory that he as an individual had prior coming to earth, there is nothing to suggest that it was the Father glory that he had by the verse.

You are the one who stoops low. The scripture says the glory of the Lord shone around them. The scripture doesn't say the angel's glory shone around them.

And that is precisely my point, the Angel appeared and coincidently God's glory was manifest and shone all around. Now we both know if a verse read, "Jesus appeared before John and God's glory shone all around" you'd be using such a verse as evidence of Jesus having God's glory and being God, but because it's an angel appearing with God's glory you ignore the evidence that God's subject can have his glory as it does not fit in with your understanding, and claim the angel didn't have the glory of God because it doesn't specifically state he does, it's absurd and dishonest.

How have I stooped low? Stop repeating stuff I say and claiming I do stuff just for the sake of it, have some self-control.

You failed to mention anything about new Jerusalem having the glory of God, was this city God, I thought God does not share his glory with anyone?

Stop saying I failed at something. You are passive-aggressive. It is God's glory. Where does the scripture say it is yours? It is God's and Jesus'. Not your's, God's, and Jesus'.

If you have failed to do something I will state it as such, have you so little argument left that all you can do is start fighting against the language I use.

You aren't disproving anything. You are mixing things up about God sharing His glory.
It means we don't worship you and angels, or any other man along with God.

Psalm 24:10 Who is this King of glory? The LORD of hosts, he is the King of glory. Selah.

Isaiah 6:3-5
And one cried unto another, and said, Holy, holy, holy, is the LORD of hosts: the whole earth is full of his glory…

You have stated God does not share his glory, you did not modify this idea in any way, I have since shown that followers of Christ have and are given God's glory John 17:22, 2 Cor 2:18, you have since admitted followers of Christ DO have God's glory (correct me if I'm wrong friend) through Jesus Christ, therefore, on one hand, you say "God does not share his glory" and yet, on the other hand, you say "We can only have glory through Jesus", which one it it, does God share his glory or doesn't he.

Remember my belief which I believe is consistent with the Bible is that when God states "he shares no glory" that he's referring to sharing his glory with false idols, gods, or persons who are not in union with him. It is for this reason followers of Christ, Angels, Jesus, cities and even the earth all can have God's glory without the scriptures contradicting themselves.

 

[7djengo7]

Greetings again 7djengo7, I decided to have a quick look at this thread that has now run to 471 pages. My thought was that possibly this issue had been resolved by now, but even this Post shows that your position and language has not changed.

The following speaks of Yahweh, God the Father as the Lord of heaven and earth. In Psalm 8 David addresses Yahweh as “our Lord” and Jesus is speaking to God, His Father when quoting and alluding to Psalm 8:1-3:
Psalm 8:1–3 (KJV): 1 O LORD our Lord, how excellent is thy name in all the earth! who hast set thy glory above the heavens. 2 Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings hast thou ordained strength because of thine enemies, that thou mightest still the enemy and the avenger. 3 When I consider thy heavens, the work of thy fingers, the moon and the stars, which thou hast ordained;

Matthew 11:25–26 (KJV): 25 At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes. 26 Even so, Father: for so it seemed good in thy sight.

Hello again, Trevor.

It's not clear to me what (if any) specific complaint you are levelling against what I wrote in the excerpt you quoted from me.

Also, how, exactly, do you arrive at saying that Jesus, in Matthew 11:25-26, is "quoting" Psalm 8:1-3? For my part, I'm not seeing so much as even a two-word phrase in common between the two passages. We definitely do not find Jesus' phrase, "Lord of heaven and earth", in the Psalms passage, so Jesus was obviously not quoting it therefrom.

And what (if anything) do you mean when you say that, in the Matthew passage, Jesus was "alluding to" Psalm 8:1-3?

We do not even find the term, 'Father', in Psalm 8:1-3. What (if any) point are you trying to make regarding these two passages?

Notice, also, that absolutely nowhere, ever, do we find Jesus referring to, or addressing anyone--not even His Father--as "my Lord", or as "our Lord".

​

The following distinguishes between the One God Yahweh, God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ, David’s Lord:
Psalm 110:1 (KJV): The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.

Acts 2:32–36 (KJV): 32 This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses. 33 Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear. 34 For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself, The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, 35 Until I make thy foes thy footstool. 36 Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.

Kind regards
Trevor

The distinguishing occurring, here, is a distinguishing between two persons of the Trinity; between YHWH the Father, and YHWH the Son. There is no distinguishing, in these passages, between YHWH and someone who is not YHWH; your claim that there is is wholly driven by your assumption of unitarianism, which is an extra-Biblical postulate you happen to cherish.

"This Jesus hath God raised up..." God Who? God the Father: "This Jesus hath [God the Father] raised up..." Do you disagree?

"Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted..." God Who? God the Father: "Therefore being by the right hand of [God the Father] exalted..." Do you disagree?

Interesting phrase of yours, in your reference to Psalm 110:1: "David's Lord". By that phrase, are you referring to Him to Whom David, in 2 Samuel 7:18, 20, is referring by his phrase, "Lord GOD"? Also, whom would you say the Psalmist is addressing by the word, "Lord", in Psalm 89:49?

Lord​

, where are thy former lovingkindnesses, which thou swarest unto David in thy truth?​

​

​

Do you agree with NWL in his opposition to Paul? To Paul (1 Corinthians 8:6), "there is but one Lord", whereas, to NWL, there are at least two Lords. That is, to NWL, there are "Lords many". See, Paul, being a Trinitarian, and all other Trinitarians, have no difficulty acknowledging that there is, to us Trinitarians, but one Lord. We understand that Jesus, God the Son, is that one Lord, just as God the Father is that one Lord.

Trevor,

• Is Jesus your Lord? Yes or No?
• Is God the Father your Lord? Yes or No?

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again 7djengo7,

It's not clear to me what (if any) specific complaint you are levelling against what I wrote in the excerpt you quoted from me.

I object to three expressions you used concerning NWL. Your specific style and language in effect diminishes what you say in the rest of the post. Almost similar to swearing in normal conversation.

Also, how, exactly, do you arrive at saying that Jesus, in Matthew 11:25-26, is "quoting" Psalm 8:1-3? For my part, I'm not seeing so much as even a two-word phrase in common between the two passages. We definitely do not find Jesus' phrase, "Lord of heaven and earth", in the Psalms passage, so Jesus was obviously not quoting it therefrom.
And what (if anything) do you mean when you say that, in the Matthew passage, Jesus was "alluding to" Psalm 8:1-3?
We do not even find the term, 'Father', in Psalm 8:1-3. What (if any) point are you trying to make regarding these two passages?

I suggest that Jesus is using the language and ideas of Psalm 8:1-3 and in effect summaries these ideas and applies them to the circumstances he was facing. This is set in the context of the hardness of the hearts of those of Chorazin, Bethsaida and Capernaum, who he calls “wise and prudent”, but they are the opposite of this. These were in effect becoming the “enemies” of Psalm 8:2 because they now opposed Jesus and his teaching, while earlier they had rejoiced in his healing ministry.

In contrast to this class, Jesus speaks of a class of persons to whom God, the Father has revealed these things, and he calls them babes. The Psalmist used a similar expression “babes and sucklings”. As far as context goes, Matthew 11:27-30 then goes on to describe how these babes are teachable, and then makes a universal appeal for all to come unto him and learn of him and be coupled with him in the figure of the double yoke used to teach young oxen. So firstly I suggest that there is a strong link between Psalm 8:2 and Matthew 11:25 and the whole context of Matthew 11:25-30.

Notice, also, that absolutely nowhere, ever, do we find Jesus referring to, or addressing anyone--not even His Father--as "my Lord", or as "our Lord".

Coming to your main questions, David in Psalm 8:1,3 addresses God as “Yahweh our Lord” and then describes the excellence of God’s Name as revealed in the creation of the earth and heaven, while Jesus addresses God as “O Father, Lord of heaven and earth”, a beautiful summary of Psalm 8:1,3. Psalm 8 depicts the ultimate purpose of creation accomplished in Jesus, the Son of Man, made lower than the angels for the suffering of death, and then glorified, and assuming the role of Lord over God’s creation. Matthew 11:25-30 gives a personal perspective and call to those who are teachable and will share with Jesus in this new creation.

The distinguishing occurring, here, is a distinguishing between two persons of the Trinity; between YHWH the Father, and YHWH the Son. There is no distinguishing, in these passages, between YHWH and someone who is not YHWH; your claim that there is is wholly driven by your assumption of unitarianism, which is an extra-Biblical postulate you happen to cherish.

Psalm 110:1 reveals the invitation of the One God, Yahweh, God the Father to Jesus, David’s Lord to sit at God’s right hand. No hint of the Trinity here.

"This Jesus hath God raised up..." God Who? God the Father: "This Jesus hath [God the Father] raised up..." Do you disagree?
"Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted..." God Who? God the Father: "Therefore being by the right hand of [God the Father] exalted..." Do you disagree?

I agree, but you consider God here to be two persons. I read the term "God", and this is only the One God, God the Father.

Interesting phrase of yours, in your reference to Psalm 110:1: "David's Lord". By that phrase, are you referring to Him to Whom David, in 2 Samuel 7:18, 20, is referring by his phrase, "Lord GOD"?

David is addressing Yahweh, God the Father as Lord (Adonai) GOD (Yahweh). This special sequence of God’s Name and title speaks of God’s overriding care and control of circumstances, especially when we are in difficult circumstances. This sequence Lord GOD is similar in concept to Psalm 8:1 where David addresses God the Father as “LORD our Lord”.

Also, whom would you say the Psalmist is addressing by the word, "Lord", in Psalm 89:49?

Yahweh, God the Father, who is Lord of heaven and earth.

Do you agree with NWL in his opposition to Paul? To Paul (1 Corinthians 8:6), "there is but one Lord", whereas, to NWL, there are at least two Lords. That is, to NWL, there are "Lords many". See, Paul, being a Trinitarian, and all other Trinitarians, have no difficulty acknowledging that there is, to us Trinitarians, but one Lord. We understand that Jesus, God the Son, is that one Lord, just as God the Father is that one Lord.

God the Father has exalted Jesus to fulfil the role of King and Lord over God’s creation as clearly taught in Psalm 8, Psalm 110:1 and Matthew 11:25-30.

Trevor, Is Jesus your Lord? Yes or No? Is God the Father your Lord? Yes or No?

Yes to both. God the Father is the Supreme Being and He has exalted Jesus to be Lord Acts 2:36 and Jesus will soon return to sit upon the Throne of David in Jerusalem for the 1000 years..

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[God's Truth]

There is a difference in an assumption and a presumption, I have come to a conclusion based on evidence (presumption) that the angel appeared with the glory of God, this is based on the very evidence provided in the scripture and other passages that show others having the glory of God. You, however, assume things, for example Jesus is the F&L, you assume God being called the F&L and Jesus being called the F&L relate to the same thing, nothing suggests this and the evidence shows the opposite.

No one else is called the First and the Last but God the Father and Jesus.

The scriptures aren’t going to give a name known to God and then give it to Jesus with a completely different meaning.

You're creating another strawman argument, deal with the question! And no it is not what I believe, it is what you unwittingly believe when you say Jesus having the glory of God is evidence he is God.

Since you equate Gods glory as ONLY belonging to God please explain how this angel isn't God, or explain why the glory of God shone as soon as the Angel appeared?

God doesn’t share His glory with another is about no one else is worshiped as God but Him, and of course, Jesus Christ. That proves they are one and the same.

Explain why in Revelation when the holt city Jerusalem was coming down from God that it had the glory of God, was this city God itself?

The Bible says we are being built in Him. So the city is God and all the saved.

Earlier you stated "[God] will not give glory to another", now you've said "We can only have glory through Jesus" are you now claiming and can you confirm it is possible for others to have God's glory?

You need to use the quote feature so I can see if I said something exactly as you claim I did, and so I can see it in the context that I said it.
I have asked you to do that many times now. So next time you say I said something and ask me to explain it, make sure it is quoted with the quote feature so I can see exactly what I said and where.
Isaiah 42:8 I am the LORD: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise to graven images.
That is about God not making someone else God as He is.
Only Jesus is God as He is, because Jesus is God come as a man.

Notice the following translation of Phil 2:7

New American Bible: "Your attitude must be that of Christ: Though he was in the form of God, he did not deem equality with God something to be grasped at."
American Translation: Have the same attitude that Christ Jesus had. Though he possessed the nature of God, he did not grasp at equality with God."
Weymouth: "The attitude you should have is the one that Christ Jesus had. He always had the very nature of God. Yet he did not think that by force he should try to become equal with God."
The Emphatic Diaglott:"Let this disposition be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus, who, though being in God's form, did not meditate a usurpation to be like God."

The Greek word often translated as robbery/grasped in Phil 2:7 is harpagmon, The Expositor's Greek Testament, (1967, pp. 436, 437, vol. III) states regarding the word:

"We cannot find any passage where [harpazo] or any of its derivatives [which include harpagmos] has the sense of `holding in possession,' `retaining'. It seems invariably to mean `seize', `snatch violently'. Thus it is not permissible to glide from the true sense [`snatch violently'] into one which is totally different, `hold fast.' "

The meaning of harpagmon relates to taking something that does not belong to you, hence why the above transactions render the verse in such a way that expresses that although he existed in the same form as God, he gave no consideration to a seizure, namely, that he should be equal to God. What the verse is not saying and is often translated as is that Jesus existing in Gods form did not think it to be a robbery to be equal with God.

You said "One problem is that it is ONLY to Jesus, and not to others like you claim", I don't believe people are given worship or glorified in the same sense as Jesus. The glory one might give is by acting like a chrisitan (Ephesians 4:23, 24), which in turn brings glory to God since we as Christians are his representatives who have and give of his glory. "And all of us, while we with unveiled faces reflect like mirrors the glory of the Lord, are transformed into the same image from one degree of glory to another" (2 Cor 3:18)

So then, why are you acting like God gives away His glory to others as an excuse to why Jesus has God’s glory?
Jesus having God’s glory the way he has it is proof he is God.
God isn’t going to give His glory to another that is what He says; He is the only one, and Jesus Christ. That proves Jesus is God.

How many times do I have to tell you, 1 Tim 6:15 does NOT state God is the ONLY King of king, it states he is the ONLY ruler/sovereign, it then goes on to list "king of kings" and "lord of lord" which is separate from the word only in the verse, again, the word "only" relates to God as being the ruler.

Jesus is that one and only Sovereign God, the King of kings, and Lord of lords.
I have proven that with scripture.
Jesus has everything under his control.
What does sovereign in the Bible mean?
Sovereignty of God is the Christian teaching that God is the supreme authority and all things are under His control. ... Easton's Bible Dictionary defines God's Sovereignty as His "absolute right to do all things according to his own good pleasure."

Ephesians 1:22 And God placed all things under his feet and appointed him to be head over everything for the church,
1 Colossians 1:17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.