Jesus is God

[God's Truth]

I do not go against it, I simply interpret it differently to you, me understanding God being and living in us relates to him figuratively being with us, is hardly going against what is written.

It is more than you simply interpreting it differently---how you interpret it makes you dead in the spirit not understanding any of it.

God says: I will live in you.

You say: Did God really say He will live in us? No, He meant pretend to live in us.

Paul disagrees with you:

(Colossians 2:5) Though I am absent in body, I am with you in spirit, rejoicing to see your good order and the firmness of your faith in Christ.
(1 Corinthians 5:3) Although absent in body, I am present in spirit.

Paul says ‘with’ you, NOT ‘in’ you.

You cannot deny that my understanding is a viable understanding, I cannot and do not deny the idea of God literally living in us is a possible truth according to the text, its simply an unreasonable one,

You say you don’t deny it but that it is unreasonable, which shows you are speaking against what God says and don’t understand what is of the Spirit.

sd it would also mean God lives in many things that are un-holy. Bear in mind that God did not even permit to keep the sandals on his feet due to his holiness, yet you believe God literally live in people who are unclean by nature, it's very unrealistic and contrary to basic bible teaching of the holiness of God.

It is unbelievable that you don’t know that Jesus’ blood makes us holy and perfect.

 

[God's Truth]

This is all pointless, remember, you tried to prove Jesus was sovereign by using a verse that states Jesus was "appointed above all things", yet scripture makes it clear the Father was the one who appointed Jesus and the Father himself was not included to the one he subjected all things to. You therefore cannot claim Jesus is "sovereign" according to the text if the text cleary has the Father above him, the Father is sovereign.

You keep saying the same false things.
God came as a man---of course God is going to appoint Jesus the man.
I gave you the definition of sovereign and proved with scripture that Jesus is sovereign.
I also gave scripture that says he is sovereign.

So my question that I posed you asking for you to prove where Jesus is called sovereign is still unanswered by you as you have nowhere demonstrated Jesus is ever called sovereign

Stop lying, for I answered you many times; and

or above the one, namely the Father, who had the power to subject all things to him as it cleary mentions the Father as still being over him.

Stop saying something so perverse as saying 'above' God.

 

[God's Truth]

How do I get that means they are not the same you ask, because of the basic language and context used in the text, a 10-year-old reading the verse would never come to the conclusion that Jesus is the Father when reading:

Jesus is the Father come as a son of man.

God came as a man.

The language and context in all of the above plainly express Jesus is a separate person from the Father, you pick a few verses which you believe show Jesus is the same person as the Father and use them to interpret all the places where they are clearly spoken to and even seen as separate instead of using all the places where they are clearly spoken to and even seen as separate to interpret the few verses that you believe show Jesus is the Father, it's insane.

It is insane for you to say they were separate and different when Jesus says the Father is in him and he in the Father. Does that sound separate to you?
Jesus says he ONLY says what the Father says, and he only does what the Father does. Jesus says when you see him you can say you see the Father. Does that sound different to you?

You say Jesus was an angel and the Bible tells us God didn’t send an angel as His only begotten son.

How can Jesus hand of the kingdom to the Father is he is the father?

He can because He came as a son of man.

Why does it state God puts all enemies under Jesus feet if Jesus is the God who puts all enemies under his feat, how can God subject all things to Jesus if Jesus already has all things subjected to him by being able to subject all things to himself??

God came as a man.

How can Jesus subject himself to himself? It makes zero sense, Jesus and the Father are clearly different persons by the context in the verse.

God came as a man; He came in the flesh and experienced life as a man for us.

(Acts 5:1-5) However, a man named An·a·niʹas, together with his wife Sap·phiʹra, sold some property. 2 But he secretly held back some of the price, with his wife’s knowledge, and he brought just a part of it and deposited it at the feet of the apostles. 3 But Peter said: “An·a·niʹas, why has Satan emboldened you to lie to the holy spirit and secretly hold back some of the price of the field? 4 As long as it remained with you, did it not remain yours? And after it was sold, was it not in your control? Why have you thought up such a deed as this in your heart? You have lied, not to men, but to God.” 5 On hearing these words, An·a·niʹas collapsed and died. And great fear came over all those who heard about it.

How did Peter know Ananias was lying and thought such a deed in his own heart unless he was able to read his heart?

It doesn’t say Peter knew his heart. You can’t just make up things. You need to be more careful.

The scripture PLAINLY says that Jesus is the King over all the kings OF THE EARTH.
You just keep repeating your same untruthful arguments.
It doesn't matter, it still demonstrates titles are not unique to individuals even God, the context determines the limit of who the titles pertain to.

There is only one scripture that says there is someone who is a King of kings over all the kings of the earth, and it is Jesus, and of course, God.

 

[NWL]

As I have tried to explain to you many times, God isn't going to give His glory to another. If we are put in God's glory by Jesus, we still aren't going to be worshiped as God, but Jesus is.

Now you're using language that isn't expressed to try and prove your point. You're saying "God isn't going to give His glory to another. If we are put in God's glory by Jesus, we still aren't going to be worshiped as God, but Jesus is", two things are incorrect by what you said, firstly, you again speak of worship as if this is the topic or point of the discussion, it is not, I'm not speaking about glory being equal to worship whatsoever for you to say "we still aren't going to be worshiped as God, but Jesus is" as if this is reftuing any of my points since it has nothing to do with anything I've said anywhere. Secondly, the bible doesn't state Jesus puts 'us in Gods glory', it specifically states followers of Christ are'given' Gods glory, you can't just see a phrase, namely "I have given them the glory that you have given me" and redefine what is said and claim it means Jesus 'puts us in Gods glory'. The verse literally says followers of Christ are "given" God's glory, accept the bible for what is says and not what you want it to say, you want the verse to mean followers of Christ are "put in God's glory", the scripture clearly does not say this.

Does John 17:22 state followers of Christ are given God's glory or does it state followers of Christ are put in God's glory?

No one but Jesus is worshiped. You are not to be worshiped

The topic of discussion is not worship, but rather, the ability for a person other than God to possess his glory.

 

[NWL]

Jesus is the Father come as a son of man.

God came as a man.

Jesus is the Father come as a son of man, no scripture states or expresses this, scripture overwhelming has Jesus as separate from the Father, at Jesus baptism God could be heard saying "This is my Son, the beloved, whom I have approved", this would be impossible if Jesus was the Father come as man, your idea contradicts the bible. Should we go back to discussing who Jesus was speaking to when he asked for the cup to pass from him or who Jesus was speaking to when addressing the Father on the cross?

It is insane for you to say they were separate and different when Jesus says the Father is in him and he in the Father. Does that sound separate to you?
Jesus says he ONLY says what the Father says, and he only does what the Father does. Jesus says when you see him you can say you see the Father. Does that sound different to you?

Again it Jesus being in the Father and the Father being in Jesus is metaphorical language, you understand them being in each other as proof Jesus is the Father, yet John 17:21 has Jesus saying "Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us", do followers of Christ being "one in them" make them the Father or Jesus? If your answer is no then you must also admit that Jesus being "in" the Father does not necessitate that Jesus literally is the Father, your argument must be consistent.

Why would Jesus not simply come out and say "I am the Father" instead of "I speak all the things of the father". I take Jesus words to mean what they say and not to have a secret hidden meaning behind them, Jesus came in the Father name meaning he came on behalf of the father as his representative and messager, thus his words were the Fathers words but only in a figurative sense. If Jesus was the Father come as man, and to see Jesus was to see the Father then why would his followers state "Not that any man has seen the Father, except the one who is from God; this one has seen the Father", your understanding does not fall in line with the rest of scripture, moreover how has Jesus seen the Father? The language is clearly expressing that Jesus himself is NOT the Father, hence the reason he's able to see him.

You say Jesus was an angel and the Bible tells us God didn’t send an angel as His only begotten son.

When have I said Jesus is an angel, please show me.

Where does the bible tell us God didn’t send an angel as His only begotten son?

How can Jesus hand of the kingdom to the Father is he is the father?

He can because He came as a son of man.

Your answer gives no explanation but is rather a statement of faith. Nothing in "He can because He came as a son of man" explains how Jesus is able to hand things to the Father if he himself is the Father. Please explain how Jesus coming as the "son of man" explains him being able to hand things to the Father if he himself is the Father?

Why does it state God puts all enemies under Jesus feet if Jesus is the God who puts all enemies under his feat, how can God subject all things to Jesus if Jesus already has all things subjected to him by being able to subject all things to himself??

God came as a man

.

Your answer gives no explanation but is rather a statement of faith. Nothing in "God came as a man" explains how "God puts all enemies under Jesus feet if Jesus is the God who puts all enemies under his feet and how can God subject all things to Jesus if Jesus already has all things subjected to him by being able to subject all things to himself". Please explain how your statement "God came as a man" explains God putting all enemies under Jesus feet if Jesus is the God who puts all enemies under his feet and how can God subject all things to Jesus if Jesus already has all things subjected to him by being able to subject all things to himself?

You can't see that your scarcely answer my question honestly or properly, your answers are no better than the answer of "purple".

How can Jesus subject himself to himself?

God came as a man; He came in the flesh and experienced life as a man for us.

Another statement of faith rather than answering my question. Your answer of "God came as a man; He came in the flesh and experienced life as a man for us" nowhere explains how Jesus can subject himself to himself, please elaborate further. I cannot fathom how you think these are acceptable answers to the questions, its mind-boggling.

It doesn’t say Peter knew his heart. You can’t just make up things. You need to be more careful.

Does Paul say "Why have you thought up such a deed as this in your heart", yes or no? If your answer is yes then how did Paul know this?

There is only one scripture that says there is someone who is a King of kings over all the kings of the earth, and it is Jesus, and of course, God.

The phrase in question is "king of kings", it doesn't matter what it is over, you made a claim that Jesus having the titles of God makes him God, the bible however uses the same titles in regards to others, I have shown this multiple times with multiple examples (elohim, king of kings, savior, anointed one), it doesn't matter what the title context pertains to but simply that others have the title. Jesus being King over the earth does not prove he is God, he kingship relates to the throne of David and nothing else, the kingship of David was the kingship by which all nations would get their blessing from.

2 Samuel 7:11-16 "..even from the day that I commanded judges to be over My people Israel; and I will give you rest from all your enemies The LORD also declares to you that the LORD will make a house for you. "When your days are complete and you lie down with your fathers, I will raise up your descendant after you, who will come forth from you, and I will establish his kingdom. "He shall build a house for My name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever.."I will be a father to him and he will be a son to Me; when he commits iniquity, I will correct him with the rod of men and the strokes of the sons of men, but My lovingkindness shall not depart from him, as I took it away from Saul, whom I removed from before you. "Your house and your kingdom shall endure before Me forever; your throne shall be established forever..."

The kingship of David through as a descendant of Abraham which entailed the blessing of the Abrahamic convent details that Davids kingship would last forever and give blessing to all mankind, Jesus is thus a king over the earth to this degree as he sits on the throne and kingship of David.

(Isaiah 9:6, 7) "..For a child has been born to us, A son has been given to us; And the rulership will rest on his shoulder. His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace. 7 To the increase of his rulership And to peace, there will be no end, On the throne of David and on his kingdom In order to establish it firmly and to sustain it Through justice and righteousness, From now on and forever.."

 

[NWL]

You keep saying the same false things.
God came as a man---of course God is going to appoint Jesus the man.
I gave you the definition of sovereign and proved with scripture that Jesus is sovereign.
I also gave scripture that says he is sovereign.

What false things do I keep saying, do not make a claim unless you back it up please.

What scripture states "God came as a man", this is the false premise your belief is founded on, no scripture states such a thing.

You said above "I gave you the definition of sovereign", yes you did, what you fail to realise is you're using a definition from an English bible, the bible was written according to the Easton's Bible Dictionary, therefore it is silly to try and prove the bibles definition of sovereign according to an un-inspired dictionary written in a different language. If one wanted to prove a point based on syntax they would have to use a source that explains the bibles definition of sovereign.

[1203 (despótēs) implies someone exercising "unrestricted power and absolute domination, confessing no limitations or restraints" (HELPS WORD STUDIES)

As you can see by the reference above, sovereign pertains to someone having "unrestricted power and absolute domination and no limitations or restraints", you attempted to Jesus being given "all authority on heaven and earth" as him being sovereign, but as I pointed out Jesus hands all things back to the father and subjects himself to the Father, HOW is it possible then you say Jesus is sovereign when it is clear he is beneath the Father when the definition of the word demands the person to have absolute domination and no limitations or restraints?

The definition of Sovereign is someone having unrestricted power and absolute domination and no limitations or restraints, how is Jesus sovereign if it states "the Son himself will also subject himself to the One who subjected all things to him" showing that he is subject to someone?

Stop lying, for I answered you many times; and

You think you've answered my question, in fact if you recall I never even asked you to show me where the bible expresses Jesus is sovereign, I asked you to show me where Jesus is specifically called sovereign, YOU NEVER DID THIS. The best you could do is attempt to show me where you believed the bible expresses him as soverign. I orginally asked you the question as you claimed Jesus HAD all the titles of God, I even asked you multiple times "Does Jesus have the title "sovereign Lord" anywhere in the Bible, yes or no?" and you'll ingore the question.

Show me a single time you've directly told me "no, Jesus is never directly given the title sovereign" or "yes, Jesus is here directly given the title sovereign" YOU NEVER HAVE, so do not claim you've answered many times by answering a question I've never posed, I've never asked you to show where the bible expresses Jesus as sovereign but asked you to show me where he is directly called "sovereign", I simply allowed you to make your points out of curiosity. If I am lying show me where you have answered the below question.

My question still remains, is Jesus anywhere directly given the title "Sovereign Lord" anywhere in the Bible, yes or no?

Stop saying something so perverse as saying 'above' God

I'm doing no such thing, its called using context, the 1 Cor states “God subjected all things under his feet.” But when he says that ‘all things have been subjected,’ it is evident that this does not include the One who subjected all things to him. 28 But when all things will have been subjected to him, then the Son himself will also subject himself to the One who subjected all things to him, that God", Jesus clearly subjects himself to the Father, if the Son was on the same level or above the Father then no such action would take place, since the son is beneath the Father -hence the reason why the Father HAD to give all things to Jesus rather than Jesus having the power to take it- he subjects himself to the Father, this is undeniable. So me saying the Son was beneath the Father is hardly a perversion.

 

[NWL]

It is more than you simply interpreting it differently---how you interpret it makes you dead in the spirit not understanding any of it.

God says: I will live in you.

You say: Did God really say He will live in us? No, He meant pretend to live in us.

So what you're saying is humans can speak in a metaphorical undertone, but when God speaks he's not allowed, everything he says has to be literal? I don't think so. If a man were to say to his wife, I'll always be with you does it litreally mean he will litreally always physically be there in presence with his wife? No, what is said is metaphorical. Likewise when Jesus says:

• "The Lord is my shepherd" ...
• “The day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night.” ...
• "I am the bread of life." ...
• “I am the way and the truth and the light.” ...
• “The kingdom of heaven is like treasure hidden in a field.” ...
• "You are the salt of the earth."

All of these expressions are metaphorical, none of them are literally mean what they are saying. Whilst I do not deny that God's holy spirit can dwell in people, Jesus and the Father themselves do not literally dwell in us when such expressions are said in regards to man, they are simply using metaphorical to denote them being with them in mind and thought. To claim that one HAS to take all of God's words literally would make Jesus a literal animal, a piece of literal bread, a literal door, among other things, I do not take all Gods or Jesus words literally so do not have this issue.

[Paul says ‘with’ you, NOT ‘in’ you.

It does not matter, let me prove it. Was Paul literally with the ones he wrote to in presence or was his figuratively with them?

You say you don’t deny it but that it is unreasonable, which shows you are speaking against what God says and don’t understand what is of the Spirit.

It is unbelievable that you don’t know that Jesus’ blood makes us holy and perfect.

It is not unreasonable as I have clearly expressed above. Jesus blood ultimately perfects, like you said, Jesus sacrifice and him being in or with us however has nothing to do with his ransom, this is something you're simply piecing together and trying to claim as relating to the same thing.

 

[NWL]

No that is not what it means. It doesn’t mean angels are gods and it doesn’t mean elohim means angel gods.

Lol. I'm sorry to say but yes it does. Again the ONLY reason why some text render the word elohim here are "angels", "heavenly beings" or "godlike ones" is because they are making it clear to the readers that the title God/god here does not relate to the one God but rather others person who are called Gods/gods. The bible makes it extremely clear there are other beings that are rightly called Gods/gods. Elohim doesn't mean Angel, yet scholars understand that is who is in reference here.

"..For even though there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth, just as there are many “gods” and many “lords,” 6 there is actually to us one God, the Father.." (1 Corinthians 8:5, 6)

God when speaking to Moses told him "[Aaron] will speak to the people for you. He will serve as a mouth for you, and you will serve as God [l-elohim] to him.." and "And the LORD said unto Moses, See, I have made thee a [elohim] to Pharaoh: and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet." Once again, others are called God/gods.

Notice the above, there are "so-called gods", just as there are "many gods" despite there being only one God "to us", namely the Christians, the Father. The verse, clearly in line with verses such as Exo 7:1, Ps 8:5, Ps 82:1 that show other beings being called God/god, acknowledges there are other beings called God/god stating there are "many gods".

Again, some translations say 'God' as 'God' only.

Yes, as I stated these are literal translations of the text, they do not convey the writers intended meaning as thoughts and ideas are lost when translating written documents from one language to another.

 

[7djengo7]

Greetings again 7djengo7, I do not claim to be very wise,

Well, it's definitely best if you refrain from claiming to be wise, since by your posts in this thread you manifest yourself to be a YHWH-blaspheming fool.

​

and possibly a wise man would let your post slide.

You've let all my posts slide, by your failure to answer any of the objections I've leveled against the irrationality and stupidity of your Christ-despising, Bible-rejecting, pagan world view.

​

Be careful, you seem to be suggesting that wisdom is a quality and a measurable quantity.

Here, in addition to calling YHWH "a quality", as you've been doing, you are calling YHWH "a measurable quantity".

​

It appears that must have run out of contestants to answer ALL of your contradictory and obscure questions, and you needed to start again on our “discussion”.

When did I say I was trying to, or even desirous of, have a discussion with you? That's right: I said neither. Apparently you are not aware of the nature of forums. I need not be having a discussion with you in order to level critical objection to the stupidity and irrationality that is the content of your forum posts. You can continue to sit there passive like a dummy (as you've been doing all along) for as long as you like, while I continue to level my objections against the idiotic content of your posts. What's that to me? The fact is that, in any case, your failure to even begin to deal with any of my objections is right here, on display, in all your posts.

You have called the Wisdom spoken of in Proverbs 8, "a separate entity", and, since then, I've asked you, numerous times:

• What do you mean by "separate"?
• What do you mean by "entity"?

And you've never so much as tried to answer either of these questions. It's funny that you are so embarrassed by such elementary questions about your own phrase that you feel a need to react to them by calling them "contradictory and obscure questions". Either way works just fine for me: you can try to answer the questions I've asked you, or you can continue to stonewall against them.

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again 7djengo7,

Well, it's definitely best if you refrain from claiming to be wise, since by your posts in this thread you manifest yourself to be a YHWH-blaspheming fool.
You've let all my posts slide, by your failure to answer any of the objections I've leveled against the irrationality and stupidity of your Christ-despising, Bible-rejecting, pagan world view.

Do you feel better after your rant?

You have called the Wisdom spoken of in Proverbs 8, "a separate entity", and, since then, I've asked you, numerous times:

• What do you mean by "separate"?
• What do you mean by "entity"?

And you've never so much as tried to answer either of these questions.

Possibly we do not speak the same version of English, as I am in Australia and possibly you are in the USA. To give you the benefit of the doubt I looked up Webster’s instead of my Macquarie Dictionary. Webster defines these two words in the sense that I meant them. If you do not have a print copy then you may find an electronic copy – I used an electronic copy. Now after you look up Webster’s please check if the following shows that Wisdom is depicted as a separate entity, and my understanding of this is that Wisdom here is a personification, not a person.
Proverbs 8:12–31 (KJV): 12 I wisdom dwell with prudence, and find out knowledge of witty inventions. 22 The LORD possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old. 23 I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was. 24 When there were no depths, I was brought forth; when there were no fountains abounding with water. 25 Before the mountains were settled, before the hills was I brought forth: 26 While as yet he had not made the earth, nor the fields, nor the highest part of the dust of the world. 27 When he prepared the heavens, I was there: when he set a compass upon the face of the depth: 28 When he established the clouds above: when he strengthened the fountains of the deep: 29 When he gave to the sea his decree, that the waters should not pass his commandment: when he appointed the foundations of the earth: 30 Then I was by him, as one brought up with him: and I was daily his delight, rejoicing always before him; 31 Rejoicing in the habitable part of his earth; and my delights were with the sons of men.
Back to where this all started in our “discussion”, I suggest that the “Word” in John 1:1 is a similar personification to the wise woman “Wisdom” in Proverbs 8.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[God's Truth]

Lol. I'm sorry to say but yes it does. Again the ONLY reason why some text render the word elohim here are "angels", "heavenly beings" or "godlike ones" is because they are making it clear to the readers that the title God/god here does not relate to the one God but rather others person who are called Gods/gods. The bible makes it extremely clear there are other beings that are rightly called Gods/gods. Elohim doesn't mean Angel, yet scholars understand that is who is in reference here.

"..For even though there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth, just as there are many “gods” and many “lords,” 6 there is actually to us one God, the Father.." (1 Corinthians 8:5, 6)

God when speaking to Moses told him "[Aaron] will speak to the people for you. He will serve as a mouth for you, and you will serve as God [l-elohim] to him.." and "And the LORD said unto Moses, See, I have made thee a [elohim] to Pharaoh: and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet." Once again, others are called God/gods.

Notice the above, there are "so-called gods", just as there are "many gods" despite there being only one God "to us", namely the Christians, the Father. The verse, clearly in line with verses such as Exo 7:1, Ps 8:5, Ps 82:1 that show other beings being called God/god, acknowledges there are other beings called God/god stating there are "many gods".




Yes, as I stated these are literal translations of the text, they do not convey the writers intended meaning as thoughts and ideas are lost when translating written documents from one language to another.

I don't think you understand what I said. Some translations only refer to elohim as God.

 

[God's Truth]

So what you're saying is humans can speak in a metaphorical undertone, but when God speaks he's not allowed, everything he says has to be literal?

What God says is literal.

I don't think so. If a man were to say to his wife, I'll always be with you does it litreally mean he will litreally always physically be there in presence with his wife? No, what is said is metaphorical.

Are you trying to do away with the spiritual?

Likewise when Jesus says:

• "The Lord is my shepherd" ...
• “The day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night.” ...
• "I am the bread of life." ...
• “I am the way and the truth and the light.” ...
• “The kingdom of heaven is like treasure hidden in a field.” ...
• "You are the salt of the earth."

All of these expressions are metaphorical, none of them are literally mean what they are saying.

You just don’t understand the spiritual.

When Jesus says that we have to eat his flesh, he literally means it, but spiritually.

Whilst I do not deny that God's holy spirit can dwell in people, Jesus and the Father themselves do not literally dwell in us when such expressions are said in regards to man,

The Father and Jesus are the Holy Spirit. You contradict yourself. You say you do not deny that God’s Holy Spirit dwells in people, but then you say Jesus and the Father do not. The Father and Jesus ARE SPIRIT, and that means the one and only divine Spirit

they are simply using metaphorical to denote them being with them in mind and thought. To claim that one HAS to take all of God's words literally would make Jesus a literal animal, a piece of literal bread, a literal door, among other things, I do not take all Gods or Jesus words literally so do not have this issue.

Again, you are trying to explain away what is spiritual by replacing it with metaphors.

[Paul says ‘with’ you, NOT ‘in’ you.
It does not matter, let me prove it. Was Paul literally with the ones he wrote to in presence or was his figuratively with them?

It matters, for one, Paul did not say he would live in others; and, Paul is a human and not God.

It is not unreasonable as I have clearly expressed above. Jesus blood ultimately perfects, like you said, Jesus sacrifice and him being in or with us however has nothing to do with his ransom, this is something you're simply piecing together and trying to claim as relating to the same thing.

What? You are the one that said we were too unholy to live in. Jesus’ blood makes people holy and perfect and that happens when he lives in them.

 

[NWL]

I don't think you understand what I said. Some translations only refer to elohim as God.

Do you believe those translation of the verse are correct?

I would find it hard to believe most people would accept those translations of that verse as it creates too many implications. Let's review a couple of examples:

CSB You made him little less than God
CEV: You made us a little lower than you yourself
NLT: Yet you made them only a little lower than God

It should first be pointed out the subject of Psalms 8:5 is in relation to Adam or mankind, this is clear by the context from verse 4-8, "What is mortal man that you keep him in mind, And a son of man that you take care of him? 5 You made him a little lower than Elohim, And you crowned him with glory and splendor. 6 You gave him dominion over the works of your hands; You have put everything under his feet: 7 All the flocks and cattle, As well as the wild animals, 8 The birds of the heavens and the fish of the sea". The passage relates to when God told Adam (mankind) in Genesis 1:28 “Be fruitful and become many, fill the earth and subdue it, and have in subjection the fish of the sea and the flying creatures of the heavens and every living creature that is moving on the earth". (The verse Ps 8:5 is later applied to Christ as a type and anti-type).

"So if we were to take Psalms 8:5 to mean 'You made us [Man] a little lower than you yourself, God' then it suggests mankind are only a little lower than God himself! Such as thought is absurd! We as man are only "a little lower" than the being who created the sun, moon, and stars, and the universe, who has infinite power, who sees all and knows all? I don't think so, neither does the scholarly community think so, man is nothing to God. The scripture clearly isn't expressing that man is a little lower than God, as most bibles read and scholars understand, the correct understanding is that man is a little lower than the angels, who in the verse are called Elohim.

How do we know all this for a fact, because Hebrews 2:7 quotes Psalms 8:5 and applies it to Jesus as a type and anti-type, when Paul wrote Hebrews 2:7 did he use the word "theos" (or variation)? No, he used the word "angelous" which means "Angel" in English, he read and understood the term Elohim in Psalms 8:5 to be referring to Angels and quoted it as such, hence why most bibles translate Psalms 8:5 as Angels and not God. Again, most bibles that do translate Elohim as "God" instead of "Angel" in Psalms 8:5 is because they're translating according to a literal translation.

 

[NWL]

What God says is literal.

(John 10:9) I am the door; whoever enters through me will be saved - So is Jesus a literal door?
(John 6:35) Jesus said to them: “I am the bread of life. - Is Jesus a literal piece of bread?

Are you trying to do away with the spiritual?

Define what you mean when you say "spiritual"

You just don’t understand the spiritual.

When Jesus says that we have to eat his flesh, he literally means it, but spiritually.

What you said is self-contradictory, you can't say "when Jesus says that we have to eat his flesh, he literally means it, but spiritually", if Jesus literally meant for people to eat him then it was in relation to his flesh, if it was in relation to eating his "flesh spiritually" then he wasn't being literal but was rather being figurative. Jesus said in John 6:51, "the bread that I will give is my flesh in behalf of the life of the world”, Jesus was speaking about his flesh but in a figurative sense.

During the last supper, Jesus broke and loaf and passed a cup of wine, his disciples were commanded to "keep doing this in remembrance of [Jesus]", the bread and eating of it symbolizes the same thing Jesus expressed when he stated "I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread he will live forever; and for a fact, the bread that I will give is my flesh in behalf of the life of the world" (John 6:51).

(Luke 22:19) Also, he took a loaf, gave thanks, broke it, and gave it to them, saying: “This means my body, which is to be given in your behalf.

During Jesus last supper did the bread that Jesus passed around mean the same thing as when he said "the bread that I will give is my flesh in behalf of the life of the world"?

The Father and Jesus are the Holy Spirit. You contradict yourself. You say you do not deny that God’s Holy Spirit dwells in people, but then you say Jesus and the Father do not. The Father and Jesus ARE SPIRIT, and that means the one and only divine Spirit

This is pure assertion, nothing in the above demonstrates what you have just claimed. I do not believe the Holy spirit is a person or God so have nowhere contradicted myself, the Father is a person and so is the Son, as living beings they do not live in other beings, the Holy Spirit as a non-living being can reside in other beings and can do all and anything the Father will it to do.

Again, you are trying to explain away what is spiritual by replacing it with metaphors.

Are you seriously suggesting there is no metaphorical language in the bible?

Please remember to define what you mean why you say spiritual when you say I'm "trying to explain away what is spiritual"? What do you mean by spiritual here?

It does not matter, let me prove it. Was Paul literally with the ones he wrote to in presence or was his figuratively with them?

It matters, for one, Paul did not say he would live in others; and, Paul is a human and not God.

I have nowhere claimed Paul lived in others, you're repeating yourself. Again I will simply ask my question again as you ignored it, was Paul literally with the ones he wrote to in presence or was he figuratively with them?

 

[God's Truth]

(John 10:9) I am the door; whoever enters through me will be saved - So is Jesus a literal door?
(John 6:35) Jesus said to them: “I am the bread of life. - Is Jesus a literal piece of bread?

Jesus really is the door and the bread of life and he tells you how to eat him and go through him.

Define what you mean when you say "spiritual"

You really don't understand about spiritual.

It is what you dismiss as some metaphorical thing.

What you said is self-contradictory, you can't say "when Jesus says that we have to eat his flesh, he literally means it, but spiritually", if Jesus literally meant for people to eat him then it was in relation to his flesh, if it was in relation to eating his "flesh spiritually" then he wasn't being literal but was rather being figurative.

Stop calling what is a literal spiritual teaching and experience as being just some metaphorical and figurative thing.

Jesus said in John 6:51, "the bread that I will give is my flesh in behalf of the life of the world”, Jesus was speaking about his flesh but in a figurative sense.

During the last supper, Jesus broke and loaf and passed a cup of wine, his disciples were commanded to "keep doing this in remembrance of [Jesus]", the bread and eating of it symbolizes the same thing Jesus expressed when he stated "I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread he will live forever; and for a fact, the bread that I will give is my flesh in behalf of the life of the world" (John 6:51).

(Luke 22:19) Also, he took a loaf, gave thanks, broke it, and gave it to them, saying: “This means my body, which is to be given in your behalf.

During Jesus last supper did the bread that Jesus passed around mean the same thing as when he said "the bread that I will give is my flesh in behalf of the life of the world"?


This is pure assertion, nothing in the above demonstrates what you have just claimed. I do not believe the Holy spirit is a person or God so have nowhere contradicted myself,

The Holy Spirit is God the Father who is the Spirit.

the Father is a person and so is the Son,

They are Spirit; and, the SAME ONE AND ONLY divine Spirit.

as living beings they do not live in other beings,

You just keep going against God.

the Holy Spirit as a non-living being can reside in other beings and can do all and anything the Father will it to do.

You say the Holy Spirit is a non living being. You think something dead lives in humans? You don't even know what you say.

Are you seriously suggesting there is no metaphorical language in the bible?

Please remember to define what you mean why you say spiritual when you say I'm "trying to explain away what is spiritual"? What do you mean by spiritual here?

I want so much to help you to understand, and I want to say more about it, but you will probably just keep denying the truth. You know how I know that? Because you go against Jesus who says that he himself will live in the saved. You can't find the truth if you are denying and going against what Jesus says.

I have nowhere claimed Paul lived in others,

YOU are the one who uses Paul to say that Jesus doesn't live in others! I tell you that Paul never said he will live in others.

you're repeating yourself.

I can do that; and, you have a lot of nerve to tell me I repeat myself when you do it.

Again I will simply ask my question again as you ignored it, was Paul literally with the ones he wrote to in presence or was he figuratively with them?

You can't use Paul to explain away what GOD says. Paul is a mere man and he can't live in all the saved as Jesus does. You will not have true understanding of what is spiritual if you keep trying to dismiss it as figurative and metaphorical.

I have some catching up to do with some of your posts from yesterday, I haven't forgotten them. I hope to be on tonight to get to them. I am very glad to discuss deeply with you the things of God.

 

[Bright Raven]

He doesn't believe in the Trinity. Why do you argue with him?

 

[NWL]

Below are a list of question and points that have been ignored by you, our discussion cannot continue unless the points are answered, when I say answered I do not mean give a statement of faith as you have a habit of doing, but rather, actually answering the question I'm specifically asking, if you cannot or refuse to answer any one of the questions please admit so it writing.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The definition of Sovereign is someone having unrestricted power and absolute domination and no limitations or restraints according to , how is Jesus sovereign if it states "the Son himself will also subject himself to the One who subjected all things to him" showing that he is subject to someone? (post 7226)

John 17:21 has Jesus saying "Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us", do followers of Christ being "one in them" make them the Father or Jesus? If your answer is no then you must also admit that Jesus being "in" the Father does not necessitate that Jesus literally is the Father, your argument must be consistent. (post 7225)

Where does the bible tell us God didn’t send an angel as His only begotten son?(post 7225)

Please explain how your statement "God came as a man" explains God putting all enemies under Jesus feet if Jesus is the God who puts all enemies under his feet and how can God subject all things to Jesus if Jesus already has all things subjected to him by being able to subject all things to himself? (post 7225)

Does Paul say "Why have you thought up such a deed as this in your heart" in relation to knowing Ananias had sinned, yes or no? If your answer is yes then how did Paul know this? (post 7225)

My question still remains, is Jesus anywhere directly given the title "Sovereign Lord" anywhere in the Bible, yes or no? (post 7226)

Was Paul literally with the ones he wrote to in presence or was his figuratively with them? (post 7227)

Which translation do you accept of Psalms 8:5, that man was made "a little lower than God" or that man was made "a little lower than angels (elohim)"?

During Jesus last supper did the bread that he passes around mean the same thing as when he said "the bread that I will give is my flesh in behalf of the life of the world"? (post 7234)

 

[God's Truth]

He doesn't believe in the Trinity. Why do you argue with him?

Iron sharpens iron, and, it is a good way to study when one is debating another and trying to help them. Even if others don't gain anything from what I say, I know that I always gain.

 

[God's Truth]

Below are a list of question and points that have been ignored by you, our discussion cannot continue unless the points are answered, when I say answered I do not mean give a statement of faith as you have a habit of doing, but rather, actually answering the question I'm specifically asking, if you cannot or refuse to answer any one of the questions please admit so it writing.

You need to stop saying I don't answer your questions.
I will answer them one more time and then moving on and letting you go on to keep lying about me.

 

[God's Truth]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The definition of Sovereign is someone having unrestricted power and absolute domination and no limitations or restraints according to , how is Jesus sovereign if it states "the Son himself will also subject himself to the One who subjected all things to him" showing that he is subject to someone?

Jesus is the Sovereign God come as a man. Coming as a man, a servant, is making himself nothing.


Philippians 2:7 rather, he made himself nothing by taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness.

Hebrews 2:14 Since the children have flesh and blood, he too shared in their humanity so that by his death he might break the power of him who holds the power of death--that is, the devil--


God coming as a man and making himself nothing does not mean he is not God the Father come as a man in the flesh.



Jesus is God and it is his kingdom and he will reign forever.

Jesus will reign over the house of Jacob forever., and his KINGDOM will NEVER END. See Luke 1:33, and Revelation 11:15.

Revelation 11:15 Then the seventh angel sounded his trumpet, and loud voices called out in heaven: "The kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of our Lord and of His Christ, and He will reign forever and ever."

Luke 1:33 and he will reign over Jacob's descendants forever; his kingdom will never end."



Jesus is that one and only Sovereign God, the King of kings, and Lord of lords.

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.

Ephesians 1:22 And God placed all things under his feet and appointed him to be head over everything for the church,


See also these scriptures that say plainly Jesus is the sovereign Lord, and the ONLY King of king and Lord of lords:

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.