The New Testament refers to Jesus as "God"

[Fred]

Not according to comparing the Old Testament Hebrew

The Book of Acts was not originally written in Hebrew.

You are very confused.

 

[Runningman]

Jesus being the proper recipient of 'pelach' is heresy to you because you reject what Daniel 7:14 says.

That is not what Daniel 7:14 says.

You are really reaching here. The word pelach in Daniel 7:14 means "serve, minister." Yes Christ is served, but not worshipped as God as you seem to be trying to suggest.

In the Septuagint, the δουλεύω douleuō (G1398 in the Strong's) once again refers to serving or being of service. Now that you have a good lead about where to look into the word, you should begin looking at how else it is used in the NT. It isn't about worship. How embarrassing for you. Are you being serious here?

 

[Fred]

The word pelach in Daniel 7:14 means "serve, minister." Yes Christ is served,

One of the ways that 'pelach' (Daniel 6:16) is rendered is by prayer (Daniel 6:10).

Since the Lord Jesus is the proper recipient of 'pelah' (Daniel 7:14) proves He is the proper recipient of prayer.

 

[Runningman]

One of the ways that 'pelach' (Daniel 6:16) is rendered is by prayer (Daniel 6:10).

Since the Lord Jesus is the proper recipient of 'pelah' (Daniel 7:14) proves He is the proper recipient of prayer.

And literally no theologian agrees with your homebrewed interpretation. No one translates Daniel 7:14 that way because it's not appropriate given the context. Your premise has no foundation.

 

[Runningman]

The Book of Acts was not originally written in Hebrew.

You are very confused.

What are you on? Quotes from the Old Testament in the New Testament have a Hebrew translation in the Old Testament. Lord in the New Testatment is not always YHWH. This has already been proven. Acts 2:21 isn't going anywhere. Read Joel. It proves Jesus isn't YHWH.

 

[Fred]

And literally no theologian agrees with your homebrewed interpretation. No one translates Daniel 7:14 that way because it's not appropriate given the context. Your premise has no foundation.

Gesenius' Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon: Citing Daniel 7:14 reads, "to worship God." (pelach, page 847)

Thanks for making this very easy for me.

 

[Fred]

Lord in the New Testatment is not always YHWH.

Testament, not Testatment.

"Lord" always refers to Jesus in the Book of Acts when the expression "the name of the Lord" is used.

Every example proves you wrong.
None agree with you.

I'll stick with the 100% and you can embrace 0%.

 

[Runningman]

Gesenius' Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon: Citing Daniel 7:14 reads, "to worship God."

Thanks for making this very easy for me.

Who has ever heard of that? Fringe books are not substantive to prove anything.

 

[Runningman]

Testament, not Testatment.

"Lord" always refers to Jesus in the Book of Acts when the expression "the name of the Lord" is used.

Every example proves you wrong.
None agree with you.

I'll stick with the 100% and you can embrace 0%.

Not according to scripture. Once again, Acts 2:21 is quoted from Joel 2:28-32 where the Lord being reference is YHWH.

Jesus is not YHWH in Matt 22:44 or Hebrews 1:5. Read Psalm 110:1 and Psalm 2:7 for proof. This is too easy.

 

[Fred]

Not according to scripture.

What's written in the Book of Acts is Scripture.

Thanks for making this easy for me.

 

[Runningman]

What's written in the Book of Acts is Scripture.

Thanks for making this easy for me.

Amen it is scripture! So is Joel 2:28-32. Do you deny the Old Testament?

 

[Fred]

Amen it is scripture! So is Joel 2:28-32. Do you deny the Old Testament?

You are denying who "the name of the Lord" always refers to in the Book of Acts.

This is because it smashes your false jesus.

 

[Fred]

Who has ever heard of that? Fringe books are not substantive to prove anything.

Those who deny Jesus is God hate lexicons, because they enjoy playing make believe instead of believing what the words of the Bible really mean.

Thanks for further proof for this.

 

[Runningman]

You are denying who "the name of the Lord" always refers to in the Book of Acts.

This is because it smashes your false jesus.

Only in your dreams. If you only knew you were attacking the real Jesus you would be on your face repenting right now. Perhaps you need to go through what Sault-turned-Paul went through to wake up.

What ever happened to all of your talk about Daniel 7:14? Did you know that practicing Jews, well-versed about the theology of Judaism, and fluent in Greek translated the Old Testament in the 3rd-1st centuries BC? They didn't use the word for worship in Daniel 7:14. What you're saying is something literally no one except for a few fringe people think. Know why none of the Bibles says "worship" in Daniel 7:14? Because the earliest manuscripts don't corroborate it as a sound interpretation. Study more Fred!

 

[Runningman]

Those who deny Jesus is God hate lexicons, because they enjoy playing make believe instead of believing what the words of the Bible really mean.

Thanks for further proof for this.

It contradicts the Old Testament and the Greek Septuagint. Case closed Freddy.

 

[Fred]

Only in your dreams.

"The name of the Lord" is in the Book of Acts.

 

[Fred]

It contradicts the Old Testament and the Greek Septuagint. Case closed Freddy.

Okay close your empty case because it contradicts how the words of the Bible are properly defined.

Keep playing make believe all you want.

 

[eclipseEventSigns]

That doesn't make sense. See below. YHWH said to YHWH sit at His own right hand until He makes His own enemies His foot stool?

Matt 22
44‘The Lord said to my Lord,
“Sit at My right hand
until I put Your enemies
under Your feet.” ’

And yet, this is quoted from Psalm 110:1 where Lord and Lord are not the same person. One LORD is YHWH and the other Lord isn't YHWH in the Hebrew. The New Testament Greek only convolutes this a bit for the unlearned. I highly recommend a background in the Old Testament before engaging the New. The New cannot be properly understood without the Old.

Ya, a true and accurate understanding of the Old Testament. Obviously your comment shows you do not possess that.

 

[eclipseEventSigns]

It contradicts the Old Testament and the Greek Septuagint. Case closed Freddy.

LOL. LOL. Which "Old Testament"? Which "Greek Septuagint"? Bet you didn't know there were multiple.

 

[Runningman]

Ya, a true and accurate understanding of the Old Testament. Obviously your comment shows you do not possess that.

LOL. LOL. Which "Old Testament"? Which "Greek Septuagint"? Bet you didn't know there were multiple.

Oh man. First comment to me and you couldn't even produce something of substance. Just a bunch of hot air. What I said to you stands unaddressed still. Even Freddy couldn't do anything about YHWH and Jesus being two different persons.