Jesus Christ IS Jehovah According to Scriptures...A Rebuttal

[Jun2u]

The title Lord is undoubtedly one of the most Important honorific titles of Jesus Christ In the New Testament, because It inevitably leads to His identification as the blessed second person of the Godhead is identified as the Incarnate God in many other ways in Scripture, but no other single title is more exalted than Lord in proclaiming His Deity and His Equality with God the Father and God the Holy Spirit

In the New Testament, there are two meaningful terms rendered by the English word Lord by the translators of the authorized version. The more common of the two is ”Kurius” the other is “Despotes.”

In the scriptures, both terms are used for Jesus as well as Jehovah, and in secular writings for the pagan deities and emperors who were counted to be as absolute masters and gods to be worshipped by their people.

Now the term "despotes" was used by the Greeks to certain gods and persons who executed unrestricted power an absolute dominion over others without any limitations or restrains whatsoever. It was particularly a term used for one who owns slaves and exercises the right to determine the exposal of their bodies as well as their abilities and energies.

Despotes is used with extreme care In the New Testament for the lord and honor of the house, for the master of slaves and as an advocate of prayer to god. Now it's not at all surprising to find such an honorific title which insist upon absolute and unrestricted ownership and disposal of others used for Jesus Christ as well as God the Father.

Paul in his Epistles does not hesitate for a moment to count himself as all Christians do to be a slave of God. And that the purchase price for our slavery from Satan, and death, and sin is the blood of Jesus Christ.

This concept of absolute ownership of the believer by his Lord is inherent by the term “redeemed” for redemption speaks for the purchase of slaves from the marketplace. The term "despotes" in no doubt express in the lips of the faithful who used it their sense of God absolute disposal of His creatures and of His autocratic power who does according to His will in the army of heaven as well as among the inhabitants of the earth as we read in Daniel 4:35.

Now at the time of the New Testament when it was being written, we were told that there were words 'Lords many' and 'gods many' by the Apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 8:5.

The Roman empire spread like an octopus The problem with the Roman senate was to unify the states, nations, and with the many multitude of languages and religions And it's obvious that pay revision common to all must be found if real unity of spirit to bring about what is called Pax Romana.

Now, none of the religions of the western world be suitable for this purpose. So a new religion must be created for the sake of the political unity. Keep in mind that it was the sake of this political unity that this unity was designed.

It was determined that a god should be created for all the Pax Romana, the Roman Peace meant to the Provincials, and the emperor should be declared as kurius and theos, both lord and god. When Rome saw the potential veneration it held in terms of bringing political unity, they seized upon the idea tying Caesar to a “loyalty oath.” Therefore every citizen was mandated to take a loyalty oath for the political unity of Rome.

Of course, the Christians who believed as did Paul, there is but one God the Father, who is all in us, and the Lord Jesus, who is all in us, would never say even under the penalty of death, ‘Caesar is Lord.'

To Be Continued...

 

[Jun2u]

continued...

As a result, many such as Polycarp the disciple of Apostle John chose death rather than use the terms Kurius and Despotes for any other than the blessed persons of the Holy Trinity.

When Jesus returns He will return as King over all kings, and Lord over all lords. This is to say at His second coming He will come as one with absolute Owner and Sovereign over all created beings and things. He will come as one who has the privilege, and the authority, and the power, to do with His creatures that which is according to His pleasure.

Therefore, to acknowledge Jesus Christ as Lord He is to declare that He is Jehovah, that He is God manifest in the flesh (1 John 4:2-3). We must recognize that the theology of the New Testament that presupposes the Godhood of Jesus Christ if it did not He would never have been allowed the title of Kurius or Lord.

This is quite amazing when we realize that the human authors of the New Testament, for the most part, were Monotheistic Jews. Yet it is strikingly apparent that they were firmly convinced that Jesus Christ is “Emmanuel, God with us” for they transferred to him without hesitation all that the Old Testament says about Jehovah. This indicates that they have pursued all final outcome of the Lordship of the son of God Jesus Christ.

We have just stated the monotheistic authors of the New Testament transfer to Jesus all of what the Old Testament says about Jehovah. Let me back it up with some scriptures. There are many examples but let me list a few if you please.

Let us compare Mark 1:3 where Isaiah 40:3 is quoted you will see what I mean. In the gospel account we read, “the voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.”

Here in Mark, the word Lord translated is the honorific title used for Jesus (Kurius). The way preparer is obviously John the Baptizer and the Lord that is being prepared is plainly our Savior.

Now in Isaiah 40:3 you will see that in the passage which has just been quoted in the New Testament that the word Lord is spelled with all capital letters. This is the printers way of telling you hat the original Hebrew text has the word Jehovah or YHWH. Since Jesus is declared to be the one called LORD by Isaiah, it is quite clear that He is Jehovah as far as Mark is concerned,

The most remarkable confirmation of our statement that the writers of the New Testament writers eagerly and quickly transferred to Jesus all of the Old Testament says about Jehovah Is to be seen by contrasting Romans 10:13 with Joel 2:32 Paul says, “whosoever calls upon the name of the Lord (Kurius) shall be saved.”

This is a direct quotation by the Jewish Prophet Joel by Paul a monotheistic Jew. Here again, as you examine the text of the Old Testament prophet you will discover that the word which Paul uses “Kurius” is also translated Lord in our English Bibles is the Hebrew word YHWH or Jehovah for Lord is spelled with all capital letters In that passage.

Since Paul applies this verse to Jesus using Kurius to render Yahweh or Jehovah It is clear that he is declaring that our Lord is none other than the Eternal God in Person. Not only are there numerous other instances where the name Jehovah is transferred to Jesus but the Apostle Paul, also to affirm to call Jesus “Kurius” as to declare that is none other than Jehovah. To call Jesus “Kurius” is to glorify the Heavenly Father.

To Be Continued...

 

[Jun2u]

continued...


Turn to Philippians 2:9-11 you read these words:
9 “Wherefore God also has highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:
10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow of things in heaven and things in earth and things under the earth;
11 and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is “Kurius” that is Jesus Christ is Lord, that is Jesus Christ is Jehovah, to the glory of God the Father.“

For the monotheistic Jew the most exalted name, bar none Is Yahweh or Jehovah. It was before this name that all the peoples of the earth were to bow their heads according to the promise. It is this very name of names that is transferred by Paul to Jesus, this is the Heavenly throne Sitter there with the Father for all whom creatures one day will frustrate themselves in humble adoration even from the midst of the fire or from the midst of radiant angels of heaven.

Now it becomes more apparent why the early Church refused to say a Caesar is Kurius even though they knew it was simply a “loyalty oath” as far as Rome was concerned.

Every indoctrinated believer knew that Kurius was a title for a god, and he refused to call anyone other than the true God by that title Lord or Kurius.

Undoubtedly, the Apostle Paul had In mind Isaiah 45:22-23 when he writes to the Philippians “Jesus Christ is Lord and that every knee one day should bow for our savior. You see, Isaiah, quoting the word of God Himself:

The God Who created the heavens and the earth He declared that all creation shall before his Divine Majesty then in verse 21 of the same passage it will be noted that there is no savior other than the sovereign Jehovah who created the Heaven and the earth.


45:22-23

Look unto me and be ye saved all the ends of the Earth for I am God and there is none else I have sworn by myself the word is gone out of my mouth in righteousness and shall not return unto me every knee shall bow every tongue shall swear.


Now in this great passage, the speaker is “Elohim” The God Who created the heavens and the earth He declares that all creation shall bow before his divine majesty

Therefore Paul declares Jesus is to be Savior and Lord before whom every knee shall bow. He is openly and passively transferring that prerogatives and position of deity to Jesus.

No matter where one looks in the New Testament he finds Jesus described as Lord. Now, this is especially true in the epistles for our dear Savior is called Kurius nearly 150 times and Lord Jesus nearly 100 times more. It must be understood that this constant application to the term Kurius to our Lord Jesus must not be imagined as merely a formal mark of respect. It is a definite description of him as universal absolute dominion not only over men but overall angels the entire created beings of the universe.

Not only is the deity of Christ declared by calling him Lord and by applying to him many of the Old Testament of scriptures Identify him as Jehovah but He is openly called God as well as Lord. One of the most stirring examples is to be seen were Thomas his doubts of His bodily resurrection removed, greets Jesus with a great cry, “my Lord and My God.”

Yes, the witnesses agree...Jesus is JEHOVAH!

To God Be The Glory

 

[tigger 2]

Jun2u wrote:

"The title Lord is undoubtedly one of the most Important honorific titles of Jesus Christ In the New Testament, because It inevitably leads to His identification as the blessed second person of the Godhead is identified as the Incarnate God in many other ways in Scripture, but no other single title is more exalted than Lord in proclaiming His Deity and His Equality with God the Father and God the Holy Spirit"


W.E. Vine's An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words:

"Lord, Lordship [Noun] kurios properly an adjective, signifying "having power" (kuros) or "authority," is used as a noun, variously translated in the NT, "'Lord,' 'master,' 'Master,' 'owner,' 'Sir,' a title of wide significance, occurring in each book of the NT save Titus and the Epistles of John. It is used
(a) of an owner, as in Luke 19:33, cp. Matt 20:8; Acts 16:16; Gal 4:1; or of one who has the disposal of anything, as the Sabbath, Matt 12:8;
(b) of a master, i.e., one to whom service is due on any ground, Matt 6:24; Matt 24:50; Eph 6:5;
(c) of an Emperor or King, Acts 25:26; Rev 17:14;
(d) of idols, ironically, 1 Cor 8:5, cp. Isaiah 26:13;
(e) as a title of respect addressed to a father, Matt 21:30, a husband, 1 Pet 3:6, a master, Matt 13:27; Luke 13:8, a ruler, Matt 27:63, an angel, Acts 10:4; Rev 7:14;
(f) as a title of courtesy addressed to a stranger, John 12:21; John 20:15; Acts 16:30; from the outset of His ministry this was a common form of address to the Lord Jesus, alike by the people, Matt 8:2; John 4:11, and by His disciples, Matt 8:25; Luke 5:8; John 6:68;
(g) kurios is the Sept. and NT representative of Heb. Jehovah ('LORD' in Eng. versions), see Matt 4:7; James 5:11, e.g., of adon, Lord, Matt 22:44, and of Adonay, Lord, Matt 1:22; it also occurs for Elohim, God, 1 Pet 1:25."

The following (with minor corrections) is from a post by Kermit Zarley:

Jesus had approved of his disciples calling him “Lord.” Right before partaking of the Last Supper, Peter called Jesus “Lord” (John 13.9). Jesus soon affirmed this designation by saying, “You call Me Teacher and Lord; and you are right, for so I am” (v. 13). Jesus seems to have used these two titles interchangeably. Calling Jesus “Lord” therefore meant that he was the sole teacher of his disciples.

The synoptic gospels reveal that their writers viewed these and other similar terms interchangeably, thus synonymously, when applied to Jesus. For example, when Jesus and his disciples were crossing Lake Galilee in a boat and a storm threatened to swamp them, they awoke Jesus by crying out for help. Matthew says they addressed him as “Lord” [kurie] (8:25); Mark records it was “Teacher” [didaskale] (4.38); Luke reports they said "Instructor" [epistata] (8.24). And at Jesus’ transfiguration, Matthew says Peter addressed Jesus as “Lord” [kurie] (17.4); Mark records it was “Rabbi” [rabbei] (9.5); Luke reports he said “Instructor” [epistata] (9.33).

Kurios was a very common title for many persons in the Bible. It is only logical that it would be also applied to the Messiah.

 

[Jun2u]

Kurios was a very common title for many persons in the Bible. It is only logical that it would be also applied to the Messiah.

Let us compare Mark 1:3 where Isaiah 40:3 is quoted.

In the gospel account we read, “the voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.”

Here in Mark, the word Lord translated is the honorific title used for Jesus (Kurios). The way preparer is obviously John the Baptizer and the Lord that is being prepared is plainly our Savior.

Now in Isaiah 40:3 you will see that in the passage which has just been quoted in the New Testament that the word Lord is spelled with all capital letters. This is the printers way of telling you that the original Hebrew text has the word JEHOVAH or YHWH. Since Jesus is declared to be the one called LORD by Isaiah, it is quite clear that He is Jehovah as far as Mark is concerned,

The most remarkable confirmation of our statement that the writers of the New Testament writers eagerly and quickly transferred to Jesus all of the Old Testament says about Jehovah Is to be seen by contrasting Romans 10:13 with Joel 2:32 Paul says, “whosoever calls upon the name of the Lord (Kurius) shall be saved.”

The most remarkable confirmation of our statement that the writers of the New Testament writers eagerly and quickly transferred to Jesus all of the Old Testament says about Jehovah Is to be seen by contrasting Romans 10:13 with Joel 2:32 Paul says, “whosoever calls upon the name of the LORD (Kurios) shall be saved.”

This is a direct quotation by the Jewish Prophet Joel by Paul a monotheistic Jew. Here again, as you examine the text of the Old Testament prophet you will discover that the word which Paul uses “Kurios” is also translated Lord in our English Bibles is the Hebrew word YHWH or JEHOVAH for Lord is spelled with all capital letters In that passage.

Since Paul applies this verse to Jesus using Kurios to render Yahweh or Jehovah It is clear that he is declaring that our Lord is none other than the Eternal God in Person. Not only are there numerous other instances where the name Jehovah is transferred to Jesus but the Apostle Paul, also to affirm to call Jesus “Kurios” as to declare that is none other than Jehovah. To call Jesus “Kurios” is to glorify the Heavenly Father.

Likewise, it is also true with Philippians 2:9-11 as compared to Isaiah 45:22-23.

I don’t see how you can get around with the Scripture passages above that clearly teach Jesus is Lord (kurios) that is JEHOVAH or YHWH.

 

[Guestman]

The Greek word kyrios meaning "lord" (G2962, that designates one as "sir", "owner", "master", showing a level of respect) is often used in the Christian Greek Scriptures to mean one who has ownership or authority and power over persons or things.

The Greek word despotes (and from which comes the English word despot that denotes a tyrant), is also translated as "lord" (or as an "absolute ruler" (G1203), according to Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, as well as "owners", Titus 2:9; 1 Tim 6:1, 2, "owner", 2 Pet 2:1; Jude 1:4 (whereby both despotes ("owner") and kyrios ("lord") are used with regard to Jesus Christ), "masters", 1 Pet 2:18) and has a relationship to the Hebrew word "Lord" (Adhonai, H136) that is an "emphatic form of lord (H113)" that is rendered as "Sovereign Lord (H136)" when used in connection with Jehovah God.(Gen 15:2, 8; Note: the Hebrew word Adhonai as H136 is used in the Hebrew Scriptures some 300 times, and that applies only to Jehovah God, though the Leningrad B 19a Massoretic (Hebrew) text has it 438 times (written down in 1008 C.E.), which is explained below, while H113 as "lord" can be applied to anyone).

The Jewish Sopherim (or scribes [who came into prominence as a distinct group during the time of Ezra] who were responsible for writing the Hebrew Scriptures down as copyists for the nation of Israel to read, for the printing press was not invented until 1450 by Johannes Gutenburg) altered the original Hebrew text from YHWH (or Latinized Jehovah in English) to Adhonai 134 times and in which English Masoretic scholar C.D. Ginsburg (1831-1914 C.E.) said: "We have seen that in many of these one hundred and thirty four instances in which the present received text reads Adhonai in accordance with this Massorah (scribes who followed the Jewish Sopherim in copying the Hebrew Scriptures), some of the best MSS.(manuscripts) and early editions read the Tetragrammaton (meaning "four letters" of YHWH that is rendered as Jehovah), the question arises how did this variation obtain ? The explanation is not far to seek. From time immemorial the Jewish canons decreed that that the incommunicable name (or the Jewish superstition that it was wrong to even pronounce God's name of Jehovah) is to be pronounced Adhonai (or "lord") as if it were written אדני [’Adho·nai´] instead of יהוה [YHWH]. Nothing was, therefore, more natural for the copyists than to substitute the expression which exhibited the pronunciation for the Tetragrammaton which they were forbidden to pronounce.”(The Massoretico-Critical Text of the Hebrew Bible, Vol IV, pg 28, pub in 1894)

When the Greek word despotes is used in connection with Jehovah, it identifies him as the "Sovereign Lord", who as the Creator of all things, is the only one who rightly can be called "absolute ruler" in that sense.(see Luke 2:29; Acts 4:24; Rev 6:10)

Of Jesus Christ, he has limited authority or power, not equal to Jehovah, not "absolute", for Jehovah God is not subject to him nor are they equal (see Jesus words that "the Father is greater than I am" at John 14:28 and that he was taught by Jehovah at John 8:28), for he said: "All authority has been given me (by Jehovah God) in heaven and on the earth".(Matt 28:18; see also Dan 7:13, 14, whereby it shows Jesus as receiving kingdom authority from the "Ancient of Days", Jehovah God)

And at 1 Corinthians 15, the apostle Paul, after speaking of those who "belong to Christ" (1 Cor 15:23), as "joint-heirs" (Rom 8:17) with him in God's Kingdom, wrote: "Next, the end (when Jesus invisible "presence" [Greek parousia, not erchomai meaning "coming", see Matt 24:30] is completed at the end of Jesus millennial reign and all that Jehovah wanted accomplished with the earth becoming a paradise for "meek" ones forever (see Isa 45:18) has been brought to completion, Ps 37:11, 29), when he (Jesus) hands over the Kingdom to his God and Father, when he has brought to nothing all government (all political governments that have been a "roadblock" to global peace) and all authority and power.....For God "subjected all things under his feet". But when he (David at Ps 8:6) says that ' all things have been subjected ', it is evident that this does not include the One (Jehovah God) who subjected all things to him. But when all things will have been subjected to him (Jesus Christ), then the Son himself will also subject himself to the One (Jehovah God) who subjected all things to him, that God (alone) may be all things to everyone".(1 Cor 15:24, 27, 28)

Concerning those selected as "heirs indeed of God, but joint-heirs with Christ", reason on this: If Jesus is God or Jehovah, then those selected from the earth will rule on an equal level with Jesus as "joint-heirs" (Rom 8:17), having the same "inheritance" of authority, receiving the same power or right to command as Jesus, putting them all on the same level as equals, that would make them God also.

But this is not what the Scriptures teach, so that a person can readily realize that Jesus is not Jehovah, for even Jesus is an ' heir of God ' (God does not receive an inheritance from himself), just as those chosen from the earth, receiving from Jehovah the privilege of serving as "kings and priests" (Rev 1:6) as Jesus is by appointment from Jehovah.(Heb 5:10)

And at 1 Peter 3, the apostle Peter wrote that after the resurrection of Jesus Christ: "He is at God's right hand, for he went his way to heaven, and angels and authorities and powers were made subject (or granted) to him (by Jehovah God)".(1 Pet 3:21, 22; see also Ps 110:1 and Acts 7:55, 56)

 

[tigger 2]

Jehovah alone is the Most High God, the Father. part 1

Heb. 5:1, 4, 5, 10, and 8:1 -

“Every high priest is selected from among men and is appointed to represent them in matters related to God [compare 1 Tim. 2:5], to offer gifts and sacrifices for sins.” And, “No one takes this honor upon himself, he must be called by God, just as Aaron was. so Christ Jesus also did not take upon himself the glory of becoming a high priest. But ....” “...was designated by God to be high priest in the order of Melchizedek.” [And,] “The point of what we are saying is this: We do have such a high priest, who sat down at the right hand of the throne of the majesty in heaven [as the Bible writer has been referring to Ps. 110 throughout the book of Hebrews in referring to Melchizedek and Christ (110:4), so also he is here referring to Ps. 110:1 - see most reference Bibles].” - NIV.

So the writer of the book of Hebrews has plainly identified Jesus as our high priest (who represents us and offers sacrifice for us to God) who sat down at the right hand of God.

Heb. 13:15 - “through [dia] Jesus [as our high priest], therefore, let us continually offer to God a sacrifice of praise - the fruit of lips that confess his name.” - NIV.

Exodus 22:20 -

“He that sacrificeth unto any gods, save unto Jehovah only, shall be utterly destroyed.” - American Standard Version (ASV) - See also The Living Bible; Young’s Literal Translation; Byington’s Bible in Living English; King James II Version; and NIV footnote.

Therefore, if we make the Christian “sacrifice of praise” to God (as we must) through Jesus our High Priest (as we must), we must make certain that it is only to the “only true God” (John 17:3) Jehovah, or we may expect the loss of eternal life (‘utterly destroyed’). - Ex. 22:20; 2 Thess. 1:8, 9; John 17:3.

Even if you became sincerely convinced by the scriptural “reasoning” and influence of all those around you that the righteous “god” Moses, for example, was equally God with the Father (Jehovah - Is. 63:16 ASV) and gave “a sacrifice of praise” to (not through) Moses (as being God), you would still be in line for “utter destruction”! It wouldn’t matter that Moses was a good, righteous person, a savior of Israel. Or that God chose him and worked through him. And it wouldn’t matter that you had been sincerely, whole-heartedly convinced by those you love and respect (Matt. 15:6-9, 14; Matt. 23:13, 15; Hosea 4:1, 6; Matt. 10:36-39).

Four times in his “sacrifice of praise” to God (Ps. 86) David “confesses His (Jehovah’s) name.” Notice this part of David’s sacrifice of praise to God:

“Give ear, O Jehovah, unto my prayer .... thou art great and doest wondrous things: thou art God alone. Teach me thy way, O Jehovah: I will walk in thy truth: Unite my heart to fear thy name. I will praise thee, O Lord my God, with my whole heart; and I will glorify thy name for evermore.” - Ps. 86:6, 10-12 ASV.

David’s sacrifice of praise in this Psalm tells us Jehovah alone is God. But is Jesus that “Jehovah only,” that “God alone,” (Ex. 22:20) to whom we must sacrifice (Heb. 13:15)?

Psalm 110 itself tells us the answer. As the inspired writer of the book of Hebrews himself tells us: Jesus our High Priest (and the High Priest of God cannot be that God whom he serves) “is seated at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty [Jehovah] in the heavens.” - Heb. 8:1, NRSV (or “at the place of greatest honor next to God himself” - Living Bible). This clearly refers to Psalm 110:1 (as even trinitarian reference Bibles show and as Heb. 10:12, 13 confirms). - continued in next post.

 

[tigger 2]

part 2

Examining Ps. 110:1, we see that only one person is named Jehovah - and he is not Jesus who sits at the right hand of Jehovah!:

“Jehovah saith unto my Lord [Jesus], Sit thou at my right hand, Until I make thine enemies thy footstool.” - ASV.

Since we have a multitude of descriptions of the fulfillment of Ps. 110:1 in the NT, we should examine them all and see exactly who is Jehovah God and who is not.

Some background shows: The Most High God is Jehovah (YHWH) alone (Ps. 83:18). Jehovah is called the Father (but he is never called the Son, the Firstborn, the Only-begotten, the Christ or Messiah, etc.). Even many personal names of Israelites in the Bible actually said “Jehovah is the Father”: ‘Abijah,’ ‘Abiah,’ ‘Joab,’ etc. or “The Father is God”: ‘Abiel,’ ‘Eliab,’ etc. - but they never said anything remotely like ‘Jehovah is the Son’ (or the Messiah, the Firstborn, etc.)! - Deut. 32:6 ASV; Ps. 89:26, 27 (compare Heb. 1:5 and Ps. 2:7 ASV); Is. 63:16; Is. 64:8; Jer. 31:7, 9, ASV. - Also see the “Hallowed Be Thy Name” study.

The God of the Israelites has always been the Father alone (also known by his personal name of YHWH [Jehovah]) as shown above. It is also shown in the NT when the Jews say to Jesus: “’we have one Father, even God.’ Jesus said to them, ‘If God were your Father, you would love me, for I proceeded forth and have come from God, for I have not even come on my own initiative, but He sent Me.’” – NASB.

Jehovah (YHWH in OT Hebrew manuscripts), the only Most High God (and the only true God) is the Father of Jesus - Luke 1:32; John 17:1, 3 (“Father,.... This is eternal life: to know thee who alone art truly God” - NEB). The God of the heavenly resurrected Jesus is his Father - Ro. 15:6; 2 Cor. 11:31; Eph. 1:3, 17; Col. 1:3; 1 Pet. 1:3; Rev. 1:6; Rev. 3:5 (Obviously Jesus is not also the Father). Jesus’ Head is his GOD in the very same sense that man’s head is Jesus! - 1 Cor. 11:3.

Even the trinitarian The Encyclopedia of Religion admits that, in the Holy Scriptures at least,

“‘Father’ is not a title for the first person of the Trinity but a synonym for God.” - 1987, Vol. 15, p. 54.

Now let’s look at the descriptions of the fulfillment of Ps. 110:1 (Jesus is to sit at the right hand of Jehovah until his enemies are made his footstool):

(1) Jesus sat down at the right hand of God - Acts 2:33-36; Ro. 8:34; Heb. 10:12, 13; 1 Pet. 3:22.

(2) Jesus sat down at the right hand of the Father - Eph. 1:17, 20; Rev. 3:21.

Jesus is obviously not the same person whom he sat beside! He sat down at the right hand of a single individual who alone has the only personal name “Jehovah” and who also has the exclusive title “the Most High God” and is Jesus’ (and our) Father in heaven! Jesus is not even somehow equal to the person he sat beside. The popular (and trinitarian) The NIV Study Bible tells us in a footnote for Ps. 110:1,

“right hand....thus he [Christ] is made second in authority to God himself. NT references to Jesus’ exaltation to this position are many (see Mk 16:19...Acts 2:33-36; ...Heb. 10:12-13).” [Compare the NIVSB footnote for Mark 16:19] - “right hand of God. A position of authority second only to God’s.” - The NIV Study Bible, Zondervan, 1985.

If Jesus is not Jehovah God (as all clear evidence proves he is not), and yet we continue giving “a sacrifice of praise” unto him as being Jehovah God (and that is precisely what is being done by any who accept or condone, even passively, the “orthodox” trinity doctrine), then we certainly do not know the only true God (John 17:1, 3 - cf, Jer. 10:10, ASV 1 Thess. 1:9, 10; 2 Thess. 1:8, 9) nor are we obeying the commands of God -

“He that sacrificeth unto any god [whether a righteous individual or a false god], save unto Jehovah only [through our High Priest, Jesus Christ - Heb. 13:15], shall be utterly destroyed.” -Exodus 22:20, ASV.

“...if thou shalt forget Jehovah thy God, and walk after other gods, and serve them, and worship them, I testify against you this day that ye shall surely perish.” - Deut. 8:19, ASV.

Therefore, even though we may have grown up in this tradition and have been taught it, and even though we may sincerely believe with all our hearts (Jer. 17:9; Prov. 28:26, NASB; 2 Tim. 3:13-17) that we are God’s people, we may well finally discover “there is no truth ... nor knowledge of God in the land”; and “My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge” (Hosea 4:1, 6 ASV); and that we are not worshiping God “in TRUTH” as we MUST - John 4:24; and

“the nations come from the ends of the earth, and shall say, Our fathers have inherited nought but lies .... and they shall know that my name is Jehovah.” - Jer. 16:19, 21 ASV.

So, even though we may sincerely believe with the strongest faith possible that we are doing everything as Jesus commanded (and all those many around us whom we trust, like, and respect are doing the same), we may find that he rejects us, and that we are not among the few who have even found the narrow way that eventually “leadeth unto Life” - Matt. 7:21-23; Matt. 7:14. (No matter how sincerely you believe the liquid you are drinking is pure water, if your neighbor has put even one tiny drop of cyanide into it you will die anyway.)

Of course, before you can find the narrow way that leads to eternal life, you must actively and diligently seek it through proper study -

“if thou seek her [knowledge, wisdom] as silver, and search for her as for hid treasures: then shalt thou understand the fear of Jehovah, and find the knowledge of God.” - Prov. 2:4, 5 ASV.

"Father, .... And this is eternal life, that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent. - NRSV.

 

[APAK]

@Jun2u .....

1 John 4:2-3 - Those that believe that Jesus was born a human being is of God.

Do you confess that Jesus was 100 percent human with one human nature created by God as a baby boy around 4 BC that scripture supports, or do you confess that God our creator became one of his own creatures or creations? In other words, do you have the spirit of truth or the spirit of error within you? (1 John 4:6). This is no game, it is a sincere question.

Just a one liner response would be nice.


Bless you,

APAK

 

[Enoch111]

Just a one liner response would be nice.

Delusion about the deity of Christ is extremely hazardous to your spiritual health.

That should suffice as a one-liner.

And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness:
God [Theos] was manifest in the flesh,
justified in the Spirit,
seen of angels,
preached unto the Gentiles,
believed on in the world,
received up into glory.(1 Tim 3:16).

 

[tigger 2]

Delusion about the deity of Christ is extremely hazardous to your spiritual health.

That should suffice as a one-liner.

And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness:
God [Theos] was manifest in the flesh,
justified in the Spirit,
seen of angels,
preached unto the Gentiles,
believed on in the world,
received up into glory.(1 Tim 3:16).

...............................

1 Tim. 3:16


(NKJV) 1 Timothy 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifested in the flesh, Justified in the Spirit, Seen by angels, Preached among the Gentiles, Believed on in the world, Received up in glory.

The NKJV (and the few other Bibles still based on the flawed Received Text) has rendered this passage as "God was manifested in the flesh" when it is quite clear that this was a change to the earlier manuscripts purposely made by trinitarian copyists around the eighth or ninth century A.D. (See A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, United Bible Societies, 1971). And even noted Bible scholar Dr. Frederick C. Grant writes:


“A capital example [of NT manuscript changes] is found in 1 Timothy 3:16, where ‘OS’ (‘who’) was later taken for theta sigma with a bar above, which stood for θεὸς (‘God’). Since the new reading suited …. the orthodox doctrine of the church [trinitarian, at this later date], it got into many of the later manuscripts ….” – p. 656, Encyclopedia Americana, vol. 3, 1957 ed. (This same statement by Dr. Grant was still to be found in the latest Encyclopedia Americana that I examined – the 1990 ed., pp. 696-698, vol. 3.)


Trinitarian scholar Murray J. Harris also concludes:

“The strength of the external evidence favoring OC [‘who’], along with considerations of transcriptional and intrinsic probability, have prompted textual critics virtually unanimously to regard OC [ὃς] as the original text, a judgment reflected in NA(26) [Nestle-Aland text] and UBS (1,2,3) [United Bible Societies text] (with a ‘B’ rating) [also the Westcott and Hort text]. Accordingly, 1 Tim 3:16 is not an instance of the Christological [‘Jesus is God’] use of θεὸς.” - Jesus as God, p. 268, Baker Book House, 1992.

And very trinitarian (Southern Baptist) NT Greek scholar A. T. Robertson wrote about this scripture:

“He who (hos [or OC in the original text]). [This is] the correct text, not theos (God) the reading of the Textus Receptus ... nor ho (neuter relative [pronoun]), agreeing with [the neuter] musterion [‘mystery’] the reading of Western documents.” - p. 577, Vol. 4, Word Pictures in the New Testament, Broadman Press.

And even hyper-trinitarian NT Greek scholar, Daniel B. Wallace uses the relative pronoun ὃς (‘who’) in this scripture and tells us:

“The textual variant θεὸς in the place of ὃς has been adamantly defended by some scholars, particularly those of the ‘majority text’ school. Not only is such a reading poorly attested,* but the syntactical argument that mystery’ (musthrion) being a neuter noun, cannot be followed by the masculine pronoun (ὃς) is entirely without weight. As attractive theologically [for trinitarians, of course] as the reading θεὸς may be, it is spurious. To reject it is not to deny the deity of Christ, of course; it is just to deny any explicit reference in this text.” [italicized emphasis is by Wallace]. - pp. 341-342, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, Zondervan, 1996.


* Wallace’s footnote for the above says: “In particular, it is impossible to explain the Latin reading of a neuter R[elative] P[ronoun] as deriving from θεὸς, showing that ὃς was quite early. Not one firsthand of any Greek witnesses prior to the 8th century read θεὸς.”

 

[TheHolyBookEnds]

1 Tim. 3:16... [God manifest in the flesh, KJB.]

* Wallace’s footnote for the above says: “In particular, it is impossible to explain the Latin reading of a neuter R[elative] P[ronoun] as deriving from θεὸς, showing that ὃς was quite early. Not one firsthand of any Greek witnesses prior to the 8th century read θεὸς.”

Wallace is a critic, and the apparatus of the UBS/NA distort the facts. Evidence is against his 'assertions'.

1 Timothy 3:16 GNT TR - και ομολογουμενως μεγα εστιν το της ευσεβειας μυστηριον θεος εφανερωθη εν σαρκι εδικαιωθη εν πνευματι ωφθη αγγελοις εκηρυχθη εν εθνεσιν επιστευθη εν κοσμω ανεληφθη εν δοξη​

"God", reading:

Texts:

"... Aleph-c; A-c; C-2; D-2; K; L; P; Psi
Cursives: MAJORITY
vulg-ms

Also extant in 056; 061; 075; 0142; 0150; 0151; 0241.

H.C. Hoskier also believed that the first hand Palimpsest C read "God", and of Codex A, F.H.A Scrivener wrote:

"Cod. A however, I have examined at least twenty times within as many years ... seeing (as every one must see for himself) with Berriman and the earlier collators that Cod A read THEOS... the evidence of Young, of Huish, of Mill, of Berriman and his friends, when the page was comparitively unworn, cannot thus be disposed of (Plain Introduction, pp 639,640 note). ..." - A Closer Look at the Early Manuscripts, The AV, by Jack Moorman, page 135

"348 Of this, any one may convince himself by merely inspecting the 2 pages of codex A {FNS which are exposed to view at the British Museum." - Dean John William Burgon - The Revision Revised, PDF page 128, internal page 124, footnote 348.

*******

"... A and C exhibited ΘΣ until ink, thumbing, and the injurious use of chemicals, obliterated what once was patent. It is too late, by full 150 years, to contend on the negative side of this question.—F and G, which exhibit ΘΣ and ŸΘΣ respectively, were confessedly derived from a common archetype: in which archetype, it is evident that the horizontal stroke which distinguishes ˜ from Ÿ must have been so faintly traced as to be scarcely discernible. The supposition that, in this place, the stroke in question represents the aspirate, is scarcely admissible. There is no single example of ὸς written ŸΘΣ in any part of either Cod. F or Cod. G. On the other hand, in the only [101] place where ŸΟΣ represents ˜ΘΣ, it is written ΟΣ in both. Prejudice herself may be safely called upon to accept the obvious and only lawful inference.

To come to the point,—Θεὸς is the reading of all the uncial copies extant but two (viz. א which exhibits ὸς, and D which exhibits ὅ), and of all the cursives but one (viz. 17). The universal consent of the Lectionaries proves that ˜Θεὸς has been read in all the assemblies of the faithful from the IVth or Vth century of our era. At what earlier period of her existence is it supposed then that the Church (“the witness and keeper of Holy Writ,”) availed herself of her privilege to substitute Θεὸς for ὸς or ὅ,—whether in error or in fraud? Nothing short of a conspiracy, to which every region of the Eastern Church must have been a party, would account for the phenomenon.

We enquire next for the testimony of the Fathers; and we discover that—(1) Gregory of Nyssa quotes Θεὸς twenty-two times:352, Gregory says:—Τιμοθέῳ δὲ διαῤῥήδῃν βοᾷ; ὅτι ὁ Θεὸς ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί, ἐδικαιώθη ἐν Πνεύματι. ii. 693. —that ˜Θεὸς is also recognized by (2) his namesake of Nazianzus in two places;353—as well as by (3) Didymus of Alexandria; 354—(4) by ps.-Dionysius Alex.;355—and (5) by Diodorus of Tarsus.356—(6) Chrysostom quotes 1 Tim. iii. 16 in conformity with the received text at least three times;357 [102] —and (7) Cyril Al.

as often:358—(8) Theodoret, four times:359—(9) an unknown author of the age of Nestorius (A.D. 430), once:360—(10) Severus,
Bp. of Antioch (A.D. 512), once.361—(11) Macedonius (A.D. 506) patriarch of CP.,362 of whom it has been absurdly related that he invented the reading, is a witness for ˜Θεὸς perforce; so is—(12) Euthalius, and—(13) John Damascene on two occasions. 363—(14) An unknown writer who has been mistaken for Athanasius,364—(15) besides not a few ancient scholiasts, close the list: for we pass by the testimony of—(16) Epiphanius at the 7th Nicene Council (A.D. 787),—of (17) OEcumenius,—of (18) Theophylact. ..." - Dean John William Burgon - The Revision Revised, PDF pages 129-131, internal pages 125-127.

*******

"... The AV1611 reading “God was manifest in the flesh” is changed in the RV and most modern versions, including the NIV, to “He who was manifested in the flesh” or similar. Burgon showed that ΘΕΟΣ “Theos” or “God” was invariably written ΘΣ, “THS” in the uncial manuscripts and could easily become ΟΣ, “OS” or “who” (13) pp 425-426, as it appears in Aleph and C or “O,” “which,” in D. These are the only unequivocal uncial witnesses against “THS” (13) pp 426-443. ...

... To this day, Burgon’s case has never been answered. ..." - O Biblios - The Book; Alan James O'Reilly; PDF page 43; internal page 34

*******

"... "Yet even then the force of the Patristic testimony remains untouched. Were we to concede to Dr. Hort's unproved hypothesis tha Didymus, de Trinita abounds in what he calls Syrian readings, and that they are not rare with Gregory Myssen (Notes, p. 133), the clear references of Ignatius and Hippolytus are not thus to be disposed of. I dare not pronounce θεος a corruption." Scrivener, "Introduction" Vol.II,pp. 394,395.

Following this, Dr. Miller, who edited Dr. Scrivener's work adds:

"This decision of Dr. Scrivener would probably have been considerably strengthened in favour of Theos, if the above passage had been written after instead of before, the composition and appearance of Dean Burgon's elaborate and patient examination of all the evidence, which occupies seventy-seven pages in his 'Revision Revised'." Scrivener's "Introduction", p. 394. ..." - Benjamin G Wilkinson - Our Authorized Bible Vindicated - Answers To Objections (PDF), page 22​

For instance on the false citations in the UBS/NA apparatus - Article: False Citations in NA/UBS 1 Timothy 3:16 Examined by Scott Jones - Textus Receptus
​

"God" reading:

"Church Fathers"

"... Gregory of Nyssa, Against Eunomius (III 5:101,155,176,232 ..." - Early Church Fathers And the Authorized Version, by Jack Moorman, page 57
​

Also see -

1 Timothy 3:16 GOD or he

1st Timothy 3:16

 

[Enoch111]

The NKJV (and the few other Bibles still based on the flawed Received Text) has rendered this passage as "God was manifested in the flesh" when it is quite clear that this was a change to the earlier manuscripts purposely made by trinitarian copyists around the eighth or ninth century A.D.

This is PURE HOGWASH.

If you want the truth (and since you have tried to avoid the truth in order to find a way to dismiss "God" from this text ,chances are you won't) then please read The Revision Revised by John W. Burgon (1883) which has a dissertation on this exact verse, and proves beyond the shadow of a doubt that the original said exactly what is stated in the KJV and NKJV.

[19] “GOD was manifested in the flesh” Shown To Be The True Reading Of 1 Timothy III. 16.

A Dissertation.
...The two rival readings, however, in 1 Tim. iii. 16, are, — Θεὸς ἐφανερώθη (“GOD was manifested”), on the one hand; and τὸ τῆς εὐσεβείας μυστήριον, Ὃς (“the mystery of godliness, who”), on the other. These are the two readings, I say, between whose conflicting claims we are to adjudicate... And that I may not be misunderstood, I beg to repeat that all I propose to myself is to prove—beyond the possibility of denial—that the evidence for Θεὸς (in 1 Timothy iii. 16) vastly preponderates over the evidence for either Ὃς or Ὃ (pp 427, 444).

Burgon went on to prove that in Codex A and Codex C the abbreviation for Theos (ΘΕΟΣ) was contracted ΘΣ not ΟΣ. He pointed out that in Codices F & G, the horizontal lines in and above theta had disappeared (the horizontal line above was a sign of contraction).

Regarding the cursive copies of Paul's epistles, apart from two disputed copies "Every other known copy of S. Paul's Epistles, (written in the cursive character,) I have ascertained (by laborious correspondence with the chiefs of foreign libraries) concurs in exhibiting θεὸς ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί. The importance of this testimony ought to be supremely evident to yourself [Bp Ellicott] ... But what is to be said about the consent of the manuscripts of
S. Paul's Epistles for reading θεὸς˜ in this place, in the proportion
of 125 to 1? (pp 446, 455)

Then Burgon went on to show -- in great detail -- that the writings of the Early Church Fathers overwhelmingly support Theos.

On top of that, "Ecclesiastical Usage" (the liturgy of the Eastern Orthodox Churches) using lections from Paul's epistles technically called Apostolos -- confirms that in 29 out of 32 copies, θεὸς˜ is clearly shown. So Burgon went on to inform Ellicott:

ECCLESIASTICAL TRADITION is therefore clearly against you, in
respect of the reading of 1 Tim. iii. 16. How you estimate this
head of Evidence, I know not. For my own part, I hold it to be
of superlative importance. It transports us back, at once, to the primitive age; and is found to be infinitely better deserving of attention than the witness of any extant uncial documents which can be produced. And why? For the plain reason that it must needs have been once attested by an indefinitely large number of codices more ancient by far than any which we now possess. In fact, ECCLESIASTICAL TRADITION, when superadded to the testimony of Manuscripts and Fathers, becomes an overwhelming
consideration. (pp 488,489)

Behold then the provision which THE AUTHOR of Scripture has
made for the effectual conservation in its integrity of this portion
of His written Word! Upwards of eighteen hundred years have
run their course since the HOLY GHOST by His servant, Paul,
rehearsed the “mystery of Godliness;” declaring this to be the
great foundation-fact,—namely, that “GOD WAS MANIFESTED IN
THE FLESH.” And lo, out of two hundred and fifty-four copies
of S. Paul's Epistles no less than two hundred and fifty-two are discovered to have preserved that expression. Such “Consent” amounts to Unanimity; and, (as I explained at pp. 454-5,)
unanimity in this subject-matter, is conclusive. (p 503).

 

[APAK]

Delusion about the deity of Christ is extremely hazardous to your spiritual health.

That should suffice as a one-liner.

And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness:
God [Theos] was manifest in the flesh,
justified in the Spirit,
seen of angels,
preached unto the Gentiles,
believed on in the world,
received up into glory.(1 Tim 3:16).

And without controversy and allowing scripture to read and interpret itself, God our Father was seem or revealed in the human being Jesus he created on earth of perfect character.

It is very naive to attempt to force another implicit meaning here such as God forcing himself into a human being because you have been taught that way = that Jesus has to be God. Once you make this choice of your own will, it is hard to understand other scripture concerning God and Jesus. You become a puzzle piece player that can never find all the pieces to fit anymore. You just have your islands of forced jigsaw puzzle pieces to show. What a pity. Pride does take hold of many...

I pray you will be set free soon...

Truth never requires a defense and you must defend at all costs in your case

Bless you,

APAK

 

[amadeus]

Delusion about the deity of Christ is extremely hazardous to your spiritual health.

Any delusions about God and the things of God may be hazardous, but we should never presume that we have it all and the other guy is completely adrift from God's truth. Delusions come from our failure to love the truth. We need to love it even if we do not clearly understand exactly what it is. This is why God expects us to travel along the road of faith toward Him.

 

[tigger 2]

THBE wrote above:

{{"God", reading:

Texts:


"... Aleph-c; A-c; C-2; D-2; K; L; P; Psi
Cursives: MAJORITY }}


Burgon was respected in the 19th century, but since has been shown to have been poorly informed and overly dogmatic in his views.

If we examine the major MSS, we need to keep in mind that 'correctors' over the centuries have made changes to the original MS. For example, the original manuscript of Aleph (א) is written as Aleph with an asterisk (א*). To show which copy of that original manuscript is being discussed when modified by later 'correctors,' a superscript is added to its designation. So Aleph, for example, as 'corrected' by the first 'corrector' would be designated as aleph with the superscript a, and the copy which includes the changes of the second corrector would have א with the superscript b, etc.

"The busiest correctors are those collectively described as 'c,' though in fact there were at least three of them, seemingly active in the seventh century. "

"[Aleph]c actually refers to a large group of scribes (perhaps five) who worked in the seventh century and made the large majority of the corrections in the manuscript."

United Bible Societies' A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament: 1 Tim. 3:16 - "The reading which, on the basis of external evidence and transcriptional probability, best explains the rise of the others is ὃς ['who']. It is supported by the earliest and best uncials (א* A*C*...) as well as by 33 365 442 2127 ...Origen Epiphanius Jerome Theodore ... Cyril Liberatus. Furthermore, since the neuter relative pronoun ὅ must have arisen as a scribal correction of ὃς (to bring the relative into concord with μυστήριον ['mystery'], ....Thus no uncial (in the first hand) earlier than the eighth or ninth century ([Psi]) supports θεὸς; all ancient versions presuppose ὃς or ὅ; and no patristic writer prior to the last third of the fourth century [ca. 370] testifies to the reading θεὸς." - p. 641, UBS, 1971.

 

[Enoch111]

It is very naive to attempt to force another implicit meaning here such as God forcing himself into a human being...

Where did you come up with this bizarre notion? And there is nothing naive or misleading in the Gospel of John, which is a part of the written Word of God. Here is what John says:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God... And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. (John 1:1,14 KJB).

What do we learn from this?

1. In the beginning was the Word -- Jesus was "the Word" long before He was incarnated. Indeed "In the beginning" goes all the way back to eternity past.

2. And the Word was with God -- also from eternity past. So there were at least two divine Persons within the Godhead.

3. And the Word was God (Theos). No matter how much you wish to dodge this truth, it is there is plain sight. Jesus was, and is, God.

4. And the Word was made flesh -- God the Word took human form, a human body, full sinless humanity, and became the God-Man Jesus of Nazareth.

This is what the plain meaning of these two verses is. It has nothing to do with "being taught that way". Now is there even a hint or a suggestion that "God forced Himself into a human being"? But as long as you reject the deity of Christ, you will have such bizarre notions.

 

[tigger 2]

John 1:1c is mistranslated by numerous Trinitarian translators because when mistranslated "And the Word was God" it is the best and most-used 'proof' of Jesus being God.

Even the very trinitarian Greek expert, W. E. Vine, (although, for obvious reasons, he chooses not to accept it as the proper interpretation) admits that it is literally translated “a god was the Word”.- p. 490, An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, Thomas Nelson, Inc., 1983 printing.

Equally trinitarian Professor C. H. Dodd, director of the New English Bible project, also admits this is a proper literal translation:

“A possible translation [for John 1:1c] ... would be, ‘The Word was a god.’ As a word-for-word translation it cannot be faulted.” - Technical Papers for the Bible Translator, vol. 28, Jan. 1977.

The reason Prof. Dodd still rejects “a god” as the actual meaning intended by John is simply because it upsets his trinitarian interpretations of John’s Gospel! - "The reason why it is inacceptable [sic.] is that it runs counter to the current of Johannine thought, and indeed of Christian thought as a whole." - Technical Papers for the Bible Translator, vol. 28, Jan. 1977.

Trinitarian NT scholar Prof. Murray J. Harris also admits that grammatically John 1:1c may be properly translated, ‘the Word was a god,’ but his trinitarian bias makes him claim that “John’s monotheism” will not allow such an interpretation. - p. 60, Jesus as God, Baker Book House, 1992.

And Dr. J. D. BeDuhn in his Truth in Translation states about John 1:1c:

“ ‘And the Word was a god.’ The preponderance of evidence from Greek grammar… supports this translation.” - p. 132, University Press of America, Inc., 2003.

Trinitarian Dr. Robert Young admits that a more literal translation of John 1:1c is “and a God (i.e. a Divine Being) was the Word” - p. 54, (‘New Covenant’ section), Young’s Concise Critical Bible Commentary, Baker Book House, 1977 printing.


And highly respected trinitarian scholar, author, and Bible translator, Dr. William Barclay wrote:

"Nowhere does the New Testament identify Jesus with God." - William Barclay: A Spiritual Autobiography, pg 50, William B Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids, 1977. And,

“You could translate [John 1:1c], so far as the Greek goes: ‘the Word was a God’; but it seems obvious that this is so much against the whole of the rest of the New Testament that it is wrong.” - p. 205, Ever yours, edited by C. L. Rawlins, Labarum Publ., 1985.

You see, in ancient times many of God’s servants had no qualms about using the word “god” or “gods” for godly men, kings, judges, and even angels.

Yes, as trinitarian scholar Dr. Robert Young tells us in the preface to Young’s Analytical Concordance in the section entitled “Hints and Helps to Bible Interpretation”:

“65. God—is used of any one (professedly) MIGHTY, whether truly so or not, and is applied not only to the true God, but to false gods, Magistrates, judges, angels, prophets, etc., e.g. Ex. 7:1; ... John 1:1; 10:33, 34, 35; 20:28 ....” - Eerdmans Publ., 1978.

Although I have presented NT Greek grammatical proof of the "a god" meaning at John 1:1 many times, no one has ever followed through to the end of my study. Here is my simplest explanation, but don't worry, I don't expect anyone to honestly examine it.: Examining the Trinity: John 1:1c Primer - For Grammatical Rules That Supposedly "Prove" the Trinity