What was the Purpose of Jesus' Baptism?

[Aunty Jane]

A good conscience is made from remission of our sins via baptism in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of our sins, AKA, washing away our sins as was told Paul...

15 For thou shalt be his witness unto all men of what thou hast seen and heard.

16 And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.

You see, there is no other way to wash away our sins.

See the scripture you quoted? See the part you highlighted?

“And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.”
You stopped too soon.....
“And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.”

Acts 10:43...
“To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.”

Baptism of itself does not wash away sins.....“calling on the name of the Lord” is what acknowledges the sin atoning value of Christ’s blood. The baptism is a public confession of your faith, in full understanding of what it symbolises. It is made out of a person’s own conviction and free willed decision....which makes infant baptism invalid.

 

[Truther]

The city water supply is your savior?
Is that right Truther?

Listen, If water could save you, then we'd all be saved when we took a shower or a bath, or swam in the ocean

Jesus wasn't "saved" by John The Baptist's water baptism, and neither is anyone else.. I'll ever dunk.

And you say that there is no "skipping the process"...yet the Dying Thief on the Cross Skipped it, and if was so important, im sure that God hanging there next to him might have pointed that out to him.
Dont you think?


Paul says..>"CHRIST sent me NOT TO WATER BAPTIZE".......

Did you guys run out of water lately?

No baths for you?

Wow, God sent you a mega drought!!!

 

[Truther]

See the scripture you quoted? See the part you highlighted?

“And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.”
You stopped too soon.....
“And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.”

Acts 10:43...
“To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.”

Baptism of itself does not wash away sins.....“calling on the name of the Lord” is what acknowledges the sin atoning value of Christ’s blood. The baptism is a public confession of your faith, in full understanding of what it symbolises. It is made out of a person’s own conviction and free willed decision....which makes infant baptism invalid.

The part I stopped at was saying "be baptized, washing away your sins IN THE NAME OF JESUS CHRIST.

You just vindicated Acts 2:38.

Thanks.

 

[Aunty Jane]

KJV is a word-for-word translation.

NIV is a thought for thought.

You do understand that the Bible was not written in archaic English....? Right?

Scholars acknowledge that license was taken with the manuscripts from which the KJV was translated, and there are many such alterations and mistranslations added.

The English KJV was translated to promote the trinity. Only if you study the original language can you see this scriptural ‘sleight of hand’.

Case in point.....
John 1:1....
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (KJV)

Yet John 1:18 says...
“No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.” (KJV)

On a superficial reading these verses seem to indicate that Jesus was God....right?
But read in Greek, these verses are not saying what many assume...

Verse 1 in Greek reads....
"In en the beginning archē was eimi the ho Word logos, and kai the ho Word logos was eimi with pros · ho God theos, and kai the ho Word logos was eimi God theos." (Mounce Interlinear)

The Greeks were polytheists and all their gods had names to distinguish them.....but when it came to the God of the Jews, (who at that stage had ceased using the divine name) the Greeks had no word for that nameless "Lord" (Adonai), so they called him "THE God" (ho theos) to distinguish him from other 'gods'.
As Paul said "there are many “gods” and many “lords,” so living in such an influential polytheistic culture, Paul added....
"there is actually to us one God, the Father, from whom all things are and we for him; and there is one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things are and we through him." (1 Corinthians 8:5-6) Jesus was a divine personage with divine authorization from his God and Father. But he was not "The God". "Theos" in Greek means..."a god or goddess, a general name of deities or divinities", (Strongs) so it is not a word that exclusively described Yahweh.

That little word "ho" means "the"...so "ho logos" is "the Word" and "ho theos" is "the God"...but "theos" by itself usually means "a god" (small "g") if it is in the same sentence as "The God" (capital "G").
Understanding Greek grammar and phrasing is important, which is why we rely on language scholars to give us the right information on the Bible's translation into English.

So it isn’t saying that the Word was “THE God” but “a god” or a “divine one”. No one questions Christ’s divine origins, but nowhere in all of the Bible, is the Son ever called “THE God” (with a capital “G”) or "God the Son". It was "the Word" who became flesh, and he was "with The God" (ho theos) but he was not "The God".....he was "a god" in the Greek understanding of that word.

Now what about verse 18? Apart from the clear statement that “no man hath seen God at any time” (how many people saw Jesus?)...but here is where the KJV steps in with a complete alteration of the “word for word” translation in which you place your faith....

Here it is in Greek.....
"No one oudeis has horaō ever pōpote seen horaō God theos. The only monogenēs Son , himself God theos, the ho one who is eimi in eis the ho bosom kolpos of the ho Father patēr, he ekeinos has made him known exēgeomai."

You can see that Jesus here is called “monogenes” which means an “only child”....there is no special word used to describe Jesus' uniqueness as an "only begotten" son, except what those who spoke the Greek language understood.
But the word “theos” means “god”...(any god) but the KJV has substituted the word “Son”and added "himself" in that verse where these do not exist in the Greek text.

"Son" in Greek is "yhios".....can you see that it has been substituted in that verse where "theos" (god) is plainly there is the Greek text?
If "theos" is rendered "Son" in verse 18, then it should also be rendered "Son" in verse 1......where it would read....
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was the Son".

That verse should read “only begotten god” which leaves trinitarians the difficult task of explaining how God could be “begotten"?
A “begotten” child needs a “begetter” who existed before them....one who caused their existence.

I can give you many examples of things in the KJV that have been altered....but this example is a serious one that I uncovered when doing research.

 

[Aunty Jane]

The part I stopped at was saying "be baptized, washing away your sins IN THE NAME OF JESUS CHRIST.

You just vindicated Acts 2:38.

LOL...there it is in plain sight "washing away your sins in the name of Jesus Christ" which means what?
You just can't see it, can you?.....Oh well.....no point in trying to explain further.....

 

[Deborah_]

That little word "ho" means "the"...so "ho logos" is "the Word" and "ho theos" is "the God"...but "theos" by itself usually means "a god" (small "g") if it is in the same sentence as "The God" (capital "G").
Understanding Greek grammar and phrasing is important, which is why we rely on language scholars to give us the right information on the Bible's translation into English.

And one of the basic rules of Greek grammar is that when a noun is used as a complement and precedes the subject, the article is omitted. So in Greek, "the Word was a god" would be "Theos en ho logos", and "the word was God" is also "Theos en ho logos". So both translations are legitimate on purely grammatical grounds.
Is there really a "rule" that "The God" can only come once in a sentence? I don't believe that - I can make up lots of sentences where (the) God is mentioned more than once, and I'm sure the Greeks could too!

That verse should read “only begotten god” which leaves trinitarians the difficult task of explaining how God could be “begotten"?

Except that "only begotten" is an over-literal translation of 'monogenes". The word means "one and only" in a very special sense. Isaac wasn't Abraham's only-begotten son (he had several others), but he was the special son, the "one and only" (Hebrews 11:17). So you won't find the word "begotten" in modern translations, and Trinitarians don't need to find an explanation for it.

 

[Aunty Jane]

And one of the basic rules of Greek grammar is that when a noun is used as a complement and precedes the subject, the article is omitted. So in Greek, "the Word was a god" would be "Theos en ho logos", and "the word was God" is also "Theos en ho logos". So both translations are legitimate on purely grammatical grounds.
Is there really a "rule" that "The God" can only come once in a sentence? I don't believe that - I can make up lots of sentences where (the) God is mentioned more than once, and I'm sure the Greeks could too!

You concentrated on one aspect but ignored the more important one....the meaning of the word "theos".
"Theos" in Greek means..."a god or goddess, a general name of deities or divinities". (Strongs)
Its about discerning the difference between what is 'deity' and what is 'divinity'.
John 1:1 should read...
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with Yahweh, and the Word was divine."



Jesus has a God even in heaven. (Revelation 3:12)

If God's name had been included in all the places where the Jews had substituted "Adonai" for "Yahweh", we would not be having this conversation.

Except that "only begotten" is an over-literal translation of 'monogenes". The word means "one and only" in a very special sense. Isaac wasn't Abraham's only-begotten son (he had several others), but he was the special son, the "one and only" (Hebrews 11:17). So you won't find the word "begotten" in modern translations, and Trinitarians don't need to find an explanation for it.

Leaving out the word "begotten" doesn't change a thing about the meaning of "monogenes", which according to Strongs, means....

1. single of its kind, only
   
   1. used of only sons or daughters (viewed in relation to their parents)
      
      
   2. used of Christ, denotes the only begotten son of God"

How is Jesus an only son when God has millions of them? In what way is he unique? In that he is the first and only direct creation of his Father.....all other "sons" were brought forth by the agency of this unique "son", (Colossians 1:15-17) who is 'the image of his Father' but he is not God. (capital "G")

Yes, Paul did refer to Isaac as Abraham’s “only-begotten son” even though Abraham also fathered Ishmael by Hagar as well as several sons by Keturah. God’s covenant, however, was established only through Isaac, Abraham’s only son by God’s promise, as well as the only son of Sarah. (Genesis 17:16-19) Also, at the time when Abraham offered up Isaac, he was the only son in his father’s household. No sons had yet been born to Keturah, and Ishmael had been gone for some 20 years.

If Jesus said that the judges appointed in Israel could be called "gods" by Yahweh himself, (John 10:31-36) then calling Jesus "theos" (without the definite article) means that he was divinely appointed as the "holy servant" of his Father. (Acts 4:27)

He can't be God and yet be his own servant.

 

[Lambano]

Since "Messiah" and "Christ" mean "The Anointed One" in Hebrew and Greek respectively, I always figured Jesus's water baptism and the subsequent decent of the Holy Spirit upon him were part of the "anointing" process. Just speculating; I could be completely off-base (and probably am). One of the weakest parts of this interpretation is that the anointing of a king or priest was supposed to be done with oil, not water.

 

[Deborah_]

You concentrated on one aspect but ignored the more important one....the meaning of the word "theos".
"Theos" in Greek means..."a god or goddess, a general name of deities or divinities". (Strongs)
Its about discerning the difference between what is 'deity' and what is 'divinity'.
John 1:1 should read...
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with Yahweh, and the Word was divine."

Theos is a noun, not an adjective. It doesn't mean "divine'; it means "god". (It can occasionally be translated as 'divine' when in the genitive case - which isn't the case here) Whatever John is saying, it isn't "the Word was divine."

If God's name had been included in all the places where the Jews had substituted "Adonai" for "Yahweh", we would not be having this conversation.

It would make hyper-clear the number of times that the apostles apply OT texts about Yahweh to Jesus.

Leaving out the word "begotten" doesn't change a thing about the meaning of "monogenes", which according to Strongs, means....

1. single of its kind, only
   1. used of only sons or daughters (viewed in relation to their parents)
      
      
   2. used of Christ, denotes the only begotten son of God"

The trouble with Strong's is that it only covers the KJ version of the Bible - and so by using it you end up with a circular argument.
A Greek dictionary of the kind that translators use will tell you that monogenes, as well as referring to a literal "only child", also means "the only one of its kind". Jesus is unique in His relationship to the Father - well I think we would probably agree on that, even if we mean different things by it!

 

[Deborah_]

Since "Messiah" and "Christ" mean "The Anointed One" in Hebrew and Greek respectively, I always figured Jesus's water baptism and the subsequent decent of the Holy Spirit upon him were part of the "anointing" process. Just speculating; I could be completely off-base (and probably am). One of the weakest parts of this interpretation is that the anointing of a king or priest was supposed to be done with oil, not water.

The oil was symbolic of the Holy Spirit. The washing was separate. Jesus, after being washed (in water, like the priests), was anointed not with oil but with the "real thing" - the Spirit Himself.

 

[Truther]

LOL...there it is in plain sight "washing away your sins in the name of Jesus Christ" which means what?
You just can't see it, can you?.....Oh well.....no point in trying to explain further.....

Read it and weep...

38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins,...

Depressing?

 

[Lambano]

The oil was symbolic of the Holy Spirit. The washing was separate. Jesus, after being washed (in water, like the priests), was anointed not with oil but with the "real thing" - the Spirit Himself.

Okay, but why did Jesus need to be washed? Not because He was spiritually unclean, was it? Or is it because that's just what Priests do?

 

[Truther]

Okay, but why did Jesus need to be washed? Not because He was spiritually unclean, was it? Or is it because that's just what Priests do?

To fulfill the laver of the tabernacle.

 

[Deborah_]

Okay, but why did Jesus need to be washed? Not because He was spiritually unclean, was it? Or is it because that's just what Priests do?

Because that's just what priests do. Although originally, the idea may not have been so much washing away their own sins (they offered sacrifices for that) as washing off the contamination of the world.

 

[user]

You do understand that the Bible was not written in archaic English....? Right?

Scholars acknowledge that license was taken with the manuscripts from which the KJV was translated, and there are many such alterations and mistranslations added.

The English KJV was translated to promote the trinity. Only if you study the original language can you see this scriptural ‘sleight of hand’.

Case in point.....
John 1:1....
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (KJV)

Yet John 1:18 says...
“No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.” (KJV)

On a superficial reading these verses seem to indicate that Jesus was God....right?
But read in Greek, these verses are not saying what many assume...

Verse 1 in Greek reads....
"In en the beginning archē was eimi the ho Word logos, and kai the ho Word logos was eimi with pros · ho God theos, and kai the ho Word logos was eimi God theos." (Mounce Interlinear)

The Greeks were polytheists and all their gods had names to distinguish them.....but when it came to the God of the Jews, (who at that stage had ceased using the divine name) the Greeks had no word for that nameless "Lord" (Adonai), so they called him "THE God" (ho theos) to distinguish him from other 'gods'.
As Paul said "there are many “gods” and many “lords,” so living in such an influential polytheistic culture, Paul added....
"there is actually to us one God, the Father, from whom all things are and we for him; and there is one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things are and we through him." (1 Corinthians 8:5-6) Jesus was a divine personage with divine authorization from his God and Father. But he was not "The God". "Theos" in Greek means..."a god or goddess, a general name of deities or divinities", (Strongs) so it is not a word that exclusively described Yahweh.

That little word "ho" means "the"...so "ho logos" is "the Word" and "ho theos" is "the God"...but "theos" by itself usually means "a god" (small "g") if it is in the same sentence as "The God" (capital "G").
Understanding Greek grammar and phrasing is important, which is why we rely on language scholars to give us the right information on the Bible's translation into English.

So it isn’t saying that the Word was “THE God” but “a god” or a “divine one”. No one questions Christ’s divine origins, but nowhere in all of the Bible, is the Son ever called “THE God” (with a capital “G”) or "God the Son". It was "the Word" who became flesh, and he was "with The God" (ho theos) but he was not "The God".....he was "a god" in the Greek understanding of that word.

Now what about verse 18? Apart from the clear statement that “no man hath seen God at any time” (how many people saw Jesus?)...but here is where the KJV steps in with a complete alteration of the “word for word” translation in which you place your faith....

Here it is in Greek.....
"No one oudeis has horaō ever pōpote seen horaō God theos. The only monogenēs Son , himself God theos, the ho one who is eimi in eis the ho bosom kolpos of the ho Father patēr, he ekeinos has made him known exēgeomai."

You can see that Jesus here is called “monogenes” which means an “only child”....there is no special word used to describe Jesus' uniqueness as an "only begotten" son, except what those who spoke the Greek language understood.
But the word “theos” means “god”...(any god) but the KJV has substituted the word “Son”and added "himself" in that verse where these do not exist in the Greek text.

"Son" in Greek is "yhios".....can you see that it has been substituted in that verse where "theos" (god) is plainly there is the Greek text?
If "theos" is rendered "Son" in verse 18, then it should also be rendered "Son" in verse 1......where it would read....
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was the Son".

That verse should read “only begotten god” which leaves trinitarians the difficult task of explaining how God could be “begotten"?
A “begotten” child needs a “begetter” who existed before them....one who caused their existence.

I can give you many examples of things in the KJV that have been altered....but this example is a serious one that I uncovered when doing research.

The Godhead is found very plainly in the Bible in simple language, and understood without the need of a slide ruler, a law degree, or a library full of books, commentaries and research material.

The KJV was not translated to promote the trinity. One may read it and if they have been indoctrinated, will see what they are trained to see. Trinitarians and non Trinitarians have debated the Godhead using the same Bible version for years.


Does God know about this verse? It is straight out of the KJV...

Heb 1:1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
Heb 1:2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;
Heb 1:3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;
Heb 1:4 Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.

Heb 1:5 For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?
Heb 1:6 And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him.
Heb 1:7 And of the angels he saith, Who maketh his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire.
Heb 1:8 But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.


It doesn't take a scholar to explain whom this speaks of...

Revelation 1:8 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.

That verse, and everything we need to know is found in the KJV.

 

[Aunty Jane]

Theos is a noun, not an adjective. It doesn't mean "divine'; it means "god". (It can occasionally be translated as 'divine' when in the genitive case - which isn't the case here) Whatever John is saying, it isn't "the Word was divine."

“Theos” means “a god” (any god...even satan is called a “god”. 2 Corinthians 4:4) or according to John 10:31-36, it can mean a divinely appointed representative of God. Jesus was a “god” in that sense....divinely appointed to serve his Father’s will and purpose. No one can question Christ’s divinity.....he is just not a “God” like his Father is. He was “the beginning of God’s creation”. (Revelation 3:14)

It would make hyper-clear the number of times that the apostles apply OT texts about Yahweh to Jesus.

Which is zero. Not once in all of scripture is Jesus called Yahweh or is even placed on any equal footing with him. God cannot be his own servant. (Acts 4:27) The OT prophets spoke of the coming Messiah whom they did not believe would be God incarnate. The Jews believed in one true God and he was going to send their Messiah. (Deuteronomy 6:4; John 17:3)

The trouble with Strong's is that it only covers the KJ version of the Bible - and so by using it you end up with a circular argument.

Online, you can choose which translation of the Bible you wish to use....not just the KJV.

A Greek dictionary of the kind that translators use will tell you that monogenes, as well as referring to a literal "only child", also means "the only one of its kind". Jesus is unique in His relationship to the Father - well I think we would probably agree on that, even if we mean different things by it!

Indeed, as I have already mentioned, but the uniqueness is not accepted by trinitarians because they cannot see God any other way.....the way they have been indoctrinated for centuries. The Bible never presented God as a threesome....always as a singular entity.

Jesus in his pre-human existence was not God, but he was divinely created as the first and only one of his kind. All other “sons of God” came through the agency of the Son. (Colossians 1:15-17; John 1:2-3) ‘The Word was with God’ but he was not God. “The Word became flesh”, not God. (John 1:14)

 

[Aunty Jane]

Okay, but why did Jesus need to be washed? Not because He was spiritually unclean, was it? Or is it because that's just what Priests do?

The baptism was not a washing....it was a symbolic death, burial and resurrection.....dying to a former life course and being raised to live a new one.

It was the outward public display of the beginning of Jesus’ role as Messiah.
For his disciples, water baptism marks a similar beginning of a new life in the service of their God, by becoming footstep followers of their Master, Christ.
Jesus was also a servant of his Father. (Acts 4:27) Yahweh was the Father of all of them, which is why Jesus taught them to pray to “Our Father” not just his Father.

Baptism does not wash away sins....it is the blood of Christ that does the cleansing.
1 John 1:7....
“However, if we are walking in the light as he himself is in the light, we do have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin.”

 

[Aunty Jane]

The Godhead is found very plainly in the Bible in simple language, and understood without the need of a slide ruler, a law degree, or a library full of books, commentaries and research material.

There is no such word as “Godhead” in the Bible. Trinitarians made it up. God in three persons is not in the Bible.

At Romans 1:20, the apostle Paul refers to the undeniable visible evidence of God’s “invisible qualities,” particularly his “eternal power and Godship [Thei·oʹtes]”, not Godhead. Other translations might read “Godhead” or “deity” (KJ, NE, RS, JB), conveying to many the idea of personality, the state of being a person. However, according to Liddell and Scott’s Greek-English Lexicon, the Greek word thei·oʹtes means “divine nature, divinity.” (P. 788) So there is a basis for rendering thei·oʹtes as referring to the quality of being a god, not the person of God, and this is supported by the context. The apostle is discussing things that are discernible in the physical creation.

The KJV was not translated to promote the trinity. One may read it and if they have been indoctrinated, will see what they are trained to see. Trinitarians and non Trinitarians have debated the Godhead using the same Bible version for years.

I gave you a prime example of how the KJV is not accurate in its translation of John 1:18. There are many more, but there is no point in telling people things that they just don’t want to hear.

Does God know about this verse? It is straight out of the KJV...

Heb 1:1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
Heb 1:2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;
Heb 1:3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;
Heb 1:4 Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.

It always amazes me when people quote the Bible and read right over the very things that they argue against.....if you analyse that passage slowly and with your eyes and heart open, you will see so much more than you have highlighted.

Read verses 1-4 and see that Jesus is spoken about as the one God appointed as his prophet in these “last days”. There have been no prophets since then, because all we need to know is contained in one instruction manual.....God’s word. All that Jesus taught is contained in that one source.

It was foretold that God would raise up a “prophet like Moses” (Deuteronomy 18:17-18; John 5:46) This appointed representative of his God and Father was made “heir of all things”.....if he is God, how does God give himself what he already has? It also says that God made the world by him, so the Son is the agency through whom creation was made. He is the "image" of his Father because he reflects the person of his God perfectly. (Colossians 1:15-17; John 1:2-3) An image is not the real thing. That does not make Jesus the Creator.....but it does explain why he is called “God’s holy servant”. (Acts 4:27)

How is he made “better than the angels”....or how does he ‘inherit a name more excellent than theirs’?
Do you actually comprehend what you read?

 

[Aunty Jane]

Heb 1:5 For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?
Heb 1:6 And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him.
Heb 1:7 And of the angels he saith, Who maketh his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire.
Heb 1:8 But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.

Now for the highlighted part.....
Is Jesus just an Angel? Hardly, because he is unique in his position at the right hand of his Father. But there is not a single scripture that puts the holy spirit at his left....can you explain that?

Is Jesus a “firstbegotten” Son? “First” means what?
What does “begotten” mean? The word in Greek there is "prōtotokos" and it means...

1. "the firstborn of man or beast
2. of Christ, the first born of all creation" (Strongs)

This is not Jesus as a man, but Jesus in his pre-human life....before all creation. He was God's first and only direct creation. (Revelation 3:14)

Do you also understand what the Greek word “pro·sky·neʹo” means? It can be translated “worship” or “obeisance” depending on the context. It has the basic meaning of bowing down before someone. When “pro·sky·neʹo” is used for something offered to God, it is translated as “worship”, but when directed towards humans it is “obeisance”. When it is translated “worship” and this is directed towards a human, it is a mistranslation and is actually blasphemous to render to a human what belongs only to Yahweh.

e.g. when the magi came to give the infant Jesus their gifts, the KJV renders them giving Jesus "worship"......but the magi did not come to worship a god.....these Babylonian astrologers came to honor a new king, as was their custom. It is inappropriate to render worship to a human. Jesus was 100% mortal human. He had to be to redeem the human race, so no human or angel would “worship" him...they could however render to him obeisance, which is reverential honor....same word, different meanings in English....important differences.

As for Hebrews 1:8....note the context. In many translations, either in the main text or in the margin, Hebrews 1:9 says, “God, your God, anointed you.” This makes it clear that the one addressed in verse 8 is not God, but one who worships God and is anointed by him.

In addition to that, Hebrews 1:8-9 is a quotation from Psalm 45:6-7, which originally was addressed to a human king of Israel.
So it seems best to adopt the rendering: "God is Thy throne" (or, "Thy throne is God"), that is "Thy kingdom is founded upon God” because that is what the verses undeniably say.

It doesn't take a scholar to explain whom this speaks of...

Revelation 1:8 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.

That verse, and everything we need to know is found in the KJV.

And if you want to believe that, then that is entirely your choice....but being "the Alpha and the Omega" means simply "the beginning and the end".

The first verse of Revelation shows that the revelation was given originally by God and through Jesus Christ, so the one speaking (through an angelic representative) at times is God himself, and at other times it is Christ Jesus. (Revelation 22:8)

Revelation 1:8 (RS) says: “‘I am the Alpha and the Omega,’ says the Lord God, who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty.” Although the preceding verse speaks of Christ Jesus, it is clear that in verse 8 the application of the title is to “the Almighty” God. Not once in all of scripture is Jesus ever called "Almighty"...that title is reserved strictly for Yahweh.
You see what happens when God's name is removed from his own book? "The Lord God" is always Yahweh.....not to be confused with "The Lord Jesus Christ". This is two completely separate entities who can be in different places at the same time, and converse with each other. Only one prays to the other, and nowhere does Jesus ever say that he is equal to his God and Father. At John 17:3 Jesus calls his Father "the only true God" without including himself, and then identifies himself as the one "sent" by him. And the third person is invariably missing.

You cannot prove a trinity by using the scriptures.....a little research into original language words will show you how mistaken you are about a lot of things.....but I doubt that you would want to even know....

 

[Truther]

Now for the highlighted part.....
Is Jesus just an Angel? Hardly, because he is unique in his position at the right hand of his Father. But there is not a single scripture that puts the holy spirit at his left....can you explain that?

Is Jesus a “firstbegotten” Son? “First” means what?
What does “begotten” mean? The word in Greek there is "prōtotokos" and it means...

1. "the firstborn of man or beast
2. of Christ, the first born of all creation" (Strongs)

This is not Jesus as a man, but Jesus in his pre-human life....before all creation. He was God's first and only direct creation. (Revelation 3:14)

Do you also understand what the Greek word “pro·sky·neʹo” means? It can be translated “worship” or “obeisance” depending on the context. It has the basic meaning of bowing down before someone. When “pro·sky·neʹo” is used for something offered to God, it is translated as “worship”, but when directed towards humans it is “obeisances”. When it is translated “worship” and this is directed towards a human, it is a mistranslation and is actually blasphemous to render to a human what belongs only to Yahweh.

e.g. when the magi came to give the infant Jesus their gifts, the KJV renders them giving Jesus "worship"......but the magi did not come to worship a god.....these Babylonian astrologers came to honor a new king, as was their custom. It is inappropriate to render worship to a human. Jesus was 100% mortal human. He had to be to redeem the human race, so no human or angel would “worship" him...they could however render to him obeisance, which is reverential honor....same word, different meanings in English....important differences.

As for Hebrews 1:8....note the context. In many translations, either in the main text or in the margin, Hebrews 1:9 says, “God, your God, anointed you.” This makes it clear that the one addressed in verse 8 is not God, but one who worships God and is anointed by him.

In addition to that, Hebrews 1:8-9 is a quotation from Psalm 45:6-7, which originally was addressed to a human king of Israel.
So it seems best to adopt the rendering: "God is Thy throne" (or, "Thy throne is God"), that is "Thy kingdom is founded upon God” because that is what the verses undeniably say.


And if you want to believe that, then that is entirely your choice....but being "the Alpha and the Omega" means simply "the beginning and the end".

The first verse of Revelation shows that the revelation was given originally by God and through Jesus Christ, so the one speaking (through an angelic representative) at times is God himself, and at other times it is Christ Jesus. (Revelation 22:8)

Revelation 1:8 (RS) says: “‘I am the Alpha and the Omega,’ says the Lord God, who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty.” Although the preceding verse speaks of Christ Jesus, it is clear that in verse 8 the application of the title is to “the Almighty” God. Not once in all of scripture is Jesus ever called "Almighty"...that title is reserved strictly for Yahweh.
You see what happens when God's name is removed from his own book? "The Lord God" is always Yahweh.....not to be confused with "The Lord Jesus Christ". This is two completely separate entities who can be in different places at the same time, and converse with each other. Only one prays to the other, and nowhere does Jesus ever say that he is equal to his God and Father. At John 17:3 Jesus calls his Father "the only true God" without including himself, and then identifies himself as the one "sent" by him. And the third person is invariably missing.

You cannot prove a trinity by using the scriptures.....a little research into original language words will show you how mistaken you are about a lot of things.....but I doubt that you would want to even know....

The name of the Father is Jesus, but Jesus is not the Father.
Jesus was given his name via inheritance.
This means he got it from His Father, whom originally owned it Himself… Just like we can be given our Father’s name.