Do you know the truth? Is Jesus God? Find out here!

a reply to: whereislogic

See how inconsistent they are? They'll say Jehovah in the Hebrew Scriptures (cause it's harder to deny that it's in the Hebrew manuscripts) but then when Paul is quoting from Isaiah 49:18 at Romans 14:11 they quickly change it to "the Lord" (not even "the LORD" to indicate that the Divine name is used here), because it's easier to deny that the Divine name was used in the Greek Scriptures cause the only Greek manuscripts that we still have and we're working with were made by people who hate Jehovah and replaced his name with the Greek word for "lord" (Kurios).

You're getting too hung up on the name here and you're ignoring that regardless of what name is used, that Romans 14:9 is about Jesus Christ being Lord of both the dead and the living. There is no need to replace "Lord" with any other name in this verse. It is clear.

Romans 14:

9 For to this end Christ both died, and rose, and revived, that he might be Lord both of the dead and living.

If you really are hung up on names and titles, read below...

There is no universal agreement about how to pronounce God’s name YWHW. Some write it out “Yehowah” or “Yahuweh” but this is only an estimate of how it might sound since YWHW is a tetragrammaton and there is far too much uncertainty to be sure about how to pronounce YWHW. The Jews, in fear of misusing God’s name, preferred the names “Elohim” or “Adonai.” The spelling of “Jehovah” entered the English language through William Tyndale’s translation of the Bible completed in 1537 but Tyndale transliterated the tetragrammaton into the English language by using the Masoretic vowel markings as those used in the Renaissance so this shows that there is very likely error in Jehovah being God’s literal name. For one thing, God has many names and His many names have to do with His attributes or characteristics such as Elohim, Adonai, EL-ELYON, El OLAM, EL-ROI, EL-SHADDAI, and dozens more attached to the names of God but even the word “Yahweh” in the original Hebrew is “YWHW” and we can only guess about how this was pronounced.

Read more at www.patheos.com...

a reply to: whereislogic

Romans 14:11 (ASV)

For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord,

Read the verse above that you posted again until it sinks in.

The only person who would make the statement, "As I live", would be Jesus, as he is the one who died and rose again.

You're starting to contradict yourself in your comments, as you've already stated that you know that Jesus will be "Lord" and ruler over God's kingdom, so why are you contradicting yourself now by stating that all of the "Lord" references in Romans 14 are about God the Father? You're either not making any sense to yourself, or you're starting to realize that all of the "Jehovah" references in your translation do indeed point to and reference Jesus.

originally posted by: Deetermined
You're getting too hung up on the name here...

No, I'm making good use of Scriptual advice.

Proberbs 18:10

10 The name of Jehovah is a strong tower.

Into it the righteous one runs and receives protection.* [Lit., “is raised high,” that is, out of reach, safe.]

Ephesians 6:11,12

Put on the complete suit of armor from God so that you may be able to stand firm against the crafty acts* [Or “the schemes.”] of the Devil; 12 because we have a struggle,* [Lit., “wrestling.”] not against blood and flesh, but against the governments, against the authorities, against the world rulers of this darkness, against the wicked spirit forces in the heavenly places.

Knowing the name Jehovah and all arguments related to it makes everything easy to figure out on whose side you are. It is a strong tower, a strong base of thinking and resisting Satanic and demonic arguments. And makes figuring out who is being honest and who isn't very easy. I don't think you're on Jehovah's side in this war, neither is anyone who has posted in this thread, cause none of you will truly be honest about Jehovah and his word the bible, what it really says. It's a clear sign what's going on here whereas others who are against Jehovah prefer to overcomplicate matters and use "persuasive arguments" (that won't work on someone who figuratively falls back to the spiritual tower; you can't convince me that it doesn't matter to mistranslate the Divine name to "the LORD", "the Lord" and "God" approx. 7000 times, it's the biggest clue as to who is on the side of truth and the God of truth: Jehovah. That's why Trinitarians like to trivialize it and talk past it while some of them even complain about other bible translations not being honest as the one they're using that has almost 7000 deliberate deceptions in them, not counting added phrases such as the one found at 1 John 5:7 and mistranslations of John 1:1 and similar verses of which some I addressed in this thread).

Skillfully Wield “the Sword of the Spirit”

“Accept . . . the sword of the spirit, that is, God’s word.”—EPH. 6:17.

...

Relevant excerpts from Jeremiah 23:27,28:

They intend to make my people forget my name... 28 Let the prophet who has a dream relate the dream, but the one who has my word should speak my word truthfully.”....declares Jehovah.

Anyone who quotes "the LORD" or "the Lord" from a bible verse that really should say "Jehovah" in that location is not speaking or quoting Jehovah's word "truthfully". They are relating dreams, imaginations, theosophies (theological philosophies/ideas). So go ahead and continue misquoting Jehovah's word, but I'll stick with what the bible really says. And as long as Trinitarians and others ignore or trivialize this huge issue of almost 7000 deliberate deceptions, figuring out what's true and what's false is easy, no matter how elaborate, persuasive or convincing someone's arguments are.

Colossians 2:4

4 I am saying this so that no one may delude you with persuasive arguments.

2 Cor. 11:11,12

11 For what reason? Because I do not love you? God knows I do.

12 But what I am doing I will continue to do, in order to eliminate the pretext of those who are wanting a basis for being found equal to us in the things about which they boast. 13 For such men are false apostles, deceitful workers, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ. 14 And no wonder, for Satan himself keeps disguising himself as an angel of light. 15 It is therefore nothing extraordinary if his ministers also keep disguising themselves as ministers of righteousness. But their end will be according to their works.

Your red herring about exact spelling or pronounciation of God's name is already addressed in the video entitled "nikkie2christ & Barbsinclair (The KJV is inconsistent p 1)" where the same red herring is used by both nikkie2christ & Barbsinclair. Around 4 minutes in. It distracts from the point: it's not "the LORD" or "the Lord", there already is a Hebrew word for that that doesn't look remotely like God's name in Hebrew characters (and note that no Hebrew words or names had vowels or vowel marks in them at the time the bible was written, the things said about the pronounciation and spelling of the name "Jehovah" might as well be argued about the name "Jesus", "Jerusalem", "Judah" and all theophoric names in the bible; but no one ever replaces those names with a generic noun that allows for conflation with another Lord, or sneakily use deceptive steps such as going from "the LORD" to "the Lord" to make that conflation easier).

a reply to: whereislogic

What does any of that have to do with Romans 14 and what you said below...

2: Because God made him the Lord or ruler of God's Kingdom. Which would be a part of acknowledging that he is Lord (Lord of what? God's Kingdom, God's people, Jesus is duly appointed by God to rule).

originally posted by: Deetermined
a reply to: whereislogic

According to the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ theology, Jesus is a being that came into existence.

And as established from their own writings earlier, so did Tertullian and Tatian (and many other so-called Church Fathers, apologists and "Apolostic Fathers"; allthough some of them love to contradict themselves after such acknowledgements that I've quoted in this thread from their writings). Which is significant with Tertullian being the one who became the first to apply the Latin form of the word “trinity” to the Father, the Son, and the holy spirit. The bible teaches it very clearly as well, why won't you respond to (or the ones you are quoting, mention anything about) the phrase regarding Jesus: "the beginning of the creation by God" (Rev.3:14; see Rev 1:5 to confirm that "Jesus Christ" is "the Faithful Witness" mentioned in Rev.3:14 as "the beginning of the creation by God")?

Another contradiction surfaces in such a theology: Jehovah’s Witnesses are firm that there is only one God.

False, setting up a straw man argument. Paul clearly states that there are "many gods" (1 Cor.8:5) and I also already pointed out that angels are rightfully called "gods" at Psalm 8:5, these are not false gods. There is only one God in the sense of definition 1 from "A Dictionary of Biblical Languages w/ Semantic Domains: Hebrew (OT)", there is only one Almighty God (even though not every bible writer has to spell it out like that like Paul simply says "yet to us there is only one God, the Father" just after acknowledging the fact that ther are "many gods" (he's not contradicting himself in the same sentence, it's not like he's Stephen Hawking or something, it one God in a special sense that he's talking about compared to other gods that also exist, including Jesus and angels as well as false gods or "so-called gods", which he mentions seperately from the "many gods").

a reply to: whereislogic

The bible teaches it very clearly as well, why won't you respond to (or the ones you are quoting, mention anything about) the phrase regarding Jesus: "the beginning of the creation by God" (Rev.3:14; see Rev 1:5 to confirm that "Jesus Christ" is "the Faithful Witness" mentioned in Rev.3:14 as "the beginning of the creation by God")?

Fine, let's look at those verses and talk about them.

Revelation 3:14 - And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God;

Revelation 1:5 - And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood,

If you're trying to use these verses to say that Jesus was the first creation, you've misinterpreted them. Jesus was not created. He was in the "beginning" with God and other translations show that he was the "source" of creation or the "original" image from which man was created. Jesus is the physical manifestation of God through (or by) which all things were created, as stated in Colossians 1:16. Revelation 3 also shows Jesus as the faithful and true witness, which reinforces 1 John 5:7 stating that there are three that bare record (witnesses for each other) in heaven. Jesus told everyone that he was a witness for God and God was a witness for him, just like they were both a witness for the Holy Spirit.

a reply to: whereislogic

I'll even offer up similar verses for us to review to the previous one.

Colossians 1:15-16

15 (Jesus) Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:

16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:

The word "firstborn" is reinforcing the idea that Jesus was the original (physical) image of the invisible God and the one who created every creature in heaven and on earth. Jesus was not created, he is the Word of God, as shown in Revelation 19:13. There is more than one reason that he was considered the firstborn. First, it reinforces that Jesus was the "begotten Son of God". Second, the term "firstborn" was a very important one to the Jews as their firstborn males inherited everything from their fathers, just as we know that Jesus inherited all of creation. How do we know that Jesus inherited everything? Verse 16 tells us that creation was not only created by him (or in your words "through him"), but FOR him.

It's interesting that you bring up the letters to the churches in Revelation chapters 1 through 3. Let's see what else they have to say...

Revelation 3:11-12

11 Behold, I come quickly: hold that fast which thou hast, that no man take thy crown.

12 Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and I will write upon him my new name.

Did you catch that? Not only does Jesus state that he will write the name of his God on everyone, but he also says that he's going to write his own new name on them. Yes, Jesus will have yet another name once he returns and "comes quickly". How do we know this?

Revelation 2:16-17

16 Repent; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will fight against them with the sword of my mouth.

17 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the hidden manna, and will give him a white stone, and in the stone a new name written, which no man knoweth saving he that receiveth it.

How do we know that Revelation 2:16-17 are talking about Jesus?

Revelation 19:13-16

13 And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.

14 And the armies which were in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean.

15 And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.

16 And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, King Of Kings, And Lord Of Lords.

Is there another verse that shows that Jesus is the one who's "mouth goeth a sharp sword"?

Matthew 10:34

34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

a reply to: Deetermined

When I read a phrase describing Jesus as "the beginning of the creation by God" then I accept that Jesus is "the beginning of the creation by God". How someone can think they can twist what that means even though it's clearly spelled out and entirely consistent with all the other Scriptures speaking about this subject from Col.1:15, to John 1:1 to Proverbs 8:22-30 and a bunch of other verses that I shared about the topic of who is uniquely called "the Creator" in the bible and why, and still think they're making sense, escapes me. But perhaps making sense is not what some people are aiming to achieve and they're even fully aware that they're not making sense, it's just about making the best argument possible and making it sound convincing to those already sufficiently influenced by this system of things and/or Trinitarian propaganda. It's like continuing to refer to 1 John 5:7 as a Trinitarian prooftext when all the evidence is pointing towards deliberate deception with a Trinitarian motive. It does however make me more sure that I've got the correct understanding as to what's going on here, as described in the bible regarding certain behavioural patterns.

The Greek word in Col.1:16 continues to mean "through", not "by". Not that you care.

Col.1:16

because by means of him all other things were created in the heavens and on the earth, the things visible and the things invisible, whether they are thrones or lordships or governments or authorities. All other things have been created through him and for him.

a reply to: whereislogic

Well, now that you've brought up Proverbs 8:30, who do you think was "by him, as one brought up with him"?

Proverbs 8:30

30 Then I was by him, as one brought up with him: and I was daily his delight, rejoicing always before him;

Proverbs 8:20

20 I lead in the way of righteousness, in the midst of the paths of judgment:

Proverbs 8:7

7 For my mouth shall speak truth; and wickedness is an abomination to my lips.

Proverbs 8:35

35 For whoso findeth me findeth life, and shall obtain favour of the Lord.

John 14:6

6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

a reply to: Deetermined
see video "the created messiah" that was one of the first videos I shared in this thread with a detailed look at Proverbs 8:22-30 in 4 different languages (Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic and English, all confirming the same thing, Jesus was "produced", "created", "made", towards the end Proverbs 8:30 is discussed but the key is Proverbs 8:22, "possessed" comes from the Latin Vulgate "possedit"; that translation would be dishonest). If you truly were interested in answers and searching out spiritual knowledge you would have done so already. The subsequent videos address all the arguments you're making regarding Colossians 1:15-18.

Proverbs 8:22

Jehovah produced me as the beginning of his way,

The earliest of his achievements of long ago.

This is speaking about Jesus in his prehuman existence. Trinitarians teach this as well, but they changed it to "the LORD possesed me..." so no one is any wiser when they read that.

Proverbs 8:22 (Biblehub)

New International Version
"The LORD brought me forth as the first of his works, before his deeds of old;

New Living Translation
"The LORD formed me from the beginning, before he created anything else.

Holman Christian Standard Bible
The LORD made me at the beginning of His creation, before His works of long ago.

International Standard Version
"The LORD made me as he began his planning, before his ancient activity commenced.

NET Bible
The LORD created me as the beginning of his works, before his deeds of long ago.

New Heart English Bible
"The LORD created me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old.

Aramaic Bible in Plain English
“Lord Jehovah created me at the beginning of his creation and from before all of his works.”

JPS Tanakh 1917
The LORD made me as the beginning of His way, The first of His works of old.

Not one of those is completely honest cause they all say LORD or Lord when that word doesn't even appear in the text. but at least they got the 2nd word right. The rest of the translations all have "possessed" on biblehub (which carries a significantly different meaning for many than the words or terms used above, all of which carry a similar meaning). The ASV and Darby has "Jehovah possessed me". Showing that they are at least willing to share a half-truth like the translations above.

They sift the facts, exploiting the useful ones and concealing the others. They also distort and twist facts, specializing in lies and half-truths. Your emotions, not your logical thinking abilities, are their target.

The propagandist makes sure that his message appears to be the right and moral one and that it gives you a sense of importance and belonging if you follow it. You are one of the smart ones, you are not alone, you are comfortable and secure—so they say.

Source: article in my signature

a reply to: whereislogic

Proverbs 8:30 is discussed but the key is Proverbs 8:22, "possessed" comes from the Latin Vulgate "possedit"; that translation would be dishonest). If you truly were interested in answers and searching out spiritual knowledge you would have done so already.

The translation isn't dishonest, you just don't know how to interpret it. I have already searched out spiritual knowledge and I have spent years doing it, through the power of prayer and the guidance of the Holy Spirit, of which you have no knowledge.

a reply to: whereislogic

I can't wait to see what you come up with in an effort to try and debate Revelation 3 and Revelation 19.

originally posted by: whereislogic
a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight
I believe in the divinity of Jesus because I believe that he is the divine Son of God.

I also believe in the Deity of Jesus, because the Deity/God of Jesus is Jehovah, and I believe in Jehovah ("deity" being a synonym for "god" but not a synonym for "divinity"; making the way some Trinitarians phrase their argument rather ironic when they accuse other people of not believing in the Deity of Jesus instead of TheConstruKctionofLight's false claim that I don't believe in the divinity of Jesus).

Straw man arguments and painting false pictures on anyone who dares to speak the truth about Jehovah and Jesus and what they really teach are way too popular for my taste.

a reply to: whereislogic

Is English not your first language? Everything you say contradicts itself. Look up the definition of "deity", it includes "divine status, quality, or nature as part of it's definition.

a reply to: whereislogic

Proverbs 8:22 (Biblehub)

New International Version
"The LORD brought me forth as the first of his works, before his deeds of old;

New Living Translation
"The LORD formed me from the beginning, before he created anything else.

Holman Christian Standard Bible
The LORD made me at the beginning of His creation, before His works of long ago.

International Standard Version
"The LORD made me as he began his planning, before his ancient activity commenced.

NET Bible
The LORD created me as the beginning of his works, before his deeds of long ago.

New Heart English Bible
"The LORD created me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old.

Aramaic Bible in Plain English
“Lord Jehovah created me at the beginning of his creation and from before all of his works.”

JPS Tanakh 1917
The LORD made me as the beginning of His way, The first of His works of old.

Now let's compare it to other translations...

KJ21 “The Lord possessed me at the beginning of His way, before His works of old.
ASV Jehovah possessed me in the beginning of his way, Before his works of old.
BRG The Lord possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old.
CEV From the beginning, I was with the Lord. I was there before he began
DARBY Jehovah possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old.
DRA The Lord possessed me in the beginning of his ways, before he made any thing from the beginning.
ESV “The Lord possessed me at the beginning of his work, the first of his acts of old.
ESVUK “The Lord possessed me at the beginning of his work, the first of his acts of old.
GNV The Lord hath possessed me in the beginning of his way: I was before his works of old.
GW “The Lord already possessed me long ago, when his way began, before any of his works.
GNT “The Lord created me first of all, the first of his works, long ago.
ICB “I, wisdom, was with God when he began his work. This was before he made anything else long ago.
JUB The LORD possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old.
KJV The Lord possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old.
AKJV The Lord possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old.
LEB “Yahweh possessed me, the first of his ways, before his acts of old.

Now let's compare it against the next verse, Proverbs 8:23...

KJ21 I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was.
ASV I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, Before the earth was.
AMP “From everlasting I was established and ordained, From the beginning, before the earth existed, [I, godly wisdom,
existed].
AMPC I [Wisdom] was inaugurated and ordained from everlasting, from the beginning, before ever the earth existed.
BRG I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was.
DARBY I was set up from eternity, from the beginning, before the earth was.
DRA I was set up from eternity, and of old before the earth was made.
EGNV I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, and before the earth.
JUB I was set up with eternal dominion, from the beginning, before the earth was.
KJV I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was.
AKJV I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was.
LEB From eternity, I was set up from the first, from the beginning of the earth.

www.biblegateway.com...

originally posted by: Deetermined
a reply to: whereislogic

Is English not your first language? Everything you say contradicts itself. Look up the definition of "deity", it includes "divine status, quality, or nature as part of it's definition.

from wikipedia:

...derives from Old French deité, the Latin deitatem or "divine nature", coined by Augustine of Hippo from deus ("god")

And why should I blindly go along with the changes to language that are derived from words that the Church Father Augustine of Hippo liked to introduce and popularize? "Divinity" works just fine for me, I don't need another word for it that is also used as a substitute for "god", I will continue to use "deity" as a synonym for "god", not "divinity". I already showed why these spiritual so-called Fathers (or Saints) aren't to be trusted. I don't need to blindly agree with dictionaries when they agree with guys like Augustine of Hippo and start using language in a similar manner. Augustine of Hippo is at the top of my list of master deceivers and pawns of Satan, plenty of evidence for that.

Apocrypha:

The trend toward including these additional writings as canonical was primarily initiated by Augustine (354-430 C.E.), although even he in later works acknowledged that there was a definite distinction between the books of the Hebrew canon and such “outside books.”

forced conversion:

One who spoke “twisted things” was the Roman Catholic theologian Augustine. Jesus had taught his followers to convince others by reasoning from the Scriptures. However, Augustine twisted the meaning of Jesus’ words recorded at Luke 14:23, “Compel them to come in,” to mean that it was all right to use force in the work of converting people. (Matthew 28:19, 20; Acts 28:23, 24) Augustine used religion to control people.

Twisting the story about Jesus feeding 5,000 men to trivialize and downgrade the Hebrew Scriptures that talk so much about Jehovah, paint them as inferior to the Christian Greek Scriptures a.k.a. the NT:

Augustine of Hippo commented extensively on the account where we read that Jesus fed about 5,000 men with five barley loaves and two fish. Since barley was considered to be inferior to wheat, Augustine concluded that the five loaves must represent the five books of Moses (the inferior “barley” representing the supposed inferiority of the “Old Testament”). And the two fish? For some reason he likened them to a king and a priest.

Kingdom of God:

Augustine claimed that the Thousand Year Reign of God’s Kingdom was not future but had already begun with the founding of the church. [whereislogic: promoting a false church over the Kingdom of God, falsely "standing where it ought not"]
In his work De Civitate Dei (The City of God), Augustine of Hippo (354-430 C.E.) stated that the church itself is the Kingdom of God. Such unscriptural thinking gave the churches of Christendom theological grounds to embrace political power. And they wielded such power for many centuries, often with brutality.—Revelation 17:5, 18.

Millennium:

Catholic theologian Augustine of Hippo (354-430 C.E.) “held to the conviction that there will be no millennium,” says The Catholic Encyclopedia.* [*: Augustine claimed that the Thousand Year Reign of God’s Kingdom was not future but had already begun with the founding of the church.]

Everlasting Life on Earth—A Hope Rediscovered

6 Before converting to “Christianity” at the age of 33, Augustine had become a Neoplatonist—an adherent of a version of Plato’s philosophy developed by Plotinus in the third century. After Augustine’s conversion, his thinking remained Neoplatonic. “His mind was the crucible in which the religion of the New Testament was most completely fused with the Platonic tradition of Greek philosophy,” states The New Encyclopædia Britannica. Augustine explained the Thousand Year Reign depicted in Revelation chapter 20 by giving “an allegorical explanation of [it],” states The Catholic Encyclopedia. It adds: “This explanation . . . was adopted by succeeding Western theologians, and millenarianism in its earlier shape no longer received support.”

politics:

The idea that God would use churchmen as politicians was promoted especially by Augustine, an influential fifth-century Catholic theologian. He envisioned the church ruling over the nations and bringing peace to mankind. But historian H. G. Wells wrote: “The history of Europe from the fifth century onward to the fifteenth is very largely the history of the failure of this great idea of a divine world government to realize itself in practice.”

war:

Religious leaders have preached a message favoring warfare for centuries. In the year 417 C.E., church theologian Augustine wrote: “You must not think that no one who serves as a soldier, using arms for warfare, can be acceptable to God. . . . Others are fighting invisible enemies on your behalf by praying, while you struggle against visible barbarians on their behalf by fighting.”

To me, this clearly is not a man to be trusted, and if he likes to introduce and popularize new words that then get changed so they get an odd double meaning (both standing for "god" and "divinity"; and then the reader will just have to figure out which one is used, it's confusing), I'm not going along with it even if every dictionary in the world does (which have the primary task of listing how people are using a particular word; not implying that that usage is something one would want to pick up).

It's like those who change the definition for atheism to "a lack of belief in God or gods" (and a couple of dictionaries will probably have it listed as such) and evolution to "change over time" (and more definitions that have nothing to do with the original meaning for "evolve": "to unroll" for example a parchment).

That's not to say that I have a big issue with those who use the word "deity" when they mean "divinity" as long as I know what they mean to say. And I accept that it's a viable practice for dictionaries to list it as such since that's what dictionaries do, list how people use a word, whether it's clear of confusing or appropiate or not.

a reply to: whereislogic

And why should I blindly go along with the changes to language that are derived from words that the Church Father Augustine of Hippo liked to introduce and popularize? "Divinity" works just fine for me, I don't need another word for it that already is linked to the word "god", I will continue to use "deity" as a synonym for "god", not "divinity".

I'm done. You're not thinking clearly. There are no changes to language that I've provided or that you've provided above. The definition of "deity" includes both "god" and anything that's "divine" or has a "divine status or nature".

Notice above that you say, "Divinity" works just fine for me" and then you switch at the end of the same sentence by saying that you will continue to use "deity" as a synonym for "god", NOT "divinity. At what point then is "divinity" just fine for you?

Don't bother to answer as I already know that your answer won't be coherent.

Thanks for proving too that you have NO answers for Revelation 19:13-16 either.

a reply to: Deetermined
Thank you for quoting the confirmation that Jesus "was set up" "was established". Also discussed in the video I pointed towards, it nicely matches the notion of being "created", "produced", "made", "brought forth" but not "possessed".

a reply to: whereislogic

No, it doesn't. You're laughable.

originally posted by: Deetermined
a reply to: whereislogic
Thanks for proving too that you have NO answers for Revelation 19:13-16 either.

Please, as if it wasn't partially discussed already in the videos I shared (as in clues that would provide more insight). You're just ignoring it. Not to mention that it's a red herring, Jehovah's name is not going to change to "the LORD" because of what you said and asked about it (those questions being rhetorical) nor does it change the evidence discussed in the video about the created Messiah from the Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic all pointing to the same thing, it's not "possessed" at Proverbs 8:22 (both of which were topics I discussed in the comment you were responding to; and you start talking about the concept of a "new name" in Revelation? Which has no relation to either topic.). I'll give you a bone, I'll no longer refer to the phrase "denying the Deity of Christ" as ironic when used by Trinitarians. And I will accept that it's perfectly reasonable to use "deity" as a synonym for "divinity", I just won't do it myself (for clarity purposes, cause regardless of this acknowledgement, the phrase I just mentioned can be interpreted in 2 different ways, one is either talking about "the divinity of Christ" or "the God/Deity of Christ", divinity doesn't need capitalization but capitalization of "Deity" does make it easier to interpret it as talking about "the God of Christ" the way Paul does at Ephesians 1:3 and 1 or 2 other places that I can't remember of the top of my head). My earlier statement that it wasn't a synonym is incorrect, I was mistaken (when people use it as a synonym, it's technically a synonym;, whether I agree with it or not).

How about you acknowledging something you might have been mistaken about?

Luke 16:10 (NIV)

10 "Whoever can be trusted with very little can also be trusted with much, and whoever is dishonest with very little will also be dishonest with much.

This discussion about "deity" is a minor matter, insignificant.

At what point then is "divinity" just fine for you?

When I use divinity when I'm speaking about the divinity of Jesus or the divinity of angels who are also divine beings/gods (Hebrew: elohim) according to Psalm 8:5. I don't see a need to use "Deity" instead. Divinity works just fine for me, that's what I meant with that. Which counters any attempt to argue or leave the impression that the state of "Deity" (referring to divinity) exclusively applies to God (referring to Jehovah God, God Almighty, the One who Jesus referred to as "the only true God" when he was praying to that God; not praying to himself, he also said "that they may know you", not "me" just before that, clearly idenitifying someone else as "the only true God"; not saying that you shouldn't know Jesus Christ as well, cause he adds that as well at the end but with a clear distinction with the word "and").