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

[genuineoriginal]

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

The angels are created beings.

It is possible that angels are created beings, but they were not created as physical beings at the creation of the physical universe.
They were already in existence before the creation of heaven (sky) and earth.

We do know that the Bible speaks of other sons of God and other gods.
God is not the only divine being according to scripture.

 

[Rosenritter]

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

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

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

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

1. Scripture plainly states that the Word created all things, that the Son created all things that were made. You're tossing these passages out because you don't like their meaning, reasoning that "they couldn't possibly really mean that." You are not considering that they might actually mean what they say. Don't deny this, you know you don't consider that possibility.

2. Your usage of the word "divine" has become useless. Please choose language that has agreed upon meaning if you are trying to communicate.

3. While it is said that "The Father" is greater than "the Son" you won't find any place that says that God is greater than the Son. Father and Son are allegorical references. The Father is called God and the Son is called God (both directly and by deduction)

Hebrews 1:8 KJV
(8) But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.

That would seem like an awfully strange thing for Paul to say if he wanted people to think that the Son was someone other than God.

4. Jesus does not exclude himself as the only True God. The Jews recognized that by calling himself the Son of God he made himself God, he accepted worship, he forgave sins, he prophesied that he would raise himself from the dead. He praised Thomas who acknowledged him as Lord and God, and calls himself by the unique titles of the LORD of Hosts in Revelation.

5. Aside from your "red herring" about what "mainstream Christianity teaches" your view seems rather misinformed.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

God is called The Father by the Son of God.

Yes, and when the Lord Jesus said God was His Father the Jews understood Him to be claiming to be the God of Israel:

"Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his father, making himself equal with God"​

(Jn.5:18).​

If the Lord Jesus was not making Himself equal to God He would have said so, saying it was just a misunderstanding. But what He told them was not a denial but instead confirmed their thoughts that He was indeed making Himself equal with the God of Israel:

"For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them; even so the Son quickeneth whom he will. For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son" (Jn.5:21-22).​

Then what He said next left no doubt that He was making Himself equal to God:

"That all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him" (Jn.5:23).​

 

[genuineoriginal]

1. Scripture plainly states that the Word created all things, that the Son created all things that were made. You're tossing these passages out because you don't like their meaning, reasoning that "they couldn't possibly really mean that." You are not considering that they might actually mean what they say. Don't deny this, you know you don't consider that possibility.

The modern translations say what you want them to say and that is good enough for you.
I search the scriptures to see if what modern Christianity says is true according to the scripture.
The scriptures do not conclusively support the idea that Jesus created all things that were made, but do conclusively support the idea the the Father created all things that were made.

2. Your usage of the word "divine" has become useless. Please choose language that has agreed upon meaning if you are trying to communicate.

Your refusal to accept the words that describe divinity makes it difficult to have a conversation.
What words would you accept?

3. While it is said that "The Father" is greater than "the Son" you won't find any place that says that God is greater than the Son. Father and Son are allegorical references. The Father is called God and the Son is called God (both directly and by deduction)

If you think the Father and the Son are allegorical references, then you might as well lump the Resurrection in as an allegorical reference and just dump the Bible altogether.
You can make the scriptures say anything you want by claiming what it says is merely allegorical.

Hebrews 1:8 KJV
(8) But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.

That would seem like an awfully strange thing for Paul to say if he wanted people to think that the Son was someone other than God.

"But unto the Son he saith," is an awfully strange thing for Paul to write if he wanted people to think the Son and God were the same being.

4. Jesus does not exclude himself as the only True God. The Jews recognized that by calling himself the Son of God he made himself God, he accepted worship, he forgave sins, he prophesied that he would raise himself from the dead. He praised Thomas who acknowledged him as Lord and God, and calls himself by the unique titles of the LORD of Hosts in Revelation.

We have gone round and round over your misreading of those scriptures and your refusal to accept the words of Jesus when He corrected people who assumed that He was claiming to be God.

 

[Rosenritter]

It is possible that angels are created beings, but they were not created as physical beings at the creation of the physical universe.
They were already in existence before the creation of heaven (sky) and earth.

We do know that the Bible speaks of other sons of God and other gods.
God is not the only divine being according to scripture.

Aside from a preexisting assumption, do you have any scripture to support that the angels were already in existence before day one?

Job 38:4-7 KJV
(4) Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.
(5) Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it?
(6) Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof;
(7) When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?

If we apply verse seven to the created angels, we only know for sure that they were present to see the creation being made, not that they necessarily preceded the beginning of that creation. For example, they could have been formed in day four in keeping with their reference to stars. There isn't much said on this point, and the best that we have is vague.

Regardless, your designation of "divine" is worthless in this context, as even the devil is "divine" by that standard.

 

[genuineoriginal]

Yes, and when the Lord Jesus said God was His Father the Jews understood Him to be claiming to be the God of Israel:

"Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his father, making himself equal with God"​

(Jn.5:18).​

If the Lord Jesus was not making Himself equal to God He would have denied it and said it was just a misunderstanding.

Jesus did make Himself equal to God, but Jesus also denied that He was God.

John 10:36 36 [JESUS]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]​

But what He told them was not a denial but instead confirmed their thoughts that He was indeed making Himself equal with God:

"For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them; even so the Son quickeneth whom he will. For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son" (Jn.5:21-22).​

Then what He said next left no doubt that He was making Himself equal to God:

"That all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him" (Jn.5:23).​

God sent the Son of God to be God's prophet who would speak God's words and would use the power of God to perform miracles as proof that God sent Him.
Anyone would would not honor the person God sent was not honoring God who sent Him, just as Jesus said.
Anyone that rejected the person God sent was rejecting God who sent Him.

Do you believe God sanctified Jesus?
Do you believe God sent Jesus into the world?
Do you believe Jesus is the Son of God?

Modern Christianity effectively teaches that Jesus was not sanctified, God did not send Jesus, and Jesus is not the Son of God, because Jesus is God who came into the world disguised as Jesus and does not need to be sanctified by Himself.

 

[Rosenritter]

The modern translations say what you want them to say and that is good enough for you.
I search the scriptures to see if what modern Christianity says is true according to the scripture.

That is called "posturing." Seeing that I started probably somewhat close to where you are now, that accusation has little application for me.

What words would you accept?

There's no point identifying that you believe Jesus was "divine" if the question is whether he is God.

If you think the Father and the Son are allegorical references, then you might as well lump the Resurrection in as an allegorical reference and just dump the Bible altogether.

Either "Father" and "Son" are literal, or they are allegorical. A literal father means begets a literal son quite literally. Unless you're willing to consider God in a behavioral category like the philanderer Zeus, you must also concede that "Father" and "Son" are allegorical references.

You can make the scriptures say anything you want by claiming what it says is merely allegorical.

You can deny anything you want from the scripture with the claim that the scripture was "corrupted" by people adverse to your beliefs.

"But unto the Son he saith," is an awfully strange thing for Paul to write if he wanted people to think the Son and God were the same being.

The complete quote is, "But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God..." Omitting the relevant part of that sentence as if to deny that the Son is identified as God takes some unique chutzpah.

We have gone round and round over your misreading of those scriptures and your refusal to accept the words of Jesus when He corrected people who assumed that He was claiming to be God.

Jesus antagonized the Pharisees by applying the Psalm in a fashion that identified Himself (the Judge of the Dead) as the God that judged among the gods. It had the desired effect. His audience was under no delusion that he made himself any less than God, even as the scriptures called God God.

 

[genuineoriginal]

Aside from a preexisting assumption, do you have any scripture to support that the angels were already in existence before day one?

Job 38:4-7 KJV
(4) Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.
(5) Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it?
(6) Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof;
(7) When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?

If we apply verse seven to the created angels, we only know for sure that they were present to see the creation being made, not that they necessarily preceded the beginning of that creation. For example, they could have been formed in day four in keeping with their reference to stars.

You are looking for the time of the creation of the stars as lights in the sky instead of looking for the time that the foundations of the earth were laid.

There isn't much said on this point, and the best that we have is vague.

Yes.

Regardless, your designation of "divine" is worthless in this context, as even the devil is "divine" by that standard.

If angels are the sons of God and the devil is a fallen angel, then what word would apply to both angels and the devil?

How can we communicate if we don't use words?
Which of these words can you accept as a suitable substitute for "divine"?

celestial
deity
god
higher power
lord
spirit

 

[Rosenritter]

Reposting:

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

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

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


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

 

[genuineoriginal]

Either "Father" and "Son" are literal, or they are allegorical. A literal father means begets a literal son quite literally.

Mary did not become allegorically pregnant and did not give birth to an allegorical son.
Mary, who had never known a man (a virgin), literally became pregnant and literally gave birth to a son.

Luke 1:35 35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost 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.​

Unless you're willing to consider God in a behavioral category like the philanderer Zeus, you must also concede that "Father" and "Son" are allegorical references.

Since Jesus is called "the only begotten Son of God", it is not a good idea to claim that God slept around with any human woman that caught His eye, like Zeus did.

You can deny anything you want from the scripture with the claim that the scripture was "corrupted" by people adverse to your beliefs.

There is no reason to assume corruption without any evidence of corruption, but there is no reason to ignore the evidence of corruption when it is there.

The complete quote is, "But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God..." Omitting the relevant part of that sentence as if to deny that the Son is identified as God takes some unique chutzpah.

To deny that the verse has one being who is speaking to another being is stupidity, no matter what is being said by one of the two beings.
Jesus is not the only being that God called god, as Jesus Himself pointed out.

John 10:34-36 34 Jesus answered them, [JESUS]Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?[/JESUS] 35 [JESUS]If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;[/JESUS] 36 [JESUS]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]​

Jesus antagonized the Pharisees by applying the Psalm in a fashion that identified Himself (the Judge of the Dead) as the God that judged among the gods.

You are reading things into the passage that are not actually there.

It had the desired effect. His audience was under no delusion that he made himself any less than God, even as the scriptures called God God.

Well, there is that whole bit that you keep refusing to admit that Jesus said:

John 10:36b 36b [JESUS]I said, I am the Son of God[/JESUS]​

 

[genuineoriginal]

Reposting:

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

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

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


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

I would put it in the same timeline as this:

“And now I shall again recite the words which I have spoken in proof of this point. When Scripture says, ‘The Lord rained fire from the Lord out of heaven,’ the prophetic word indicates that there were two in number: One upon the earth, who, it says, descended to behold the cry of Sodom; Another in heaven, who also is Lord of the Lord on earth, as He is Father and God; the cause of His power and of His being Lord and God. Again, when the Scripture records that God said in the beginning, ‘Behold, Adam has become like one of Us,’ this phrase, ‘like one of Us,’ is also indicative of number; and the words do not admit of a figurative meaning, as the sophists endeavour to affix on them, who are able neither to tell nor to understand the truth. And it is written in the book of Wisdom: ‘If I should tell you daily events, I would be mindful to enumerate them from the beginning. The Lord created me the beginning of His ways for His works. From everlasting He established me in the beginning, before He formed the earth, and before He made the depths, and before the springs of waters came forth, before the mountains were settled; He begets me before all the hills.’ ” When I repeated these words, I added: “You perceive, my hearers, if you bestow attention, that the Scripture has declared that this Offspring was begotten by the Father before all things created; and that which is begotten is numerically distinct from that which begets, any one will admit.”

​

 

[Rosenritter]

If angels are the sons of God and the devil is a fallen angel, then what word would apply to both angels and the devil?

Spirits.

Spoiler

Angels.

Spoiler

Or even "sons of God" per Genesis chapter 6 & Job chapter 1 & 2? The context of "sons of God" in that context and other proof indicates the created angels. The context of "the Son of God" as in "the only begotten Son of God" indicates the Lord God who created all things, who judges among the gods and inherits the earth.

How can we communicate if we don't use words?
Which of these words can you accept as a suitable substitute for "divine"?

celestial
deity
god
higher power
lord
spirit

The point being that "Jesus is divine" is not an answer to whether Jesus was God with the glory of God. If you want to say "Jesus is a created being of spirit" then say so. If you want to say "Jesus was a created angel" then say so. If you want to say "Jesus was a man who was possessed by the Holy Spirit" (which I have seen someone say) then say so. Any normal means of communication that does not cloak your meaning is preferable.

 

[Rosenritter]

John 10:34-36 34 Jesus answered them, [JESUS]Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?[/JESUS] 35 [JESUS]If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;[/JESUS] 36 [JESUS]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]​

You are reading things into the passage that are not actually there.

Psalms 82:1-8 KJV
(1) A Psalm of Asaph. God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods.
(2) How long will ye judge unjustly, and accept the persons of the wicked? Selah.
(3) Defend the poor and fatherless: do justice to the afflicted and needy.
(4) Deliver the poor and needy: rid them out of the hand of the wicked.
(5) They know not, neither will they understand; they walk on in darkness: all the foundations of the earth are out of course.
(6) I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.
(7) But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes.
(8) Arise, O God, judge the earth: for thou shalt inherit all nations.

Psalms 7:8-11 KJV
(8) The LORD shall judge the people: judge me, O LORD, according to my righteousness, and according to mine integrity that is in me.
(9) Oh let the wickedness of the wicked come to an end; but establish the just: for the righteous God trieth the hearts and reins.
(10) My defence is of God, which saveth the upright in heart.
(11) God judgeth the righteous, and God is angry with the wicked every day.

Psalms 50:4-7 KJV
(4) He shall call to the heavens from above, and to the earth, that he may judge his people.
(5) Gather my saints together unto me; those that have made a covenant with me by sacrifice.
(6) And the heavens shall declare his righteousness: for God is judge himself. Selah.
(7) Hear, O my people, and I will speak; O Israel, and I will testify against thee: I am God, even thy God.

Psalms 75:7 KJV
(7) But God is the judge: he putteth down one, and setteth up another.

Who is the "God" that judges in the contexts of the Psalms? Does it indicate that this is the LORD God? Or some other lesser being?

1. The LORD God
2. Someone else who calls himself God

Psalms 98:9 KJV
(9) Before the LORD; for he cometh to judge the earth: with righteousness shall he judge the world, and the people with equity.

The whole context of the passage of Psalm 82 indicates that it is properly translated, "God" judgeth among the "gods" and "Arise O God" in the full meaning of "God" as understood in English. The only reason you are demanding a special pleading in the 82nd Psalm is because Jesus applied it to himself, where He as God judges among the gods that shall die like men.

If that gospel reference didn't exist, you wouldn't bat an eye at "God judgeth among the gods..." and you would never think to contest that "God" meant anything other than the LORD of Hosts.

 

[Rosenritter]

I would put it in the same timeline as this:

“And now I shall again recite the words which I have spoken in proof of this point. When Scripture says, ‘The Lord rained fire from the Lord out of heaven,’ the prophetic word indicates that there were two in number: One upon the earth, who, it says, descended to behold the cry of Sodom; Another in heaven, who also is Lord of the Lord on earth, as He is Father and God; the cause of His power and of His being Lord and God. Again, when the Scripture records that God said in the beginning, ‘Behold, Adam has become like one of Us,’ this phrase, ‘like one of Us,’ is also indicative of number; and the words do not admit of a figurative meaning, as the sophists endeavour to affix on them, who are able neither to tell nor to understand the truth. And it is written in the book of Wisdom: ‘If I should tell you daily events, I would be mindful to enumerate them from the beginning. The Lord created me the beginning of His ways for His works. From everlasting He established me in the beginning, before He formed the earth, and before He made the depths, and before the springs of waters came forth, before the mountains were settled; He begets me before all the hills.’ ” When I repeated these words, I added: “You perceive, my hearers, if you bestow attention, that the Scripture has declared that this Offspring was begotten by the Father before all things created; and that which is begotten is numerically distinct from that which begets, any one will admit.”

​

1. You do realize that Justin acknowledged that Jesus was the LORD of Hosts and in the full meaning of God in the Old Testament?

2. While recognizing Jesus as the LORD God of Hosts, Justin suspected there might be another God somewhere, invisible, and hidden. He did wonder if the personified Wisdom was applicable, but otherwise I remember that he had two main reasons for his theory. You listed one of them in your quote above.

Genesis 19:24 KJV
(24) Then the LORD rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven;

This passage was one of the reasons Justin gave why there must be more than one LORD; namely, that the LORD was directly speaking to Abraham in front of him, and at the same time the LORD rained down fire from heaven. Do you agree with his reasoning?

Seeing that you chose Justin as one of the early supporters of your position, don't you think it's somewhat ironic that Justin recognized Jesus as LORD with far many more proofs and certainty than he had of "subordinationalism?" Let's springboard of Justin for a bit.

Spoiler

When I repeated these words, I added: “You perceive, my hearers, if you bestow attention, that the Scripture has declared that this Offspring was begotten by the Father before all things created; and that which is begotten is numerically distinct from that which begets, any one will admit.”

When (at what time) does the scripture say that Jesus was begotten? Justin's questions have easy answers.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Jesus did make Himself equal to God, but Jesus also denied that He was God.

He did make Himself equal to God because He told the Jews the following:

"That all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him" (Jn.5:23).​

 

[Rosenritter]

Psalms 82:1-8 KJV
(1) A Psalm of Asaph. God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods.
(2) How long will ye judge unjustly, and accept the persons of the wicked? Selah.
(3) Defend the poor and fatherless: do justice to the afflicted and needy.
(4) Deliver the poor and needy: rid them out of the hand of the wicked.
(5) They know not, neither will they understand; they walk on in darkness: all the foundations of the earth are out of course.
(6) I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.
(7) But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes.
(8) Arise, O God, judge the earth: for thou shalt inherit all nations.

Spoiler

Psalms 7:8-11 KJV
(8) The LORD shall judge the people: judge me, O LORD, according to my righteousness, and according to mine integrity that is in me.
(9) Oh let the wickedness of the wicked come to an end; but establish the just: for the righteous God trieth the hearts and reins.
(10) My defence is of God, which saveth the upright in heart.
(11) God judgeth the righteous, and God is angry with the wicked every day.

Psalms 50:4-7 KJV
(4) He shall call to the heavens from above, and to the earth, that he may judge his people.
(5) Gather my saints together unto me; those that have made a covenant with me by sacrifice.
(6) And the heavens shall declare his righteousness: for God is judge himself. Selah.
(7) Hear, O my people, and I will speak; O Israel, and I will testify against thee: I am God, even thy God.

Psalms 75:7 KJV
(7) But God is the judge: he putteth down one, and setteth up another.

Who is the "God" that judges in the contexts of the Psalms? Does it indicate that this is the LORD God? Or some other lesser being?

1. The LORD God
2. Someone else who calls himself God

Psalms 98:9 KJV
(9) Before the LORD; for he cometh to judge the earth: with righteousness shall he judge the world, and the people with equity.

The whole context of the passage of Psalm 82 indicates that it is properly translated, "God" judgeth among the "gods" and "Arise O God" in the full meaning of "God" as understood in English. The only reason you are demanding a special pleading in the 82nd Psalm is because Jesus applied it to himself, where He as God judges among the gods that shall die like men.

If that gospel reference didn't exist, you wouldn't bat an eye at "God judgeth among the gods..." and you would never think to contest that "God" meant anything other than the LORD of Hosts.

https://www.ellopos.net/elpenor/greek-texts/septuagint/chapter.asp?book=24&page=81

Ψαλμὸς τῷ ᾿Ασάφ. - Ο ΘΕΟΣ ἔστη ἐν συναγωγῇ θεῶν, ἐν μέσῳ δὲ θεοὺς διακρινεῖ. 2 ἕως πότε κρίνετε ἀδικίαν καὶ πρόσωπα ἁμαρτωλῶν λαμβάνετε; (διάψαλμα). 3 κρίνατε ὀρφανῷ καὶ πτωχῷ, ταπεινὸν καὶ πένητα δικαιώσατε· 4 ἐξέλεσθε πένητα καὶ πτωχόν, ἐκ χειρὸς ἁμαρτωλοῦ ῥύσασθε αὐτόν. 5 οὐκ ἔγνωσαν οὐδὲ συνῆκαν, ἐν σκότει διαπορεύονται· σαλευθήσονται πάντα τὰ θεμέλια τῆς γῆς. 6 ἐγὼ εἶπα· θεοί ἐστε καὶ υἱοὶ ῾Υψίστου πάντες· 7 ὑμεῖς δὲ ὡς ἄνθρωποι ἀποθνήσκετε καὶ ὡς εἷς τῶν ἀρχόντων πίπτετε. 8 ἀνάστα, ὁ Θεός, κρίνων τὴν γῆν, ὅτι σὺ κατακληρονομήσεις ἐν πᾶσι τοῖς ἔθνεσι.

I'm fairly certain that the yellow highlight is "THEOS" as in "GOD." Is anyone willing to suggest that the Septuagint translators were harboring some hidden "Trinitarian bias?" I hope this may squelch the argument that "God" (capital G, as in the LORD God) is an improper or biased translation of this Psalm.

The translation of the Septuagint itself began in the 3rd century BCE and was completed by 132 BCE, initially in Alexandria, but in time elsewhere as well. The Septuagint is the basis for the Old Latin, Slavonic, Syriac, Old Armenian, Old Georgian and Coptic versions of the Christian Old Testament.

Septuagint - Wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septuagint

 

[glorydaz]

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

It's a good quote for proving Jesus referred to Himself as God, though, isn't it?

 

[Rosenritter]

It's a good quote for proving Jesus referred to Himself as God, though, isn't it?

Genesis 1:1 also works for proving Jesus was God. New Testament tells us Jesus was the Creator, Genesis 1:1 tells us the Creator was God.

 

[glorydaz]

Genesis 1:1 also works for proving Jesus was God. New Testament tells us Jesus was the Creator, Genesis 1:1 tells us the Creator was God.

As does John 1:1-3

 

[Right Divider]

He did make Himself equal to God because He told the Jews the following:

"That all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him" (Jn.5:23).​

It could not possibly be more clear, could it?