Religion Does the New Testament teach that Jesus is the God of the Old Testament, Yahweh?

ATP you said something stupid. Spider girl what kind of bad taste? Cat girls yes, lizard girl maybe. But spiders have too many leg. Though with sola scriptural there is no reason to not have a harem and polygamy because Bible never forbid it.

True.Then what aboyt waspgirls? protestants in USA are WASP ,so they must have waspgirls,right?
or mantisgirls...i could lost head over them! :LOL:
 
False.

The saying is trustworthy: If anyone aspires to the office of overseer, he desires a noble task. Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not a drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. He must manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive, for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God’s church?
1 Timothy 3:1‭-‬5 ESV

Bishops,like @King Arts said.
And here,another:

1 Corinthians 6:19-20

19 Do you not know that your bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; 20 you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your bodies.

If i was not catholics,i would thought that we,humans,are part of God,like in hindu religion.
 
Extracting polygamy being destructive from the Bible is not hard.

Even if you consider Stargazer's example a reach (which it isn't), it's also forbidden to kings, even though multiple royal wives was a fairly normal tool of diplomacy in such times.

Further, every open example we have of polygamy or concubinage in the Bible ends up being very messy/destructive.

On top of this, the great Biblical allegory of God as the groom, and Israel, then later the church, as God's bride, is very clearly supposed to be monogamous, and it's lack of chastity that Israel/the church is rebuked for.

It's no mistake that every single protestant denomination that had any real fire or endurance (or that I've ever heard of) to it also taught strict monogamy. Because it's the obvious conclusion of scripture.
Ok there is a lot wrong here first off not every polygamy relationship is shown as bad for example Jacob and his four wives.
Second the rule was for kings to not have too many wives. It does not give a number. Something like hundreds is obvious, but show me where 3 or 4 is seen as excessive.

The last argument is the most egregious since you twisted it into the opposite ofwhat it was. The lords marriage with Israel is polygamy it was the polygamous marriages of the ancient world one groom would have many brides. It’s not ok for the bride to have more than one. So you can only have god you can’t have Yahweh and try out Zeus, Thor, and Ishtar also. But god can have multiple worshippers. It’s why I can’t say
“Hey ho stay away from my God, me and him have an exclusive personal relationship, I don’t want a cheating home wrecking slut here.”
Because the exclusivity goes one way in polygamous marriage.
 
Ok there is a lot wrong here first off not every polygamy relationship is shown as bad for example Jacob and his four wives.
Second the rule was for kings to not have too many wives. It does not give a number. Something like hundreds is obvious, but show me where 3 or 4 is seen as excessive.

The last argument is the most egregious since you twisted it into the opposite ofwhat it was. The lords marriage with Israel is polygamy it was the polygamous marriages of the ancient world one groom would have many brides. It’s not ok for the bride to have more than one. So you can only have god you can’t have Yahweh and try out Zeus, Thor, and Ishtar also. But god can have multiple worshippers. It’s why I can’t say
“Hey ho stay away from my God, me and him have an exclusive personal relationship, I don’t want a cheating home wrecking slut here.”
Because the exclusivity goes one way in polygamous marriage.

When was the last time you actually read Genesis? Jacob had two wives, and two concubines. The whole situation was rife with jealousy. His wife Rachel was his favorite, but infertile; his other wife Leah was fertile, but Jacob never really wanted to marry her to begin with, he got tricked into it. So Rachel gave Jacob her maidservant as a concubine to have children in her name, and Leah responded by doing the same with her own maidservant. And this all culminated that when Rachel finally did have a biological child, Joseph, all the rest of Jacob's sons conspired to murder him (and were talked down by one of them into "merely" selling him into slavery, and telling their dad wolves killed him).

It's hardly an example of a healthy polygamous family.

There's also the example of Elkanah, Penninah, and Hannah in 1 Samuel, with similar jealousy and rivalry issues.

On the other hand, can you come up with any positive examples of polygamous relationships from the Bible?
 
Last edited:
Ok there is a lot wrong here first off not every polygamy relationship is shown as bad for example Jacob and his four wives.
Second the rule was for kings to not have too many wives. It does not give a number. Something like hundreds is obvious, but show me where 3 or 4 is seen as excessive.

The last argument is the most egregious since you twisted it into the opposite ofwhat it was. The lords marriage with Israel is polygamy it was the polygamous marriages of the ancient world one groom would have many brides. It’s not ok for the bride to have more than one. So you can only have god you can’t have Yahweh and try out Zeus, Thor, and Ishtar also. But god can have multiple worshippers. It’s why I can’t say
“Hey ho stay away from my God, me and him have an exclusive personal relationship, I don’t want a cheating home wrecking slut here.”
Because the exclusivity goes one way in polygamous marriage.
I fear for you if you think that was a good marriage. Jacob's wives fought endlessly and from events like his losing his temper and yelling at Rachel over it in Genesis 30:2. Actually, most of Genesis 30 consists of documenting how much they fought over Jacob and each other (I always get a chuckle at Leah renting Jacob from Rachel for some Mandrake roots in 14-16). Heck it went so far as to lead to murder, with that narrowly avoided only because Reuben was slightly more responsible than his brothers and decided to sell his brother into slavery.

It's fairly apparent their family life wasn't nearly as happy as what Jacob wanted for his life, which was monogamy with Rachel before Laban tricked him. That said all of them were clearly trying and it's probably the most successful group marriage in the whole bible.

While certainly Israel was made of multiple people, the Bible does not use the plural to refer to them, the language is very deliberately singular. F'rex at Revelation 19:7-8 we hear about the Bride, not Brides, of Christ and she, not they, is given fine linen to wear.
 
Cool how about reading things in context. Also that's a weird translation. Overseer to Bishop. Anyway the Bible says Bishops aka the high level LEADERS of the Church can only have one wife. Not the laity. This Bible passage also condemns the Protestant lack of a priesthood. No the priesthood of all believers is not a thing. So nowhere in the Bible does it condemn a regular Christian from having more than one wife.

True.
Here,another citation:

1 Corinthians 8:4-6


4 So then, about eating food sacrificed to idols: We know that “An idol is nothing at all in the world” and that “There is no God but one.” 5 For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords”), 6 yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.

Jesus here is important,but - not God.
 
Yep, context is important, as is reading comprehension. And the context is that an overseer must be "above reproach". Paul then lists several things to make sure an overseer is above reproach. One of which is having one wife. That implies that having more than one wife would bring reproach. The overseer is instructed to have one wife because to have more than oneone would bring reproach, not simply because they're an overseer. Anyone who has more than one wife would thus be reproachable, according to the Bible.

Nope,it is not even implied.
But,here something for you:

1 Corinthians 9:21
21 To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law), so as to win those not having the law.

That,at least,could imply that Jesus is God.You have 0,5 point.
 
You are reaching more than Catholics and Orthodox do for the traditions. You aren't doing a plain reading, this is what this says, it's allowed or forbidden. You are going deep into it. Even if you are right this disproves another Protestant idea that anyone can read and interpret the Bible. There are people that won't pick up that idea unless you tell them.

True.He is just like Luder,who denied pope only to turn into super pope which decided which book in Bible are true,and which are not.Becouse he KNEW.
So,it is sola scriptura - but for @Stargazer only.

Here,another:
1 Corinthians 10:4-5 NIV
and drank the same spiritual drink; for they drank from the spiritual rock that accompanied them, and that rock was Christ. Nevertheless, God was not pleased with most of them; their bodies were scattered in the wilderness.

Here,Jesus evidently is not God.
 
Seems pretty plain to me. Overseers are to be above reproach > Having one wife keeps them above reproach > Having more than one wife is reproachable. It's not rocket science.

And the Protestant idea is more like no single person or group has the authority to interpret the Bible and declare other interpretations invalid. I'm not arguing from authority, I'm arguing from the text.

Something which is not even implied here.When,at the same time,you deny what Paul said openly.
Here:

1 Corinthians 10:16-17

16 Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ? 17 Because there is one loaf, we, who are many, are one body, for we all share the one loaf.

Here,we have not proof that Jesus is God,but that during Mass bread become HIS body,and wine become HIS blood.
Which protestants deny.
 
Extracting polygamy being destructive from the Bible is not hard.

Even if you consider Stargazer's example a reach (which it isn't), it's also forbidden to kings, even though multiple royal wives was a fairly normal tool of diplomacy in such times.

Further, every open example we have of polygamy or concubinage in the Bible ends up being very messy/destructive.

On top of this, the great Biblical allegory of God as the groom, and Israel, then later the church, as God's bride, is very clearly supposed to be monogamous, and it's lack of chastity that Israel/the church is rebuked for.

It's no mistake that every single protestant denomination that had any real fire or endurance (or that I've ever heard of) to it also taught strict monogamy. Because it's the obvious conclusion of scripture.

We are not taking about polygamy being destructive,but what Bible say about Jesus straight.And,if you want talk about polygamy,what Bible said about it.
And it was never openly forbidden for normal people.

Here,something for you from Paul:

1 Corinthians 11:3-5

3 But I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man,[a] and the head of Christ is God. 4 Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head. 5 But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head—it is the same as having her head shaved.

Not only Jesus here is not God,but we could imply that we are part of Jesus,not persons.And Jesus is part of God,not its own person,too.Something like Hindu religion with Brahman.
 
Ok there is a lot wrong here first off not every polygamy relationship is shown as bad for example Jacob and his four wives.
Second the rule was for kings to not have too many wives. It does not give a number. Something like hundreds is obvious, but show me where 3 or 4 is seen as excessive.

The last argument is the most egregious since you twisted it into the opposite ofwhat it was. The lords marriage with Israel is polygamy it was the polygamous marriages of the ancient world one groom would have many brides. It’s not ok for the bride to have more than one. So you can only have god you can’t have Yahweh and try out Zeus, Thor, and Ishtar also. But god can have multiple worshippers. It’s why I can’t say
“Hey ho stay away from my God, me and him have an exclusive personal relationship, I don’t want a cheating home wrecking slut here.”
Because the exclusivity goes one way in polygamous marriage.

It could be interpreted this way using sola scripture.
Here,something which is clear:


1 Corinthians 11:7-16

7 A man ought not to cover his head,[a] since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. 8 For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; 9 neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. 10 It is for this reason that a woman ought to have authority over her own[b] head, because of the angels. 11 Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. 12 For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman. But everything comes from God.

13 Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? 14 Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him, 15 but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For long hair is given to her as a covering. 16 If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice—nor do the churches of God.

Nothing about Jesus being God,but mans should not have long hairs,and not cover them,when womans should have long hairs and cover them.
 
When was the last time you actually read Genesis? Jacob had two wives, and two concubines. The whole situation was rife with jealousy. His wife Rachel was his favorite, but infertile; his other wife Leah was fertile, but Jacob never really wanted to marry her to begin with, he got tricked into it. So Rachel gave Jacob her maidservant as a concubine to have children in her name, and Leah responded by doing the same with her own maidservant. And this all culminated that when Rachel finally did have a biological child, Joseph, all the rest of Jacob's sons conspired to murder him (and were talked down by one of them into "merely" selling him into slavery, and telling their dad wolves killed him).

It's hardly an example of a healthy polygamous family.

There's also the example of Elkanah, Penninah, and Hannah in 1 Samuel, with similar jealousy and rivalry issues.

On the other hand, can you come up with any positive examples of polygamous relationships from the Bible?

He do not need.You need find place where it is openly forbridden for normal people.

And here,another proof that in Mass bread become Jesus body:

1 Corinthians 11:23-26

23 For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.” 25 In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.” 26 For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.

Which,of course,protestants deny.
At the same time,claim That HE is God,when nothing of that is said here.
 
I fear for you if you think that was a good marriage. Jacob's wives fought endlessly and from events like his losing his temper and yelling at Rachel over it in Genesis 30:2. Actually, most of Genesis 30 consists of documenting how much they fought over Jacob and each other (I always get a chuckle at Leah renting Jacob from Rachel for some Mandrake roots in 14-16). Heck it went so far as to lead to murder, with that narrowly avoided only because Reuben was slightly more responsible than his brothers and decided to sell his brother into slavery.

It's fairly apparent their family life wasn't nearly as happy as what Jacob wanted for his life, which was monogamy with Rachel before Laban tricked him. That said all of them were clearly trying and it's probably the most successful group marriage in the whole bible.

While certainly Israel was made of multiple people, the Bible does not use the plural to refer to them, the language is very deliberately singular. F'rex at Revelation 19:7-8 we hear about the Bride, not Brides, of Christ and she, not they, is given fine linen to wear.

All true - but,Bible still do not openly forbidden polygamy.

Here,Paul again:

1 Corinthians 12:2-6

2 You know that when you were pagans, somehow or other you were influenced and led astray to mute idols. 3 Therefore I want you to know that no one who is speaking by the Spirit of God says, “Jesus be cursed,” and no one can say, “Jesus is Lord,” except by the Holy Spirit.

4 There are different kinds of gifts, but the same Spirit distributes them. 5 There are different kinds of service, but the same Lord. 6 There are different kinds of working, but in all of them and in everyone it is the same God at work.

Here,at least,it could be implied that not only Jesus is God,but Trinity exist.You have 0,5 point.
 
i would end First corinthian.Here.


1 Corinthians 15:3-11

3 For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance[a]: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas,[b] and then to the Twelve. 6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8 and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.

9 For I am the least of the apostles and do not even deserve to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. 10 But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace to me was not without effect. No, I worked harder than all of them—yet not I, but the grace of God that was with me. 11 Whether, then, it is I or they, this is what we preach, and this is what you believed.

Here,Jesus is human,and God is God.

Another:

1 Corinthians 15:12-25

The Resurrection of the Dead
12 But if it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13 If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. 14 And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. 15 More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised. 16 For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. 17 And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. 18 Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. 19 If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied.

20 But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. 21 For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. 22 For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. 23 But each in turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him. 24 Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. 25 For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet.

Here,Jesus is man,and God is God who raised HIM.

Another:

1 Corinthians 15:27-28

27 For he “has put everything under his feet.”[a] Now when it says that “everything” has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ. 28 When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all.

Jesus is son,God is God avove HIM.

Another:

1 Corinthians 15:31-34

31 I face death every day—yes, just as surely as I boast about you in Christ Jesus our Lord. 32 If I fought wild beasts in Ephesus with no more than human hopes, what have I gained? If the dead are not raised,
“Let us eat and drink,
for tomorrow we die.”[a]

33 Do not be misled: “Bad company corrupts good character.”[b] 34 Come back to your senses as you ought, and stop sinning; for there are some who are ignorant of God—I say this to your shame.

Jesus is Lord,God is God.

Rest tomorrow.
 
Last edited:
Amen. Kyrios Iesous.
Thanks to Tradition interpreted as God.Without it - if you just take NT texts without your church belfs,then He could be God,but could be only Messiah,too.

Here,another:

1 Corinthians 15:45-49

45 So it is written: “The first man Adam became a living being”[a]; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit. 46 The spiritual did not come first, but the natural, and after that the spiritual. 47 The first man was of the dust of the earth; the second man is of heaven. 48 As was the earthly man, so are those who are of the earth; and as is the heavenly man, so also are those who are of heaven. 49 And just as we have borne the image of the earthly man, so shall we[b] bear the image of the heavenly man.

Here Jesus in not even Messiah,only better version of Adam.

Another:

1 Corinthians 15:57-58

57 But thanks be to God! He gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.

58 Therefore, my dear brothers and sisters, stand firm. Let nothing move you. Always give yourselves fully to the work of the Lord, because you know that your labor in the Lord is not in vain.

Here,Jesus is not God,but Lord who gave us victory - but using not his power,only God.
 
Thanks to Tradition interpreted as God.Without it - if you just take NT texts without your church belfs,then He could be God,but could be only Messiah,too.

Nah, just with the New Testament texts, like you literally were just quoting.
 
Nah, just with the New Testament texts, like you literally were just quoting.

I am quoting texts where almost in all cases Jesus was man,Messiah,part of God,Lord - but not God Himself.
In 4 cases it could be implied that Jesus is God,but even there it was not said c;early.
So,Final score for First Corinthian - 23:2.

Your sola scriptura is showing that Jesus could be many things,but not God.
 
I am quoting texts where almost in all cases Jesus was man,Messiah,part of God,Lord - but not God Himself.
In 4 cases it could be implied that Jesus is God,but even there it was not said c;early.
So,Final score for First Corinthian - 23:2.

Your sola scriptura is showing that Jesus could be many things,but not God.
It's showing that Jesus is Lord. Kyrios Iesous.
 
It's showing that Jesus is Lord. Kyrios Iesous.

But nod God.God is named as God,yet Jesus not.
And,in OT Jahwe is named as EL,caananite god.According to your logic,he is one of many gods of Heaven,then.

Here,Second Corinthians:

2 Corinthians 1:1-5

1 Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, and Timothy our brother,
To the church of God in Corinth, together with all his holy people throughout Achaia:

2 Grace and peace to you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
Praise to the God of All Comfort
3 Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of compassion and the God of all comfort, 4 who comforts us in all our troubles, so that we can comfort those in any trouble with the comfort we ourselves receive from God. 5 For just as we share abundantly in the sufferings of Christ, so also our comfort abounds through Christ.

See- God is God,when Jesus is Lord and his son,and we are suffering and find comfort in him.
Certainly not God.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top