Is Jesus God?

[Rosenritter]

Greetings again Rosenritter, But surely you will recognise that the thirty pieces of silver was the money paid to Judas to betray Jesus, and not to Yahweh, God the Father.

"Give me my price" does not mean "pay me the money." It means to determine his price. The same passage clarifies the meaning. The price is what he is being sold for, not money that he receives for something else.

Zechariah 11:12-13 KJV
(12) And I said unto them, If ye think good, give me my price; and if not, forbear. So they weighed for my price thirty pieces of silver.
(13) And the LORD said unto me, Cast it unto the potter: a goodly price that I was prised at of them. And I took the thirty pieces of silver, and cast them to the potter in the house of the LORD.

In Zechariah, the price of the LORD is weighed at thirty pieces of silver. In the fulfillment of the prophecy, the price of Jesus was weighed at thirty pieces of silver. I acknowledge that you have a "substitution" reasoning, but the more of these that exist does lend support that the application is more likely to be literal.

God the Father will judge the world through His Son, the Lord Jesus Christ, who is still a man, even after his exaltation:
Acts 17:30–31 (KJV): 30 And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent: 31 Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead. .
God is clearly distinguished here from the man who is appointed by God the Father to be the future Judge, our Lord Jesus Christ.

Kind regards
Trevor

In Psalm 82, who is it that judges among the gods? Jesus used that psalm to refer to himself after he had preached that he was the judge of all in the coming judgment.

Psalms 82:1, 8 KJV
(1) A Psalm of Asaph. God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods.
(8) Arise, O God, judge the earth: for thou shalt inherit all nations.

In another thread this psalm was challenged as having been corrupted by biased translators... that it shouldn't have been "God" with a capital "G." So I checked the Septuagint which was at least 100 years before Christ, arguably free of any alleged Trinitarian bias. Their translation was Ho Theos... It's what you would expect from the context anyway, because who else would judge among the gods?

As further evidence of the meaning, when Jesus used this passage with the Jews they took up rocks to stone him. They understood his meaning as reinforcement of "You make yourself God." If Jesus meant to dispute that status, that wasn't the way to do it.

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again Rosenritter,

In Zechariah, the price of the LORD is weighed at thirty pieces of silver. In the fulfillment of the prophecy, the price of Jesus was weighed at thirty pieces of silver. I acknowledge that you have a "substitution" reasoning, but the more of these that exist does lend support that the application is more likely to be literal.

I would use the word representative rather substitution.

In Psalm 82, who is it that judges among the gods? Jesus used that psalm to refer to himself after he had preached that he was the judge of all in the coming judgment.
Psalms 82:1, 8 KJV: (1) A Psalm of Asaph. God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods. (8) Arise, O God, judge the earth: for thou shalt inherit all nations.
As further evidence of the meaning, when Jesus used this passage with the Jews they took up rocks to stone him. They understood his meaning as reinforcement of "You make yourself God." If Jesus meant to dispute that status, that wasn't the way to do it.

We could have a fairly long discussion on Psalm 82 and the following is a brief overview of my understanding. I suggest that to properly understand Psalm 82 and John 10:30-36 each part must be carefully examined, and a proper understanding of the role of the Judges in Israel also needs to be considered. Actually the way I understand John 10:30-36 is that Jesus is rejecting their claim, and he uses Psalm 82:6 as evidence against their false accusation and finishes by stating that he is the Son of God.
John 10:30-36 (KJV) 30 I and my Father are one. 31 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him. 32 Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me? 33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God. 34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? 35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; 36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?
At the time when Psalm 82 was written, it was God the Father that judged the Judges, but in the future it will be Jesus who will arise and Judge the earth. Like the Judges in Israel, Jesus will also bear the title of God “Elohim”, but will be of higher rank and authority.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[Rosenritter]

Greetings again Rosenritter, I would use the word representative rather substitution.
We could have a fairly long discussion on Psalm 82 and the following is a brief overview of my understanding. I suggest that to properly understand Psalm 82 and John 10:30-36 each part must be carefully examined, and a proper understanding of the role of the Judges in Israel also needs to be considered. Actually the way I understand John 10:30-36 is that Jesus is rejecting their claim, and he uses Psalm 82:6 as evidence against their false accusation and finishes by stating that he is the Son of God.
John 10:30-36 (KJV) 30 I and my Father are one. 31 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him. 32 Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me? 33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God. 34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? 35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; 36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?
At the time when Psalm 82 was written, it was God the Father that judged the Judges, but in the future it will be Jesus who will arise and Judge the earth. Like the Judges in Israel, Jesus will also bear the title of God “Elohim”, but will be of higher rank and authority.

Kind regards
Trevor

So if the name of Jesus is always substituted for God, and everyplace that God is supposed to appear we see Jesus, where God was prophesied to arise and inherit the earth we see Jesus arise as King of Kings and Lord of Lords... doesn't that start to imply something?

Exodus 34:14 KJV
(14) For thou shalt worship no other god: for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God:

John 9:35-38 KJV
(35) Jesus heard that they had cast him out; and when he had found him, he said unto him, Dost thou believe on the Son of God?
(36) He answered and said, Who is he, Lord, that I might believe on him?
(37) And Jesus said unto him, Thou hast both seen him, and it is he that talketh with thee.
(38) And he said, Lord, I believe. And he worshipped him.

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

Revelation 19:10 KJV
(10) And I fell at his feet to worship him. And he said unto me, See thou do it not: I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren that have the testimony of Jesus: worship God: for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.

Your theory already has God substituting himself for Jesus in the Messianic prophesies (or is it Jesus substituting himself for the LORD in the fulfillment?) ... but can God substitute someone else in his place to receive worship?

 

[Right Divider]

Greetings again Right Divider, A strong denial for something that is clearly taught in the Scriptures:
Luke 1:34–35 (KJV): 34 Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man? 35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

Shall be CALLED does NOT mean shall BECOME.

This glory that Jesus was to receive was in the plan and purpose of God.

You completely IGNORED the scripture that I quoted which says that Jesus ALREADY had glory BEFORE THE WORLD WAS.

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

​

Jesus was ALWAYS the Son of God.

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again Rosenritter,

So if the name of Jesus is always substituted for God, and everyplace that God is supposed to appear we see Jesus, where God was prophesied to arise and inherit the earth we see Jesus arise as King of Kings and Lord of Lords... doesn't that start to imply something?
Your theory already has God substituting himself for Jesus in the Messianic prophesies (or is it Jesus substituting himself for the LORD in the fulfillment?) ... but can God substitute someone else in his place to receive worship?

The word substitute gives the impression that one replaces the other, and the first does not appear or is not part of the process. God delights to share His plan, purpose and work with others, especially His own Beloved Son. The word representative indicates that one represents the other, and both are there in any transaction. The following shows how this is accomplished and the balance between the two anomalies is seen in the fact that God has exalted Jesus and given him a Name and status above every name, and God invites us to bow the knee to Jesus, and this redounds to the glory of God the Father.
Philippians 2:8–11 (KJV): 8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. 9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: 10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; 11 And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. .
God is clearly distinguished here from the man who has been exalted by God the Father to be the Lord and the ruler to sit upon the throne of his father David, our Lord Jesus Christ. It does not say here, to the glory of God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again Right Divider,

Shall be CALLED does NOT mean shall BECOME.

The child born became Jesus, and as well as being called Jesus, he would also be called the Son of God. Luke 1:35 clearly teaches WHY he was also to be CALLED the Son of God, because God the Father was to be his father and Mary his mother. Note the word “therefore”.
Luke 1:34–35 (KJV): 34 Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man? 35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God. .

You completely IGNORED the scripture that I quoted which says that Jesus ALREADY had glory BEFORE THE WORLD WAS.

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

Jesus was ALWAYS the Son of God.

My only suggestion is that this was in prospect. There are other verses that speak as if things have already occurred, but were future:
Revelation 13:8 (KJV): And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.
Ephesians 1:4–5 (KJV): 4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: 5 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, .

Jesus’ power and authority are derived, not innate as the context of your favourite verse teaches:
John 17:1–4 (KJV): 1 These words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee: 2 As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him. 3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent. 4 I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do. .
This also teaches that there is only One true God, the Father.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[Right Divider]

Greetings again Right Divider, The child born became Jesus, and as well as being called Jesus, he would also be called the Son of God. Luke 1:35 clearly teaches WHY he was also to be CALLED the Son of God, because God the Father was to be his father and Mary his mother. Note the word “therefore”.
Luke 1:34–35 (KJV): 34 Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man? 35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God. .

Once AGAIN, Shall be CALLED (the Son of God) does NOT mean shall BECOME (the Son of God).

My only suggestion is that this was in prospect. There are other verses that speak as if things have already occurred, but were future:
Revelation 13:8 (KJV): And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.
Ephesians 1:4–5 (KJV): 4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: 5 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, .

That is just plain dishonest.

Jesus’ power and authority are derived, not innate as the context of your favourite verse teaches:
John 17:1–4 (KJV): 1 These words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee: 2 As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him. 3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent. 4 I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do. .
This also teaches that there is only One true God, the Father.

Kind regards
Trevor

John 1:1-14

The Word WAS GOD and the Word BECAME FLESH. Believe it or perish, it's your choice.

 

[Rosenritter]

Greetings again Rosenritter, The word substitute gives the impression that one replaces the other, and the first does not appear or is not part of the process. God delights to share His plan, purpose and work with others, especially His own Beloved Son. The word representative indicates that one represents the other, and both are there in any transaction. The following shows how this is accomplished and the balance between the two anomalies is seen in the fact that God has exalted Jesus and given him a Name and status above every name, and God invites us to bow the knee to Jesus, and this redounds to the glory of God the Father.
Philippians 2:8–11 (KJV): 8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. 9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: 10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; 11 And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. .
God is clearly distinguished here from the man who has been exalted by God the Father to be the Lord and the ruler to sit upon the throne of his father David, our Lord Jesus Christ. It does not say here, to the glory of God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit.

Kind regards
Trevor

In that quote of Philippians Paul takes the passage from Isaiah has no reservation against using the name "Jesus" where the Old Testament said "God." Far from "clearly distinguishing" it adds more evidence to the "blending" effect I was describing earlier. It also works just as well if these are one and the same.

... and for the sake of avoiding non-applicable side tracks, why would you say "it does not say here, to the glory of God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit?" I mean it's not productive to argue against someone else's argument (have I said anything like that?)

Regardless, I'm not sure you sufficiently addressed the question. Angels are also representatives of God but they do not accept worship: they flat out forbid the action. The angels worship Jesus, Jesus accepted the worship of men, and Jesus even praised Thomas who acknowledged him as his God.

John 20:28-29 KJV
(28) And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.
(29) Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.

Sometimes politicians or celebrities will employ body doubles so that they can appear to be in a different place than they really are... but what need does God have to find a non-God person as representative to Judge the World, Issue Commandments, Accept Worship, and take on Every Holy Name that he said was used to Uniquely Identify Himself?

Luke 4:8 KJV
(8) And Jesus answered and said unto him, Get thee behind me, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.

Yet the very Jesus who spoke these words is both worshiped by angels and accepts worship of men. That would be a very strange behavior for one that emphasized that God alone is to be worshiped.

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again Right Divider,

Once AGAIN, Shall be CALLED (the Son of God) does NOT mean shall BECOME (the Son of God).

You seem to miss the relevance of the word “therefore” in Luke 1:35. Jesus will be CALLED “the Son of God” because God the Father is his father in the conception, birth process.

That is just plain dishonest.

It appears that you have not properly considered Psalm 8, where God, in the context of the creation, anticipates the birth of Jesus, being made lower than the Angels and then his exaltation to honour and glory, and given authority over all things. Yet Psalm 8 speaks of these terms in the past tense, even when they were future.

The same sort of language is applied to Abraham and Paul speaks of the principle:
Romans 4:17 (KJV): (As it is written, I have made thee a father of many nations,) before him whom he believed, even God, who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they were. .

John 1:1-14 The Word WAS GOD and the Word BECAME FLESH. Believe it or perish, it's your choice.

Yes, I believe John 1:1-14, but I do not agree with the Trinitarian view of these verses.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again Rosenritter,

In that quote of Philippians Paul takes the passage from Isaiah has no reservation against using the name "Jesus" where the Old Testament said "God." Far from "clearly distinguishing" it adds more evidence to the "blending" effect I was describing earlier. It also works just as well if these are one and the same.
... and for the sake of avoiding non-applicable side tracks, why would you say "it does not say here, to the glory of God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit?" I mean it's not productive to argue against someone else's argument (have I said anything like that?)

In Isaiah 45 the reference is to Yahweh. In Philippians 2 I believe that Jesus receives the Name Yahweh because he now fully represents Yahweh. I suggest if the Trinity was correct it would say more or differently to “to the glory of God the Father.”

Regardless, I'm not sure you sufficiently addressed the question. Angels are also representatives of God but they do not accept worship: they flat out forbid the action. The angels worship Jesus, Jesus accepted the worship of men, and Jesus even praised Thomas who acknowledged him as his God.
John 20:28-29 KJV (28) And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.
(29) Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.

The title “God” is used in the OT for Angels and Judges. Jesus is the only one who fully represents God the Father, but any obeisance to Jesus, ultimately is worship and to the glory of God the Father.

Sometimes politicians or celebrities will employ body doubles so that they can appear to be in a different place than they really are... but what need does God have to find a non-God person as representative to Judge the World, Issue Commandments, Accept Worship, and take on Every Holy Name that he said was used to Uniquely Identify Himself?

Jesus is the Son of God.

Luke 4:8 KJV And Jesus answered and said unto him, Get thee behind me, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.
Yet the very Jesus who spoke these words is both worshiped by angels and accepts worship of men. That would be a very strange behavior for one that emphasized that God alone is to be worshiped.

As above.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[Right Divider]

Greetings again Right Divider, You seem to miss the relevance of the word “therefore” in Luke 1:35. Jesus will be CALLED “the Son of God” because God the Father is his father in the conception, birth process.

And you continue to miss the point of the verse that I have been repeatedly quoting, which shows that there was a Father/Son relationship LONG BEFORE Jesus' birth.

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

BEFORE the WORLD WAS is LONG before Jesus' birth and YET they were ALREADY Father and Son.

 

[Rosenritter]

Greetings again Rosenritter, In Isaiah 45 the reference is to Yahweh. In Philippians 2 I believe that Jesus receives the Name Yahweh because he now fully represents Yahweh. I suggest if the Trinity was correct it would say more or differently to “to the glory of God the Father.”

Trevor, maybe you misunderstood my question when I asked about that "Trinity" reference. I meant "what does that have to do with this conversation?" I have made no reference to such a model nor made any similar implied statement. "To the glory of God the Father" is correct and fitting and not inconsistent with Jesus being the literal form of God manifest in the flesh.

Spoiler

Please save Trinity arguments for someone who uses Trinity arguments?

The title “God” is used in the OT for Angels and Judges. Jesus is the only one who fully represents God the Father, but any obeisance to Jesus, ultimately is worship and to the glory of God the Father.
Jesus is the Son of God.
As above.

Kind regards
Trevor

Where do you perceive angels and judges being called God and by the unique names and titles of God? I think this would be a useful branch to explore, but you would need something stronger than the word "god" used within metaphor:

Exodus 7:1 KJV
(1) And the LORD said unto Moses, See, I have made thee a god to Pharaoh: and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet.

Moses was supposed to be the prophet of the LORD and thus to speak for him, but since he was afraid to speak God designated someone else. There is a little bit of humor, possibly with a little sarcasm, but it could not possibly be confused with calling Moses God or Jehovah. I've seen some people try to apply that passage before like that, I apologize if that wasn't your meaning.

Exodus 3:4-5 KJV
(4) And when the LORD saw that he turned aside to see, God called unto him out of the midst of the bush, and said, Moses, Moses. And he said, Here am I.
(5) And he said, Draw not nigh hither: put off thy shoes from off thy feet, for the place whereon thou standest is holy ground.

So on the constructive side, why was the ground in the presence of the bush holy? More specifically, was is sacred because of its permanent location, or for a specific time for a specific reason?

 

[Rosenritter]

It appears that you have not properly considered Psalm 8, where God, in the context of the creation, anticipates the birth of Jesus, being made lower than the Angels and then his exaltation to honour and glory, and given authority over all things.

If Jesus was made a little lower than the angels, that would also implies that he was not lower than the angels before. But yet even when he was made lower than the angels the angels still obeyed and served him, so is it speaking in terms of form or authority?

Trevor, if you don't mind a quick response: when we speak of Jesus in heaven above, how old would you say he is? Roughly two thousand years old, roughly six thousand years old, a finite millions of years old, or would you say he is literally eternal in the fullest sense of the term?

 

[Right Divider]

If Jesus was made a little lower than the angels, that would also implies that he was not lower than the angels before. But yet even when he was made lower than the angels the angels still obeyed and served him, so is it speaking in terms of form or authority?

:thumb:

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again Right Divider,

And you continue to miss the point of the verse that I have been repeatedly quoting, which shows that there was a Father/Son relationship LONG BEFORE Jesus' birth.

The point of Luke 1:35 is to state that when an individual correctly looked at Jesus, they would also realise that Jesus was the Son of God because God was his father and Mary his mother by the conception and birth process. Trinitarians have difficulty with this verse because they believe that God the Son was somehow incarnated into the womb of Mary.

One way they would recognise Jesus as the Son of God was because his moral character revealed his Divine begettal:
Luke 1:34–35 (KJV): 34 Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man? 35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.
John 1:14 (KJV): And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
Romans 1:1–4 (KJV): 1 Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God, 2 (Which he had promised afore by his prophets in the holy scriptures,) 3 Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh; 4 And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead: .

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[keypurr]

Joh 17:3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

Who do you trust? if you do not believe in the words of the master, your wrong.

YHWH is not in your churches. Like Elvis, he has left the building. Follow your man made religion if you wish. I will trust in my God and my Lord Jesus Christ.

May YHWH open your eyes to his words and remove you from the darkness of Satan's churches.

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again Rosenritter,

Trevor, maybe you misunderstood my question when I asked about that "Trinity" reference. I meant "what does that have to do with this conversation?" I have made no reference to such a model nor made any similar implied statement. "To the glory of God the Father" is correct and fitting and not inconsistent with Jesus being the literal form of God manifest in the flesh.

I am not sure what you would want here, as Jesus is not God the Father.

Where do you perceive angels and judges being called God and by the unique names and titles of God? I think this would be a useful branch to explore, but you would need something stronger than the word "god" used within metaphor:

You introduced the reference, but possibly you did not understand that “gods” in the following is referring to the Judges:

In Psalm 82, who is it that judges among the gods? Jesus used that psalm to refer to himself after he had preached that he was the judge of all in the coming judgment.
Psalms 82:1, 8 KJV
(1) A Psalm of Asaph. God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods.
(8) Arise, O God, judge the earth: for thou shalt inherit all nations.

The Judges were called “Elohim” because they represented God. The fact that the word usually translated “God”, “Elohim” is used for the Judges can be seen by comparing the following two translations:
Exodus 21:6 (KJV): Then his master shall bring him unto the judges; he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an aul; and he shall serve him for ever.
Exodus 21:6 (ASV 1901): then his master shall bring him unto God, and shall bring him to the door, or unto the door-post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an awl; and he shall serve him for ever. .

If Jesus was made a little lower than the angels, that would also implies that he was not lower than the angels before. But yet even when he was made lower than the angels the angels still obeyed and served him, so is it speaking in terms of form or authority?

Psalm 8:5 is speaking of the conception and birth of Jesus, when he was made.

Trevor, if you don't mind a quick response: when we speak of Jesus in heaven above, how old would you say he is? Roughly two thousand years old, roughly six thousand years old, a finite millions of years old, or would you say he is literally eternal in the fullest sense of the term?

He was given immortality after his resurrection. I will let you make your own deduction from that.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[Right Divider]

Greetings again Right Divider, The point of Luke 1:35 is to state that when an individual correctly looked at Jesus, they would also realise that Jesus was the Son of God because God was his father and Mary his father by the conception and birth process. Trinitarians have difficulty with this verse because they believe that God the Son was somehow incarnated into the womb of Mary.

:french:

When will you accept scripture?

Jesus said that God was His Father LONG BEFORE HIS BIRTH as a MAN.

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

It's so simple that a child can understand it.

 

[Rosenritter]

Greetings again Rosenritter, I am not sure what you would want here, as Jesus is not God the Father.

What I am looking for is to follow the evidence where it leads, rather than trying to force the evidence into a ready made mold. I haven't demanded a Trinity model so there's no point in your argument against a Trinity model. A model is for the purpose of illustrating a set of features and is rarely perfect. For example, have you ever seen a perfect model of our solar system? A good model emphasizes shapes of orbits, or even relative sizes but a perfect model would be the original and unable to be grasped due to complexity.

As to "Jesus is not the Father" I could also say that "my eye is not my head" and be mostly correct... because, after all, there is a reason why there are different words for eye and head. Yet it could also be true in another application, because if you hit me and only hit my head you might injure my eye and only my eye. The "head" usually symbolizes the man but our eye and our hand is also part of us as well.

You introduced the reference, but possibly you did not understand that “gods” in the following is referring to the Judges:

In that example there is no sensible confusion between God and the gods. The judges are not called "God" ... and even then, that word "elohim" is limited to Hebrew. "My Lord and my God" is in Greek.

He was given immortality after his resurrection. I will let you make your own deduction from that.

John does say "In the beginning was the Word" and with such an introduction the immediate assumption is usually "eternal" but I have heard different types of responses on this before and as such I know better than to assume someone's answer. Would you give me your answer?

Spoiler

By the way. how do you arrive at Jesus was given immortality after his resurrection? Is there a specific passage on your mind? He stated that he possessed immortality in the same sense as the Father as early as in John 5:26.

John 5:26 KJV
(26) For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself;

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again Rosenritter,

In that example there is no sensible confusion between God and the gods. The judges are not called "God" ... and even then, that word "elohim" is limited to Hebrew. "My Lord and my God" is in Greek.

Jesus refers to this unique concept and our record of this is in Greek:
John 10:34-36 (KJV): 34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? 35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; 36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?
Jesus uses the example of the Judges to answer their false accusation. Just as the Judges represented God, receiving the word of God and acting on God’s behalf and were called by God the Father “Elohim” or “gods”, so Jesus in his greater role as the Son of God represented God and acted on his behalf.

John does say "In the beginning was the Word" and with such an introduction the immediate assumption is usually "eternal" but I have heard different types of responses on this before and as such I know better than to assume someone's answer. Would you give me your answer?

The Word in John 1:1 is not Jesus.

Spoiler

By the way. how do you arrive at Jesus was given immortality after his resurrection? Is there a specific passage on your mind? He stated that he possessed immortality in the same sense as the Father as early as in John 5:26.

Spoiler

God raised him from the dead, therefore he did not have immortality before this event, otherwise he would not die 2 Timothy 1:10.

Kind regards
Trevor