Did Jesus ever claim to be God?

[Masrur Fanalis]

Christien Chalfant

IVovacane

Christien Chalfant

IVovacane

Christien Chalfant

Again. You just said that God died. That God was "fully man."
That. Is false.
God is not human, God is not material.
God is spiritual, universal, all-encompassin, eternal.
You limit God to a man.
You say that you face palm? Well fine. But everything you have brought to the table has been saying over and over again that God is a man and that a man was God.
I do not believe in a God who is human. I believe in God as divine love, divine truth, and spiritual reality. God forgives, loves, cherishes.
As reflections of God, we too forgive, love, cherish. So anyone can forgive sins, anyone can love, we are granted that by God, by the universal strength of him.
As long as you say that Jesus is God. That a human man is God. Well, then I'd say that you are very limited in your belief.
God is infinite, not finite.

Sigh. I didn't say God is a man. I said God-the Son, "The word of God" came down to earth as a man. He is no longer a man, he wasn't a man from the start. Yes, God is limitless.

when Jesus agreed to become a man, He voluntarily set aside His Godly powers and limited Himself the the powers available to mankind. This is why He attributed His ability to perform miracles to the Holy Spirit (Matt. 12:2 cool , was in daily prayer with the Father, claimed not to know certain things (Matt. 24:36), and promised us we could do even greater things than he had done (John 14:12).

There are at least 3 reasons why we know this is true. First, God can’t be tempted (James 1:13), but Jesus was tempted in every way and yet was without sin. (Hebr. 4:15) Second, according to the Law of Redemption He had to become a man to redeem what Adam had lost (Lev. 25:25) and save us, and third He had to become a man so He could be put to death. It’s impossible to kill God.

In your earlier posts, you claimed jesus was the "vehicle" and christ was the "driver". Correct me if I'm mistaken.How come Jesus never talked about christ, but only himself, the Father, and the Holy Spirit?(I know he is the Christ but I'm just asking in your view)

Matthew 28:19
Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,

Jesus is the son of God

Mark says it at the outset of his gospel (1:1).

The angel told Mary her child would be the Son of God (Luke 1:35).

John the Baptist said the same thing (John 1:34).

Nathanael said it (John 1:49).

Martha believed it (John 11:27).

The centurion said so (Matthew 27:54).

Jesus claimed that He said so (John 10:36).

Jesus clearly implies it in John 11:4

The demons called Jesus the Son of God (Matthew 8:29; Luke 4:41; Mark 3:11).

The charge against Jesus was that He claimed to be the Son of God (Matthew 27:43; John 19:7), a claim He never denied, and virtually admitted (Luke 22:70).

The Gospel of John was written to convince the reader that Jesus was the Son of God (John 20:31).

Why, you might ask, does Jesus not say so plainly. I think the answer is found in Matthew 16:15-17:
15 He said to them, “And who do you say that I am?” 16 Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” 17 And Jesus answered him, “You are blesse Simon son of Jonah, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but my Fathe in heaven!” (Matthew 16:15-17).

Jesus did not want Peter and His disciples to believe He was the Son of God just because He said so. He wanted God to bring them to this conclusion, based upon the overwhelming evidence of Scripture and our Lord’s life and teaching. Action speaks louder than words indeed.

Btw thanks for not quoting our whole conversation. I didn't feel like scrolling down for a long time xP

Collosians 3:16:

Quote:

Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly as you teach and admonish one another with all wisdom, and as you sing psalms, hymns and spiritual songs with gratitude in your hearts to God.

Various Bible Texts That Mention Christ.
This is the problem with the Trinity.
If the Father is God and the Son is God, then the Father is the Son. The same with the Holy Spirit.
Just because Jesus was tempted doesn't mean he's with sin. Temptation is just the desire to do something. Besides, temptations would fall within the Ten Commandments. So it would be tempted to believe in another god, to commit adultery, to kill, to steal, to covet, etcetera. Which he never did because he was the purest human in history. But a human still.
Then there's this little diddy concerning Jesus and the Christ.

Quote:

“Then charged he his disciples that they
should tell no man that he was Jesus the
Christ.”

(Matthew 16:20)
Meaning, tell them I'm jesus, but don't falsely say I am the Christ.
Besides. The problem with the gospels is that they're all recollections of what happened. They're malleable in interpretation because of their anecdotal nature.

I said that jesus spoke about. I already know there's verses about christ.
No. The father wouldn't be the son nor the Holy Spirit. God is God.

I didn't say he was with sin. I said he was without sin. :l

The purest human but just a human...?

Is that the words he said? No. Your taking it out of context. I don't see anywhere in a type of way jesus saying "don't falsely say I am the christ"

They are collections of people who were with jesus.
They all share the same message so it can't be by their own interpritation if it is 1.written by different people and 2.have the same message
Anyway, your rejecting what the Bible says.

Matthew 16:13-20....... 13 When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, "Who do people say the Son of Man is?" 14 They replied, "Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets." 15 "But what about you?" he asked. "Who do you say I am?" 16 Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." 17 Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. 18 And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven." 20 Then he warned his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Christ.

16:20 TELL NO ONE. (same as... in Matthew 8:4 - tell no one) Publicity over such miracles might hinder Christ's mission and divert public attention from his message. Mark records that this is precisely what happened. In this man's exuberance over the miracle, he disobeyed;as a result, Christ had to move His ministry away from the city and into the desert regions (Mark 1:45). & (same as in Matthew 12:16 - warned them not to make Him known.) Here Christ seems concerned about the potential zealotry of those who would try to press Him into the conquering-hero mold that the rabbinical experts had made out of the messianic prophecy.

t he wanted to reveal his identity himself and not have it distorted by well-meaning but ill-informed people. It seems to me that Jesus didn't want the people to go around saying who he is because this puts him in a mold, a category, a title, that the people of his day had pre-defined. Jesus wants to redefine the meaning of Son of God. He wants to re-wire the circuits of what people think that it means to be Christ, the Messiah of the Jews. So until he can live it and show it, he refuses to let others spread it. He will let his life, the cross, and his resurrection define his identity. Only then will he send his disciples out to tell the entire world who he is!

Then Jesus helped the followers understand these Scriptures written. Jesus said to them, "It is written that the Christ would be killed and rise from death on the third day. You saw these things happen--you are witnesses. You must go and tell people that their sins can be forgiven. Tell them that they must change their hearts and be sorry for their sins. If they will do this, then God will forgive them. You must start from Jerusalem and tell people these things in my name. This Good News must be told to all people in the world. Listen! My Father has promised you something; I will send it to you. But you must stay in Jerusalem until you have received that power from heaven." — Luke 24:45-49

Jesus said he was the christ. Right there. Don't take it out of context or assume. Its right there.

The disciples then understood the scriptures. Another way they knew that jesus was the one, the christ.

Are you aware that your belief destroys the basis of being christian? :l

I am aware that there is no mandatory belief to being a Christian. But nice try. I believe in God. I believe Jesus demonstrated the power of God, the Christ nature, but that he was not the Christ. I believe in the virgin birth, the resurrection, the crucifixion, the parting of the red sea, the ascension. But I do not believe that Jesus is God. I do not believe that God would manifest himself as a human. God is too universally powerful to limit to a human man.
The thing is that, the Bible is a book, with ideas in it. It is literature. Literature has all sorts of interpretations that can come from it.
I'm questioning the interpretations. But You are telling me what the interpretations are. Who are you to dictate what the Bible means? Who am I to dictate it? Everyone should have their own interpretations of the scriptures, because it will mean something different for everyone else.
The fact is also that the Bible is very old, translated from very old texts that may or may not have been tampered with by people trying to conform Christianity to what they wanted it to be.

I'm not telling you what it "means" I'm telling you exactly what it says...
I'm not "interpreting" either. Again, I'm telling you what it says. As you can see I'm answering with scripture.
Sigh. J-just go this coversation is over...

[Masrur Fanalis]

Christien Chalfant

IVovacane

Christien Chalfant

IVovacane

Christien Chalfant

Again. You just said that God died. That God was "fully man."
That. Is false.
God is not human, God is not material.
God is spiritual, universal, all-encompassin, eternal.
You limit God to a man.
You say that you face palm? Well fine. But everything you have brought to the table has been saying over and over again that God is a man and that a man was God.
I do not believe in a God who is human. I believe in God as divine love, divine truth, and spiritual reality. God forgives, loves, cherishes.
As reflections of God, we too forgive, love, cherish. So anyone can forgive sins, anyone can love, we are granted that by God, by the universal strength of him.
As long as you say that Jesus is God. That a human man is God. Well, then I'd say that you are very limited in your belief.
God is infinite, not finite.

Sigh. I didn't say God is a man. I said God-the Son, "The word of God" came down to earth as a man. He is no longer a man, he wasn't a man from the start. Yes, God is limitless.

when Jesus agreed to become a man, He voluntarily set aside His Godly powers and limited Himself the the powers available to mankind. This is why He attributed His ability to perform miracles to the Holy Spirit (Matt. 12:2 cool , was in daily prayer with the Father, claimed not to know certain things (Matt. 24:36), and promised us we could do even greater things than he had done (John 14:12).

There are at least 3 reasons why we know this is true. First, God can’t be tempted (James 1:13), but Jesus was tempted in every way and yet was without sin. (Hebr. 4:15) Second, according to the Law of Redemption He had to become a man to redeem what Adam had lost (Lev. 25:25) and save us, and third He had to become a man so He could be put to death. It’s impossible to kill God.

In your earlier posts, you claimed jesus was the "vehicle" and christ was the "driver". Correct me if I'm mistaken.How come Jesus never talked about christ, but only himself, the Father, and the Holy Spirit?(I know he is the Christ but I'm just asking in your view)

Matthew 28:19
Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,

Jesus is the son of God

Mark says it at the outset of his gospel (1:1).

The angel told Mary her child would be the Son of God (Luke 1:35).

John the Baptist said the same thing (John 1:34).

Nathanael said it (John 1:49).

Martha believed it (John 11:27).

The centurion said so (Matthew 27:54).

Jesus claimed that He said so (John 10:36).

Jesus clearly implies it in John 11:4

The demons called Jesus the Son of God (Matthew 8:29; Luke 4:41; Mark 3:11).

The charge against Jesus was that He claimed to be the Son of God (Matthew 27:43; John 19:7), a claim He never denied, and virtually admitted (Luke 22:70).

The Gospel of John was written to convince the reader that Jesus was the Son of God (John 20:31).

Why, you might ask, does Jesus not say so plainly. I think the answer is found in Matthew 16:15-17:
15 He said to them, “And who do you say that I am?” 16 Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” 17 And Jesus answered him, “You are blesse Simon son of Jonah, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but my Fathe in heaven!” (Matthew 16:15-17).

Jesus did not want Peter and His disciples to believe He was the Son of God just because He said so. He wanted God to bring them to this conclusion, based upon the overwhelming evidence of Scripture and our Lord’s life and teaching. Action speaks louder than words indeed.

Btw thanks for not quoting our whole conversation. I didn't feel like scrolling down for a long time xP

Collosians 3:16:

Quote:

Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly as you teach and admonish one another with all wisdom, and as you sing psalms, hymns and spiritual songs with gratitude in your hearts to God.

Various Bible Texts That Mention Christ.
This is the problem with the Trinity.
If the Father is God and the Son is God, then the Father is the Son. The same with the Holy Spirit.
Just because Jesus was tempted doesn't mean he's with sin. Temptation is just the desire to do something. Besides, temptations would fall within the Ten Commandments. So it would be tempted to believe in another god, to commit adultery, to kill, to steal, to covet, etcetera. Which he never did because he was the purest human in history. But a human still.
Then there's this little diddy concerning Jesus and the Christ.

Quote:

“Then charged he his disciples that they
should tell no man that he was Jesus the
Christ.”

(Matthew 16:20)
Meaning, tell them I'm jesus, but don't falsely say I am the Christ.
Besides. The problem with the gospels is that they're all recollections of what happened. They're malleable in interpretation because of their anecdotal nature.

I said that jesus spoke about. I already know there's verses about christ.
No. The father wouldn't be the son nor the Holy Spirit. God is God.

I didn't say he was with sin. I said he was without sin. :l

The purest human but just a human...?

Is that the words he said? No. Your taking it out of context. I don't see anywhere in a type of way jesus saying "don't falsely say I am the christ"

They are collections of people who were with jesus.
They all share the same message so it can't be by their own interpritation if it is 1.written by different people and 2.have the same message
Anyway, your rejecting what the Bible says.

Matthew 16:13-20....... 13 When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, "Who do people say the Son of Man is?" 14 They replied, "Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets." 15 "But what about you?" he asked. "Who do you say I am?" 16 Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." 17 Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. 18 And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven." 20 Then he warned his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Christ.

16:20 TELL NO ONE. (same as... in Matthew 8:4 - tell no one) Publicity over such miracles might hinder Christ's mission and divert public attention from his message. Mark records that this is precisely what happened. In this man's exuberance over the miracle, he disobeyed;as a result, Christ had to move His ministry away from the city and into the desert regions (Mark 1:45). & (same as in Matthew 12:16 - warned them not to make Him known.) Here Christ seems concerned about the potential zealotry of those who would try to press Him into the conquering-hero mold that the rabbinical experts had made out of the messianic prophecy.

t he wanted to reveal his identity himself and not have it distorted by well-meaning but ill-informed people. It seems to me that Jesus didn't want the people to go around saying who he is because this puts him in a mold, a category, a title, that the people of his day had pre-defined. Jesus wants to redefine the meaning of Son of God. He wants to re-wire the circuits of what people think that it means to be Christ, the Messiah of the Jews. So until he can live it and show it, he refuses to let others spread it. He will let his life, the cross, and his resurrection define his identity. Only then will he send his disciples out to tell the entire world who he is!

Then Jesus helped the followers understand these Scriptures written. Jesus said to them, "It is written that the Christ would be killed and rise from death on the third day. You saw these things happen--you are witnesses. You must go and tell people that their sins can be forgiven. Tell them that they must change their hearts and be sorry for their sins. If they will do this, then God will forgive them. You must start from Jerusalem and tell people these things in my name. This Good News must be told to all people in the world. Listen! My Father has promised you something; I will send it to you. But you must stay in Jerusalem until you have received that power from heaven." — Luke 24:45-49

Jesus said he was the christ. Right there. Don't take it out of context or assume. Its right there.

The disciples then understood the scriptures. Another way they knew that jesus was the one, the christ.

Are you aware that your belief destroys the basis of being christian? :l

I am aware that there is no mandatory belief to being a Christian. But nice try. I believe in God. I believe Jesus demonstrated the power of God, the Christ nature, but that he was not the Christ. I believe in the virgin birth, the resurrection, the crucifixion, the parting of the red sea, the ascension. But I do not believe that Jesus is God. I do not believe that God would manifest himself as a human. God is too universally powerful to limit to a human man.
The thing is that, the Bible is a book, with ideas in it. It is literature. Literature has all sorts of interpretations that can come from it.
I'm questioning the interpretations. But You are telling me what the interpretations are. Who are you to dictate what the Bible means? Who am I to dictate it? Everyone should have their own interpretations of the scriptures, because it will mean something different for everyone else.
The fact is also that the Bible is very old, translated from very old texts that may or may not have been tampered with by people trying to conform Christianity to what they wanted it to be.

I'm not telling you what it "means" I'm telling you exactly what it says...
I'm not "interpreting" either. Again, I'm telling you what it says. As you can see I'm answering with scripture.
Sigh. J-just go this coversation is over...

[Christien Chalfant]

Pseudo-Onkelos

Christien Chalfant

Pseudo-Onkelos

Christien Chalfant

Then what would the sons of God be? If they're not descendants of Seth, monotheistic people compared to Cain's pagan descendants, and they're not fallen angels? Then what? Just regular old men?

They're gods. The reason no pastor or priest goes by this anymore is because of Judaism and Christianity. They're monotheistic religions, even though the Hebrews and ancient Israelites were not monotheists. They were henotheists and practiced monolatry. But, there are scholars who support that these were gods and that there was a divine council.

The government of God? Which would then be......angels? confused

No. They're gods. An angel is simply a messenger and they have their own specific names, such as cherubim and seraphim. As I said before, "angel" is from the Greek word angelos, which means "messenger". Psalm 82 is a good example of the divine council.

Then where's the explanation of sons of God meaning more gods?

[Christien Chalfant]

IVovacane

I'm not telling you what it "means" I'm telling you exactly what it says...
I'm not "interpreting" either. Again, I'm telling you what it says. As you can see I'm answering with scripture.
Sigh. J-just go this coversation is over...

There's a skill called, reading between the lines, it's really helpful when reading literature.
I don't need to go over this conversation.
I'm well aware of what the Scripture says, it's just the actual meaning that is conflicting among denominations.
Literature that is as prolific and revered as the Bible really is never meant to be read literally.

[Pseudo-Onkelos]

Christien Chalfant

Pseudo-Onkelos

Christien Chalfant

Pseudo-Onkelos

Christien Chalfant

Then what would the sons of God be? If they're not descendants of Seth, monotheistic people compared to Cain's pagan descendants, and they're not fallen angels? Then what? Just regular old men?

They're gods. The reason no pastor or priest goes by this anymore is because of Judaism and Christianity. They're monotheistic religions, even though the Hebrews and ancient Israelites were not monotheists. They were henotheists and practiced monolatry. But, there are scholars who support that these were gods and that there was a divine council.

The government of God? Which would then be......angels? confused

No. They're gods. An angel is simply a messenger and they have their own specific names, such as cherubim and seraphim. As I said before, "angel" is from the Greek word angelos, which means "messenger". Psalm 82 is a good example of the divine council.

Then where's the explanation of sons of God meaning more gods?

The use of the Hebrew word 'elohim, which means "god" or "gods", depend on whether or not the verb/adjective is singular or plural.

[Christien Chalfant]

Pseudo-Onkelos

Christien Chalfant

Pseudo-Onkelos

Christien Chalfant

Pseudo-Onkelos

Christien Chalfant

Then what would the sons of God be? If they're not descendants of Seth, monotheistic people compared to Cain's pagan descendants, and they're not fallen angels? Then what? Just regular old men?

They're gods. The reason no pastor or priest goes by this anymore is because of Judaism and Christianity. They're monotheistic religions, even though the Hebrews and ancient Israelites were not monotheists. They were henotheists and practiced monolatry. But, there are scholars who support that these were gods and that there was a divine council.

The government of God? Which would then be......angels? confused

No. They're gods. An angel is simply a messenger and they have their own specific names, such as cherubim and seraphim. As I said before, "angel" is from the Greek word angelos, which means "messenger". Psalm 82 is a good example of the divine council.

Then where's the explanation of sons of God meaning more gods?

The use of the Hebrew word 'elohim, which means "god" or "gods", depend on whether or not the verb/adjective is singular or plural.

Well then you need to give the Hebrew text, because Elohim would be referring to God, no to the sons of God.
Because "bene Elohim" would mean "sons of godly beings/powers" most likely meaning powers.

[Pseudo-Onkelos]

Christien Chalfant

Well then you need to give the Hebrew text, because Elohim would be referring to God, no to the sons of God.
Because "bene Elohim" would mean "sons of godly beings/powers" most likely meaning powers.

Sorry, but that's not how 'elohim works. It only refers to God when the verb/adjective is singular.

"'Elohim has taken his place in the divine council; in the midst of 'elohim he holds judgment." (Psa. 82:1)

I have already quoted Deuteronomy 32:8, where it says that 'El 'Elyon divided humanity he divided mankind and fixed the borders of the peoples according to the number of the sons of God. If I recall correctly, there were seventy nations, each with their own god.

[Masrur Fanalis]

Christien Chalfant

IVovacane

I'm not telling you what it "means" I'm telling you exactly what it says...
I'm not "interpreting" either. Again, I'm telling you what it says. As you can see I'm answering with scripture.
Sigh. J-just go this coversation is over...

There's a skill called, reading between the lines, it's really helpful when reading literature.
I don't need to go over this conversation.
I'm well aware of what the Scripture says, it's just the actual meaning that is conflicting among denominations.
Literature that is as prolific and revered as the Bible really is never meant to be read literally.

So your saying there isn't only one God

[Pseudo-Onkelos]

IVovacane

So your saying there isn't only one God

According to the Bible there isn't.

[Christien Chalfant]

IVovacane

Christien Chalfant

IVovacane

I'm not telling you what it "means" I'm telling you exactly what it says...
I'm not "interpreting" either. Again, I'm telling you what it says. As you can see I'm answering with scripture.
Sigh. J-just go this coversation is over...

There's a skill called, reading between the lines, it's really helpful when reading literature.
I don't need to go over this conversation.
I'm well aware of what the Scripture says, it's just the actual meaning that is conflicting among denominations.
Literature that is as prolific and revered as the Bible really is never meant to be read literally.

So your saying there isn't only one God

No, I'm saying there is One God.
And Jesus is not a part of it. He's just a human, just another child of God like the rest of us, he just demonstrated spiritual healing power better than anyone else.

[Christien Chalfant]

Pseudo-Onkelos

Christien Chalfant

Well then you need to give the Hebrew text, because Elohim would be referring to God, no to the sons of God.
Because "bene Elohim" would mean "sons of godly beings/powers" most likely meaning powers.

Sorry, but that's not how 'elohim works. It only refers to God when the verb/adjective is singular.

"'Elohim has taken his place in the divine council; in the midst of 'elohim he holds judgment." (Psa. 82:1)

I have already quoted Deuteronomy 32:8, where it says that 'El 'Elyon divided humanity he divided mankind and fixed the borders of the peoples according to the number of the sons of God. If I recall correctly, there were seventy nations, each with their own god.

Sure, but translation favors the idea of "sons of Israel," which would be the children of Jacob/Israel.
And saying if you recall is basically hearsay, there's got to be evidence of God diving mankind into 70 nations with their own God.

[Masrur Fanalis]

Christien Chalfant

IVovacane

Christien Chalfant

IVovacane

I'm not telling you what it "means" I'm telling you exactly what it says...
I'm not "interpreting" either. Again, I'm telling you what it says. As you can see I'm answering with scripture.
Sigh. J-just go this coversation is over...

There's a skill called, reading between the lines, it's really helpful when reading literature.
I don't need to go over this conversation.
I'm well aware of what the Scripture says, it's just the actual meaning that is conflicting among denominations.
Literature that is as prolific and revered as the Bible really is never meant to be read literally.

So your saying there isn't only one God

No, I'm saying there is One God.
And Jesus is not a part of it. He's just a human, just another child of God like the rest of us, he just demonstrated spiritual healing power better than anyone else.

But you said you can't take the bible literal

[Pseudo-Onkelos]

Christien Chalfant

Pseudo-Onkelos

Christien Chalfant

Well then you need to give the Hebrew text, because Elohim would be referring to God, no to the sons of God.
Because "bene Elohim" would mean "sons of godly beings/powers" most likely meaning powers.

Sorry, but that's not how 'elohim works. It only refers to God when the verb/adjective is singular.

"'Elohim has taken his place in the divine council; in the midst of 'elohim he holds judgment." (Psa. 82:1)

I have already quoted Deuteronomy 32:8, where it says that 'El 'Elyon divided humanity he divided mankind and fixed the borders of the peoples according to the number of the sons of God. If I recall correctly, there were seventy nations, each with their own god.

Sure, but translation favors the idea of "sons of Israel," which would be the children of Jacob/Israel.
And saying if you recall is basically hearsay, there's got to be evidence of God diving mankind into 70 nations with their own God.

I didn't want to have to do this.

Heb “the sons of Israel.” The idea, perhaps, is that Israel was central to Yahweh’s purposes and all other nations were arranged and distributed according to how they related to Israel. See S. R. Driver, Deuteronomy (ICC), 355-56. For the MT יִשְׂרָאֵל בְּנֵי (bÿney yisra’el, “sons of Israel”) a Qumran fragment has “sons of God,” while the LXX reads ἀγγέλων θεοῦ (angelwn qeou, “angels of God”), presupposing בְּנֵי אֵל (bÿney ’el) or בְּנֵי אֵלִים (beney ’elim). “Sons of God” is undoubtedly the original reading; the MT and LXX have each interpreted it differently. MT assumes that the expression “sons of God” refers to Israel (cf. Hos. 1:10), while LXX has assumed that the phrase refers to the angelic heavenly assembly (Pss 29:1; 89:6; cf. as well Ps 82). The phrase is also attested in Ugaritic, where it refers to the high god El’s divine assembly. According to the latter view, which is reflected in the translation, the Lord delegated jurisdiction over the nations to his angelic host (cf. Dan. 10:13-21), while reserving for himself Israel, over whom he rules directly. For a defense of the view taken here, see M. S. Heiser, “Deuteronomy 32:8 and the Sons of God,” BSac 158 (2001): 52-74. (NET Bible)

Read this while you're at it.

[Christien Chalfant]

Pseudo-Onkelos

I didn't want to have to do this.

Heb “the sons of Israel.” The idea, perhaps, is that Israel was central to Yahweh’s purposes and all other nations were arranged and distributed according to how they related to Israel. See S. R. Driver, Deuteronomy (ICC), 355-56. For the MT יִשְׂרָאֵל בְּנֵי (bÿney yisra’el, “sons of Israel”) a Qumran fragment has “sons of God,” while the LXX reads ἀγγέλων θεοῦ (angelwn qeou, “angels of God”), presupposing בְּנֵי אֵל (bÿney ’el) or בְּנֵי אֵלִים (beney ’elim). “Sons of God” is undoubtedly the original reading; the MT and LXX have each interpreted it differently. MT assumes that the expression “sons of God” refers to Israel (cf. Hos. 1:10), while LXX has assumed that the phrase refers to the angelic heavenly assembly (Pss 29:1; 89:6; cf. as well Ps 82). The phrase is also attested in Ugaritic, where it refers to the high god El’s divine assembly. According to the latter view, which is reflected in the translation, the Lord delegated jurisdiction over the nations to his angelic host (cf. Dan. 10:13-21), while reserving for himself Israel, over whom he rules directly. For a defense of the view taken here, see M. S. Heiser, “Deuteronomy 32:8 and the Sons of God,” BSac 158 (2001): 52-74. (NET Bible)

Read this while you're at it.

No one made you do it.

I read up to about page 66 and then stopped for time constraints.
The article brought up good points, but it never as to what I say, outright said that one translation is right over another.
The corruption of texts is something that's very possible, something that I agree.
But still.
If there is a multitude of gods, with God remaining the most high, in a congregation of gods or a government of gods, then why does the first commandment contradict that idea completely?
The concept of tribal gods is very common, but just because a text claims that the One God delegated responsibility of nations to other gods, doesn't mean it's true, that could just be human error.
The Bible may be the word of God, but there's too many discrepancies within it, within translation, and within interpretation to have one mass of a meaning for anything.
Faith and Understanding is a spiritual journey that is a private matter. The meaning of the text will be different for everyone, unless they're listening to a pastor or preacher or whoever tell them what it means.

[Pseudo-Onkelos]

Christien Chalfant

No one made you do it.

You compelled me.

Christien Chalfant

I read up to about page 66 and then stopped for time constraints.
The article brought up good points, but it never as to what I say, outright said that one translation is right over another.

I'm sure it did say that somewhere, but either way, the Dead Sea Scrolls are the oldest and they say "sons of God". This follows Ugaritic text, which also uses this type of phrase.

Christien Chalfant

If there is a multitude of gods, with God remaining the most high, in a congregation of gods or a government of gods, then why does the first commandment contradict that idea completely?

The first statement doesn't. "You shall have no other gods before me" is not a statement that contradicts monolatry. Monolatry is serving one god while acknowledging the existence of other gods. God clearly doesn't deny the existence of other gods.

Christien Chalfant

The concept of tribal gods is very common, but just because a text claims that the One God delegated responsibility of nations to other gods, doesn't mean it's true, that could just be human error.

That's not an argument and I have provided numerous verses to show there was the belief that more than one god existed.

Christien Chalfant

The Bible may be the word of God, but there's too many discrepancies within it, within translation, and within interpretation to have one mass of a meaning for anything.

I don't believe it to be the word of God. I don't believe what the Bible says. It doesn't mean I can't take it objectively to understand ancient Near Eastern literature.