Why The Trinity is a False Teaching - Summarized Doctrinal Reasons

[7xlightray]

Your conclusion is severely flawed. A pagan king would not have known what, if anything, other than God was called sons of God in the OT.

My conclusion is the scripture state the fourth was an angel. How could my conclusion be in error, if that is what is recorded in scripture: 28 Then Nebuchadnezzar spake, and said, Blessed be the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, who hath sent his angel, and delivered his servants that trusted in him.

It is clear that only God could have made the donkey speak, therefore whatever the donkey said would have been inspired by God. There is no scriptural evidence that anything said by king Nebuchadnezzar was inspired by God, therefore no doctrine should be based on his words.

Whether the pagan kings words were inspired by God, or not, they are recorded in the inspired word of God.

As long as you acknowledge that something being called a "son of god" does not mean that person/thing is actually a son of God.

If you are referring to Job 38:7 you are wrong about that too.

Whatever you wish to think they are, there is more then one son of God...

Genesis 6:2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.

Job 1:6 Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan came also among them.​

 

[7xlightray]

Thank you, Sir. But when Paul the Apostle, a brilliant, devout, educated Pharisee-turned-Nazarene Jew witnessed to the men of Athens, imo he didn't make things terribly complicated or metaphysical. Just simply and clearly described the Invisible God who had made them and who had raised a Man from the dead as a testimony to the nations. That's about it.

Yup, very simple Paul's Creed.
And we also notice the Greek Epicurean and Stoic philosophers in Athens thought Paul was referring to at least two god/Gods Acts 17:18, but Paul straightens them out, by telling them that there is one God (Who made all, and who all live by) and one man.

 

[ripple the car]

Hey, Brother. I was referring to Hebrews 1:1-2. No man has seen the Father, Sir, but the Father has sent His Messiah in the past, in human form, to give messages and comfort to His people. Genesis 18. Because being the Word of God, the Son is uniquely able to show us the Father. Which is how I understand John 14:6-9. The Father is still in Heaven, unseen, but is reflected in His Son in a unique way. One God, and One Lord. That is, imo, the simple Faith of the Jewish Apostles.

Hello Gracia.

You stated the following.


This is not correct Gracia.

Jesus said, the Father has not been heard, seen, or known by humanity. If the Father has not been heard
by humanity, then the Father was not speaking to humanity.

Jesus is the God of the Old Testament, the Father handed all things over to His only Son Jesus.

Everything including the Old Testament prophets and patriarchs, were subjected to the Son.

Christ is over and through all creation, and all creation exists only for the Son.

 

[ripple the car]

Jesus can not be the God of the Old Testament. His Father is the God of the Old Testament. Scripture says over and over that there is One God. The Father has never been seen. So it must be another, manifesting the Invisible God, whom the Jewish people saw in the past. Messiah, imo, would be a good candidate for that. But that does not negate the Oneness of the Father, anymore than John 14:6-9 does. God is infinite, the universe can not contain Him. But He can and did send His Word to speak with men visibly. That is how I would answer. If God can do anything, He can reveal Himself to us through His Son and Servant. But that does not mean that God and His Word are the same being. Otherwise Christ would not have said "The Father is greater than I". I would not say of myself "I am greater than myself". Nor would I say " I am the God of myself", unless I had a dreadful ego problem, or was deluded.

 

[ripple the car]

Hey, Sir. I kind of incline towards Messiah speaking with Abraham in Genesis 18, and similarly elsewhere. Is that your view, too?

My conclusion is the scripture state the fourth was an angel. How could my conclusion be in error, if that is what is recorded in scripture: 28 Then Nebuchadnezzar spake, and said, Blessed be the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, who hath sent his angel, and delivered his servants that trusted in him.

Whether the pagan kings words were inspired by God, or not, they are recorded in the inspired word of God.


Whatever you wish to think they are, there is more then one son of God...

Genesis 6:2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.

Job 1:6 Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan came also among them.​

 

[7xlightray]

Hey, Sir. I kind of incline towards Messiah speaking with Abraham in Genesis 18, and similarly elsewhere. Is that your view, too?

I was actually referring to Daniel 3:25, and 28...

25 He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God.
28 Then Nebuchadnezzar spake, and said, Blessed be the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, who hath sent his angel.​

...but to answer your question, no.
I don't know if you recall me giving you these passages...

Isaiah 45:4-5...
4 For Jacob my servant's sake, and Israel mine elect, I have even called thee by thy name: I have surnamed thee, though thou hast not known me.
5 I am the Lord, and there is none else, there is no God beside me: I girded thee, though thou hast not known me:​

And...

Psalm 22:1(KJV) My [Jesus] God, my God [the Father], why hast thou forsaken me?. . .8 He trusted on the LORD that he would deliver him: let him deliver him. . .9 But thou art he that took me out of the womb: thou didst make me hope when I was upon my mother's breasts. 10 I was cast upon thee from the womb: thou art my God from my mother's belly.

 

[ripple the car]

Thank you, Sir, I do remember those passages, too. So basically, you'd contend that as Messiah was not aware of Himself as such before becoming flesh, these messengers are spirits from God being identified with the One who sent them?

I was actually referring to Daniel 3:25, and 28...

25 He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God.
28 Then Nebuchadnezzar spake, and said, Blessed be the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, who hath sent his angel.​

...but to answer your question, no.
I don't know if you recall me giving you these passages...

Isaiah 45:4-5...
4 For Jacob my servant's sake, and Israel mine elect, I have even called thee by thy name: I have surnamed thee, though thou hast not known me.
5 I am the Lord, and there is none else, there is no God beside me: I girded thee, though thou hast not known me:​

And...

Psalm 22:1(KJV) My [Jesus] God, my God [the Father], why hast thou forsaken me?. . .8 He trusted on the LORD that he would deliver him: let him deliver him. . .9 But thou art he that took me out of the womb: thou didst make me hope when I was upon my mother's breasts. 10 I was cast upon thee from the womb: thou art my God from my mother's belly.

 

[7xlightray]

Thank you, Sir, I do remember those passages, too. So basically, you'd contend that as Messiah was not aware of Himself as such before becoming flesh, these messengers are spirits from God being identified with the One who sent them?

A different way of wording it, but ok.

 

[klutedavid]

Yes it is good chatting with you.

Yes the ancient of days is the Father, I think that is very clear in that passage.

As far as I know the scriptures do not say no one can see God, but I know it does say no “man” can see God, at least in this mortal fallen flesh, for Exodus 33:20 says no man can see His face and live. In our immortal bodies, we cannot die anymore, so it could be possible to see God and not die. Whether we are granted to, or able to literally, I'm not fully sure, for there are some verses that seem to suggest we will, but I can't say if this is literal, or not. Even Exodus 33:20 alone, seems to suggest we will see Him literally.


Yes he is, but which ancient days?

Before I even get into that, lets get this out of the way, which is what you are trying to prove with this passage. It says in verse 4 of Jesus that the LORD God is his God...

4 And he shall stand and feed in the strength of the LORD, in the majesty of the name of the LORD his God; and they shall abide: for now shall he be great unto the ends of the earth.​

Notice what it is talking about here in the first three verses, even verse 1 should be a clue, that Israel will be laid siege. Then it goes on to say...

Micah 5:2 But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.

3 Therefore will he give them up, until the time that she which travaileth hath brought forth: then the remnant of his brethren shall return unto the children of Israel.​

Verse 1 to verse 3 must be read together to get the understanding of what is meant by “whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting,” keeping it all in context. Reading chapter 4 with 5 really helps to get a perspective of chapter 5 as well.

It's says he is to be ruler in Israel, this has not taken place yet. This is why Jesus knew he would be going on a long journey. Jesus is from Bethlehem, was put to death, but will return to rule in Israel after a long time, who's goings forth have been of old, from when he fist walk in Israel, and he will return after a long time.

Hello Lightray.

A reasonable reply but there are problems with this reply.

As far as I know the scriptures do not say no one can see God

Lightray the scripture emphatically states that no one has seen the Father. It is important to understand that Jesus
Himself told us specifically, that no one has seen the Father.

John 6:46
Not that anyone has seen the Father, except the One who is from God; He has seen the Father.

You will need to explain how the man Jesus, can say he has 'seen the Father', given that he also said, 'not that anyone
has seen the Father'

John 1:18
No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.

Again Jesus directly states that no one has seen God, not Adam, Jacob, Moses, Ezekiel, or Daniel. There exists no
detailed vision of the Father in the scripture. The Father has always been invisible to mankind.

Yes Lightray, the scripture states that people have seen YHWH in the Old Testament, but the scripture states also, that no one has seen the Father. There is a crucial difference obviously, between YHWH and the Father. You cannot reconcile this
fact, that people saw YHWH in the O.T, and Jesus then stating that the Father has never been seen.

YHWH is definitely not the Father, Jesus can only be the YHWH, YHWH always has a human form. The Father does
not have this human form, the Father is invisible and spirit. The visions or images given to mankind portraying YHWH,
are always the only image of God ever portrayed to mankind.

Colossians 3
10 and have put on the new self who is being renewed to a true knowledge according to the image of the One who created him.

Who's image are we being transformed into Lightray?

So Lightray, when did the man Jesus (the image) see the Father (invisible), when did this man Jesus hear the Father, and how did this man know the Father. When no one has seen, heard, or known the Father?

Romans 8
29 For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren.

Micah 5:2 But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting. 3 Therefore will he give them up, until the time that she which travaileth hath brought forth: then the remnant of his brethren shall return unto the children of Israel?

Verse 1 to verse 3 must be read together to get the understanding of what is meant by “whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting,” keeping it all in context. Reading chapter 4 with 5 really helps to get a perspective of chapter 5 as well. It's says he is to be ruler in Israel, this has not taken place yet.

Jesus was always the King (Ruler) of Israel, the divine King of Israel always had a human image, check the visions of the prophets! Jesus is the King of Kings, Lord of Lords, the First and the Last, and Jesus leads all the angels in heaven on the
last day. Everything that is not subjected to the Christ yet, will be subjected to the Christ in future.

 

[klutedavid]

Hello Lightray.

Hope you do not mind if I comment on this post #946, directed to another.

28 Then Nebuchadnezzar spake, and said, Blessed be the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, who
hath sent his angel.

As I said before Lightray, the Hebrew for messenger does not translate into the English word 'angel'. The Hebrew word
for angel actually means the one sent, or the messenger. Line twenty eight should in fact read.

28 Then Nebuchadnezzar spake, and said, Blessed be the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, who hath
sent his MESSENGER.

People will misunderstand these verses if they rely solely on the inaccurate English translations.

 

[7xlightray]

Hello Lightray.

A reasonable reply but there are problems with this reply.

Lightray the scripture emphatically states that no one has seen the Father. It is important to understand that Jesus
Himself told us specifically, that no one has seen the Father.

John 6:46
Not that anyone has seen the Father, except the One who is from God; He has seen the Father.

You will need to explain how the man Jesus, can say he has 'seen the Father', given that he also said, 'not that anyone
has seen the Father'

John 1:18
No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.

Again Jesus directly states that no one has seen God, not Adam, Jacob, Moses, Ezekiel, or Daniel. There exists no
detailed vision of the Father in the scripture. The Father has always been invisible to mankind.

Yes Lightray, the scripture states that people have seen YHWH in the Old Testament, but the scripture states also, that no one has seen the Father. There is a crucial difference obviously, between YHWH and the Father. You cannot reconcile this
fact, that people saw YHWH in the O.T, and Jesus then stating that the Father has never been seen.

YHWH is definitely not the Father, Jesus can only be the YHWH, YHWH always has a human form. The Father does
not have this human form, the Father is invisible and spirit. The visions or images given to mankind portraying YHWH,
are always the only image of God ever portrayed to mankind.

So Lightray, when did the man Jesus (the image) see the Father (invisible), when did this man Jesus hear the Father, and how did this man know the Father. When no one has seen, heard, or known the Father?

Hello again klutedavid,

The scriptures do not say angels are not able to see God.
If God cannot be seen, then how could have Jesus literally seen God. If God is invisible, then could God see himself?

What I know is no man has seen God at anytime, but that does not mean God can't be seen by other spirits, or heavenly beings. I lean more to that God can be seen, just not by mortal man, but seeing as I have never stood before God the Father's throne, I cannot positively say.

We also have to remember “see” can also have the meaning of seeing with the mind.

For example in John 1:18 John the Baptist says, “No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him. Did Jesus come to explain what the Father looked like, or does he mean by “explain” that Jesus came to make the Father known, implying to see God is to know God?

We can also see in context that this is the meaning in John 6:46, Jesus is not saying we need to see the Father to be able to be taught by Father, and then know him. Jesus is saying he has seen the Father, in that the Father has made Himself fulling known to His Son, and that we need to accept him (Jesus) so that we can be taught by the Father, and understand what the Father had written in scripture. It's all full of imagery, and play on words in this passage.

To see God is to know Him personally, there are different levels of knowing someone. There is hearing about, or reading about someone, and many levels of this, there is knowing God by the spirit, and many levels of this, there is seeing the image of God in man, and there is reading about this image, then there is meeting the person (the Father) ourselves in person.

Having a vision of someone is not actually seeing them. How did Stephen see and know that Jesus was standing at the right hand of God (the Father) Acts 7:55-56? I'm not saying Stephen actually seen God (the Father,) but somehow he seen something in a vision (is how I would understand it), that he knew Jesus was standing at His right hand.

In Daniel 7 How is the son of man (Jesus) approaching himself? You don't think that's more odd, then saying the Father has white hair? Which could mean the Father does have white hair, or simply mean the Father is pure, and true, as it speaks of Him clothed in light. And we know it was the Father that gave him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him.

I'm going to have to more then strongly disagree with you here “YHWH is definitely not the Father, Jesus can only be the YHWH” Hebrews 1:5 with 2 Samuel 7:5, 13-14 and also with Psalm 2:7. There is also Psalm ch. 16, and ch. 22, and 109:25-26 and many, many more passages, that show the Father is LORD-YHWH. The scriptures are just to clear that the Father is the LORD-YHWH. Are you trying to claim the Son fathered himself, because the LORD-YHWH calls him Son? The God of Jesus is the Father, and this God is the LORD-YHWH.

Colossians 3
10 and have put on the new self who is being renewed to a true knowledge according to the image of the One who created him.

Who's image are we being transformed into Lightray?

So Lightray, when did the man Jesus (the image) see the Father (invisible), when did this man Jesus hear the Father, and how did this man know the Father. When no one has seen, heard, or known the Father?

Romans 8
29 For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren.

We are made in the image of God's son, who is the image of God. So, we are made in the image of God through the son, by becoming sons of God. We are made in the image of God by the spirit of His son, which spirit Christ received from the Father. We are created by the Father through the son.

Rom 8:29 For whom he [the Father] did foreknow, he [the Father] also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.

1 Corinthians 15:49 And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly...
...57 but thanks be to God, who giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.​

Colossians 3 is very similar to Ephesians 5.

Ephesians 5:20 giving thanks always for all things in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ to God, even the Father;
​

Here is a good understanding...

Ephesians 1:17 That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto...
20 Which he [Father] wrought in Christ, when he [Father] raised him [Jesus] from the dead...
Ephesians 2:1 And you hath he [Father] quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins
5 Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved
6 And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus:
7 That in the ages to come he [Father] might shew the exceeding riches of his [Father] grace in his [Father] kindness toward us through Christ Jesus.
Ephesians 2:10 For we are his [Father] workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God [Father] hath before ordained that we should walk in them.
15 Having abolished in his [Jesus] flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself [Jesus] of twain one new man, so making peace;
16 And that he [Jesus] might reconcile both unto God [Father. But recall it was the Father working in Christ (both to will and to do) to reconcile us back to Himself, and Jesus submitting to the Father's will] in one body by the cross...
18 For through him [Jesus] we both have access by one Spirit [Jesus spirit which he received from the Father] unto the Father.​

This is the proper way to understand it, that it was the Father's plan, and the Father working in Christ, and Christ submitting to the will of the Father. Jesus said, he is working and the Father is working. It all starts from the top, and Christ participated in the work of God. If it was not for the Father, there would be nothing, for it was His plan, and who can subvert His will.

It's not Jesus is God, and then he gave up God's will (his own will), then submitted to his own will again, but really wasn't his will, because he had another will, yet the whole time somehow retained both wills, but pretended he did not retain his God will, yet still keeping it.

If he literally seen Him, then he is seeing Him now, not before.

Jesus was always the King (Ruler) of Israel, the divine King of Israel always had a human image, check the visions of the prophets! Jesus is the King of Kings, Lord of Lords, the First and the Last, and Jesus leads all the angels in heaven on the
last day. Everything that is not subjected to the Christ yet, will be subjected to the Christ in future.

Whatever you believe, Micah 5 is talking about something specific, which is Jesus second coming, when he comes to rule in Jerusalem as king, which he is not right now.

 

[7xlightray]

Hello Lightray.

Hope you do not mind if I comment on this post #946, directed to another.

As I said before Lightray, the Hebrew for messenger does not translate into the English word 'angel'. The Hebrew word
for angel actually means the one sent, or the messenger. Line twenty eight should in fact read.

28 Then Nebuchadnezzar spake, and said, Blessed be the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, who hath
sent his MESSENGER.

People will misunderstand these verses if they rely solely on the inaccurate English translations.

I don't mind.

An angel is a messenger, a human can be a messenger, but an angel is also a messenger.

Hebrews 1:14 Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation?

Revelation 1:1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John:...

...21:9 And there came unto me one of the seven angels which had the seven vials full of the seven last plagues, and talked with me, saying, Come hither, I will shew thee the bride...

...22:6 And he said unto me, These sayings are faithful and true: and the Lord God of the holy prophets sent his angel to shew unto his servants the things which must shortly be done.​

The scriptures New and Old, tell us it was angels/messengers they saw.
I think it's quit clear as to what is meant by these verses...

Psalm 104:4 Who maketh his angels [H4397. malak - an angel, messenger] spirits; his ministers a flaming fire:

Hebrews 1:7 And of the angels he saith, Who maketh his angels [G32. aggelos - an angel, messenger] spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire.
​

Then...

Daniel 3:28 Then Nebuchadnezzar spake, and said, Blessed be the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, who hath sent his angel [H4398. malak - (Aramaic) corresponding to malak- angel]​

There is nothing in this passage that states it is Jesus in person, other then saying “a son of the gods” and a “angel/messenger,” It may symbolize Christ tried in the fire of God, and they and their clothes did not burn up, for they were found holy, and righteous.

 

[klutedavid]

Hello Lightray.

Thanks for your thoughtful response.

If God cannot be seen, then how could have Jesus literally seen God. If God is invisible, then could God
see himself? What I know is no man has seen God at anytime, but that does not mean God can't be seen by other
spirits, or heavenly beings. I lean more to that God can be seen, just not by mortal man, but seeing as I have never
stood before God the Father's throne, I cannot positively say. We also have to remember “see” can also have the
meaning of seeing with the mind.

Lightray, your method of interpretation is becoming more inconsistent with each post. Your claiming that Jesus
never saw His Father in a literal sense? How about we look at another passage altogether, to see whether the
scripture speaks of 'seeing YHWH' in a very real way.

Genesis 32
25 When the man saw that he did not prevail against Jacob, he struck him on the hip socket; and Jacob’s hip
was put out of joint as he wrestled with him. 26 Then he said, “Let me go, for the day is breaking.” But Jacob
said, “I will not let you go, unless you bless me.” 27 So he said to him, “What is your name?” And he said, “Jacob.”
28 Then the man said, “You shall no longer be called Jacob, but Israel, for you have striven with God and with
humans, and have prevailed.” 29 Then Jacob asked him, “Please tell me your name.” But he said, “Why is it that
you ask my name?” And there he blessed him. 30 So Jacob called the place Peniel, saying, “For I have seen God
face to face, and yet my life is preserved.”

The scripture states and this is beyond any doubt, that Jacob actually saw YHWH, and in a face to face encounter,
and lived. You would no doubt say, that Jacob did not actually see YHWH, but was wrestling with an angel or some
other powerful being. Even though Jacob states he saw YHWH and lived, you would reinterpret this passage, Jacob
did not really see YHWH.

What an elastic interpretation you apply to the scripture, Lightray? This text above is very clear and precise.

When Jesus stated the following verse.

John 6
46 Not that anyone has seen the Father except the one who is from God; he has seen the Father.

Your applying a two step interpretation to this statement by Jesus.

1) Jesus said, 'not that anyone has seen the Father', this is the literal usage of the word 'seen'
2) Jesus then said, that 'He has seen the Father', this must be the non literal usage of the word 'seen'

A double meaning to the same word in the one verse.

Jacob saw YHWH and lived, that is what the passage above announces.

Jesus said simply that Jacob, did not see 'the Father', Jacob actually saw and wrestled with YHWH. Because
you constantly will interpret YHWH as the Father, your interpretation corrupts the simple and literal reading
of the scripture.

What you may have also failed to notice in this passage (Genesis 32), is that Jacob asks this man's name.
This is a highly significant point in the text. If this man had stated his name to Jacob, then the apparent
riddle would be solved forever. The man does not reveal His name at this stage, and what could be more
obvious about this man's true identity Lightray. There is only one correct interpretation that holds both
passages in tact. Jesus is the man that Jacob wrestled with, Jesus did not reveal His name to Jacob.
Jesus damaged Jacob's hip with a touch. Jesus renamed Jacob name to the name Israel. Jacob saw
YHWH (Jesus) and lived, if Jacob has seen the Father, then Jesus would be a liar.

If you state that the man was the Father, then you are in direct conflict with what Jesus said. Jesus told
you that no one has seen the Father, and this includes Jacob. But Jacob saw YHWH and lived?

Now Lightray, I will ask you directly, who did Jacob wrestle with, YHWH or some unknown angelic man?

 

[7xlightray]

Lightray the scripture emphatically states that no one has seen the Father. It is important to understand that Jesus
Himself told us specifically, that no one has seen the Father.


Again Jesus directly states that no one has seen God, not Adam, Jacob, Moses, Ezekiel, or Daniel. There exists no
detailed vision of the Father in the scripture. The Father has always been invisible to mankind.

Moses is the one that represents Christ, and the LORD would be the Father, in this passage, the LORD said, Exodus 33:20 And he said, Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live. This is an angel speaking for the LORD, for the LORD sent an angel to lead them to the promised land Exodus 23:20-21; Judges 2:1-2. This certainly implies man could see God, but if he did he would die. That implies to me, God could be seen.

Your going to have to give me a scripture, as to why this in not an angel; in other words a scripture that states this was Jesus. Otherwise I see no reason not to accept what scripture says, that this was an angel that the LORD sent. Now if you say the LORD-YHWH is Jesus that sent the angel, then why is Jesus (LORD-YHWH) appearing in place of the angel he sent. It just keeps coming up muddle words without meaning.

18 No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.​

Also as that says, and you say, no one has seen God, and you say God is the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. And it says the Son hath declared God, there is nothing here the says that God is the Father, you would have to assume that. I know God refers to the Father, but you would have to cancel out the Son, and Holy Spirit from this definition of God.

You say Jesus is God, and they seen Jesus (YHWH) in the O/T, if that is so, then they did see God, if Jesus is God. They seen God, but they did not see God. Maybe it's they seen 1/3 of God, but then how could they look upon God (YHWH, Jesus) and not die? It's a muddled mess.

 

[7xlightray]

Hello Lightray.

Thanks for your thoughtful response.

Lightray, your method of interpretation is becoming more inconsistent with each post. Your claiming that Jesus
never saw His Father in a literal sense? How about we look at another passage altogether, to see whether the
scripture speaks of 'seeing YHWH' in a very real way.

Genesis 32
25 When the man saw that he did not prevail against Jacob, he struck him on the hip socket; and Jacob’s hip
was put out of joint as he wrestled with him. 26 Then he said, “Let me go, for the day is breaking.” But Jacob
said, “I will not let you go, unless you bless me.” 27 So he said to him, “What is your name?” And he said, “Jacob.”
28 Then the man said, “You shall no longer be called Jacob, but Israel, for you have striven with God and with
humans, and have prevailed.” 29 Then Jacob asked him, “Please tell me your name.” But he said, “Why is it that
you ask my name?” And there he blessed him. 30 So Jacob called the place Peniel, saying, “For I have seen God
face to face, and yet my life is preserved.”

The scripture states and this is beyond any doubt, that Jacob actually saw YHWH, and in a face to face encounter,
and lived. You would no doubt say, that Jacob did not actually see YHWH, but was wrestling with an angel or some
other powerful being. Even though Jacob states he saw YHWH and lived, you would reinterpret this passage, Jacob
did not really see YHWH.

What an elastic interpretation you apply to the scripture, Lightray? This text above is very clear and precise.

When Jesus stated the following verse.

John 6
46 Not that anyone has seen the Father except the one who is from God; he has seen the Father.

Your applying a two step interpretation to this statement by Jesus.

1) Jesus said, 'not that anyone has seen the Father', this is the literal usage of the word 'seen'
2) Jesus then said, that 'He has seen the Father', this must be the non literal usage of the word 'seen'

A double meaning to the same word in the one verse.

Jacob saw YHWH and lived, that is what the passage above announces.

Jesus said simply that Jacob, did not see 'the Father', Jacob actually saw and wrestled with YHWH. Because
you constantly will interpret YHWH as the Father, your interpretation corrupts the simple and literal reading
of the scripture.

What you may have also failed to notice in this passage (Genesis 32), is that Jacob asks this man's name.
This is a highly significant point in the text. If this man had stated his name to Jacob, then the apparent
riddle would be solved forever. The man does not reveal His name at this stage, and what could be more
obvious about this man's true identity Lightray. There is only one correct interpretation that holds both
passages in tact. Jesus is the man that Jacob wrestled with, Jesus did not reveal His name to Jacob.
Jesus damaged Jacob's hip with a touch. Jesus renamed Jacob name to the name Israel. Jacob saw
YHWH (Jesus) and lived, if Jacob has seen the Father, then Jesus would be a liar.

If you state that the man was the Father, then you are in direct conflict with what Jesus said. Jesus told
you that no one has seen the Father, and this includes Jacob. But Jacob saw YHWH and lived?

Now Lightray, I will ask you directly, who did Jacob wrestle with, YHWH or some unknown angelic man?

It's good chatting with you,

Not sure where you think I'm being inconsistent? Jacob did not see the Father, nor did he see Jesus. Again, the scriptures say it was an angel that Jacob struggled with...

Hosea 12:3 He took his brother by the heel in the womb, and by his strength he had power with God: 4 Yea, he had power over the angel, and prevailed: he wept, and made supplication unto him.

And yet you say it's not an angel.



The word “see” does have these two meanings - 3708 horáō – properly, see, often with metaphorical meaning: "to see with the mind" (i.e. spiritually see), i.e. perceive (with inward spiritual perception).

When he says, no one has seen the Father, he is referring to seeing, and knowing. Seeing can't simply just mean to see God with one's eye's, for how would that help anyone, it's seeing with the intent of knowing Him, to know God as He knows us. It's like when Jesus said, "destroy this temple," temple does not simply mean a building, but the place where God dwells, and if Jesus is the temple of God, then proving he is a righteous man. And on top of that, can't mean absolutely all of, and every bit of God fits into each of our bodies, either, because God dwells in heaven.

If God were to let you look upon Him for 30 seconds, how would that help you? Knowing God, what He is like, will help you. It's the idea of seeing a spouse, and know them, you see them and know who they are, and how they behave. And this is what God did by sending His word-logos (Him) in man, that we may see Him and know Him. Yet, still most of us have not seen Christ in the flesh.

 

[klutedavid]

Hello Lightray.

Here is a small correction for you to consider, please note what the following text states.

Genesis 32
25 When the man saw that he did not prevail against Jacob...

The text says 'the man', the text does not say 'the angel'.

Now for the passage that you quoted from Hosea, note again what the text states.

Hosea 12
3 In the womb he tried to supplant his brother, and in his manhood he strove with God. 4 He strove with
'the malech' and prevailed, he wept and sought his favor; he met him at Bethel, and there he spoke with him.

The passage actually states 'malech' which means messenger, 'malech' in this verse is not necessarily saying
an 'angel'. Malech does not always mean an angel, there are numerous verses where 'malech' is translated as
a man. Even some instances where 'malech' can be an ambassador or envoy. Be careful Lightray.

Further, 'he strove with God' means Jacob strove with God, Jacob wrestled with a man and not an angel.
Jacob tells us he saw God face to face, Jacob does not say he was looking at an angel. If the translators
wish to translate 'malech' as an angel in Hosea, then they are wrong.

Here is a translation that get's it right.

Young's Literal Translation
Hosea 12:4
Yea, he is a prince unto the Messenger, And he overcometh by weeping, And he maketh supplication to Him,
At Bethel He doth find him, And there He doth speak with us.

Young translates 'malech' as 'the Messenger' and messenger is with a capital 'M'. Young is a good translator,
Young is unlike the other bonehead translators. How dare these boneheads translate 'malech' as angel, when the
text tells us that Jacob saw YHWH face to face! I am amazed at the erroneous translations that pass as Bibles.

 

[klutedavid]

This is an angel speaking for the LORD, for the LORD sent an angel to lead them to the promised land Exodus 23:20-21;

Hello Lightray.

This is an angel speaking for the LORD, for the LORD sent an angel to lead them to the promised
land Exodus 23:20-21

The Bible translation you are using is throwing you off the path.

Young's Literal Translation
Exodus 23:20
'Lo, I am sending a messenger before thee to keep thee in the way, and to bring thee in unto the place
which I have prepared;

We know for a fact Lightray, that the one leading and following Israel was not an angel. Paul tells us it
was not an angel in the verse below.

1 Corinthians 10
10 I do not want you to be unaware, brothers and sisters, that our ancestors were all under the cloud,
and all passed through the sea, 2 and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, 3 and
all ate the same spiritual food, 4 and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank from the spiritual
rock that followed them, and the rock was Christ.

The messenger of YHWH is a very special messenger, the one and only, the 'one sent' of YHWH is none
other than the Christ. That is why 'the man' refused to tell Jacob His name, the time had not yet come
for the revelation of the Christ. Jacob really did wrestle with YHWH, and 'face to face' as the text states.

 

[7xlightray]

Hello Lightray.

Here is a small correction for you to consider, please note what the following text states.

Genesis 32
25 When the man saw that he did not prevail against Jacob...

The text says 'the man', the text does not say 'the angel'.

Now for the passage that you quoted from Hosea, note again what the text states.

Hosea 12
3 In the womb he tried to supplant his brother, and in his manhood he strove with God. 4 He strove with
'the malech' and prevailed, he wept and sought his favor; he met him at Bethel, and there he spoke with him.

The passage actually states 'malech' which means messenger, 'malech' in this verse is not necessarily saying
an 'angel'. Malech does not always mean an angel, there are numerous verses where 'malech' is translated as
a man. Even some instances where 'malech' can be an ambassador or envoy. Be careful Lightray.

Further, 'he strove with God' means Jacob strove with God, Jacob wrestled with a man and not an angel.
Jacob tells us he saw God face to face, Jacob does not say he was looking at an angel. If the translators
wish to translate 'malech' as an angel in Hosea, then they are wrong.

Here is a translation that get's it right.

Young's Literal Translation
Hosea 12:4
Yea, he is a prince unto the Messenger, And he overcometh by weeping, And he maketh supplication to Him,
At Bethel He doth find him, And there He doth speak with us.

Young translates 'malech' as 'the Messenger' and messenger is with a capital 'M'. Young is a good translator,
Young is unlike the other bonehead translators. How dare these boneheads translate 'malech' as angel, when the
text tells us that Jacob saw YHWH face to face! I am amazed at the erroneous translations that pass as Bibles.

It is clear to me who scripture say is the LORD...

First this says, this is the same angel/messenger who appeared as God at Bethel, which Hosea 12:4 says he found him at Bethel.

Genesis 31:11 And the angel [messenger is fine by me] of God spake unto me in a dream, saying, Jacob: And I said, Here am I.
13 I am the God of Bethel, where thou anointedst the pillar, and where thou vowedst a vow unto me: now arise, get thee out from this land, and return unto the land of thy kindred.​

The messenger of God said he is the God of Bethel. And here at Bethel it says, this is the LORD God of Abraham thy father, and the God of Isaac...

Genesis 28:12 And he dreamed, and behold a ladder set up on the earth, and the top of it reached to heaven: and behold the angels of God ascending and descending on it.
13 And, behold, the Lord stood above it, and said, I am the LORD God of Abraham thy father, and the God of Isaac: the land whereon thou liest, to thee will I give it, and to thy seed;
18 And Jacob rose up early in the morning, and took the stone that he had put for his pillows, and set it up for a pillar, and poured oil upon the top of it.
19 And he called the name of that place Bethel: but the name of that city was called Luz at the first.
20 And Jacob vowed a vow, saying,​

Now you are saying the messenger is the LORD God, and is no other then Jesus, and this is not an angel, nor is the LORD God the Father.

Reading Acts 3:13 right to verse 22, or even better right to verse 26, we will see “God” refers to no other then the Father, and is called the LORD God in the verse it is quoting from Deuteronomy 18...

“The LORD [Acts 3:13-26. LORD-YHWH] your God will raise up for you a Prophet like me from your midst, from your brethren. Him you shall hear. - Deuteronomy 18:15​

Even Deuteronomy 18:15 is obviously speaking of the Father that will raise up a prophet from their brethren, but lets not stop there, ...and this is the one that raised Jesus from the dead, and is the one Who sent Jesus...

Acts 3:13 The God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob, the God of our fathers, hath glorified his Son Jesus...​

We know it was the Father that glorified Jesus John 17; Hebrews 5:5, and Hebrews 5:5 with Psalm 2:7 shows the LORD is the Father. And Heb. 5:6 with Psalm 110:4 also shows the LORD is the Father, and we know Jesus is the Son of God the Father. The God of our fathers would also refer to Genesis 31:11, 13 which also points to Genesis 28:13 - So seeing as this God is the Father and no one has seen the Father, this would have to be referring to an angel in Genesis. To continue onto verse 22...

...22 For Moses truly said unto the fathers, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me [So obviously in Deuteronomy 18:15 LORD-YHWH is referring to the Father]; him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you...
...26 Unto you first God, having raised up his Son Jesus, sent him to bless you [we know Jesus is the son/servant of God the Father, and we know it was the Father that sent Jesus], in turning away every one of you from his iniquities.​

Then in...

Acts 7:32 Saying, I am the God of thy fathers, the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. Then Moses trembled, and durst not behold...
...35 This Moses [Jesus] whom they refused, saying, Who made thee a ruler and a judge? the same did God send to be a ruler and a deliverer by the hand of the angel which appeared to him in the bush.​

Do you not see what Stephen is trying to tell them, Moses represents Jesus, and God is the Father, as he points out...

37 This is that Moses, which said unto the children of Israel, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear.​

Acts 5:30-32; Acts 22:14 also show “the God of our fathers” is the Father.

Your trying to tell me the angel of the LORD was Christ, but Stephen does not give the slightest hint that the angel of the LORD was Jesus, or even God, but Stephen does say it was an angel, or a messenger.

I did believe as you do, at one time, that The Angel of the LORD was Jesus, like in Exodus 3:2, but how is Jesus the messenger of the LORD, and the LORD that is sending him? If the Father is not the LORD, then Who is sending Jesus the messenger of the LORD? Is Jesus sending himself? It does not say, “the messenger that is the LORD,” but “the messenger OF the LORD.”

Numbers 20:16 When we cried out to the LORD, He heard our voice and sent the Angel and brought us up out of Egypt; now here we are in Kadesh, a city on the edge of your border.​

Here you are telling me the Father is not the LORD, that Jesus is the LORD, and Jesus is also the angel of the LORD. Is Jesus the angel of himself (LORD), and also the one sending himself? From Acts 3:13 and Acts 7 and many other passages, LORD is revealed to be the Father.

And it was this angel that was revealing and speaking to them from the time of Egypt to the promised land. This angel that GOD sent, it was the LORD GOD that sent this messenger, and the LORD God is the Father.

And seeing as I'm not just saying “LORD” is the Father, but that scripture bares this out, and that no one has seen the LORD God the Father, and the LORD God is one, then the messenger the LORD sent would be an angel, as scripture everywhere sure suggest quite strongly to me. On top of that scripture also say Jesus did not know the Father before birth Isaiah 45:4-5.

Yes I understand malak means messenger, and can refer to a man, or angel, but angels do come as men, as in Genesis 19 the angels came appearing as men...

1 And there came two angels to Sodom at even
5 And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night?​

Are these two angels in Genesis 19? If they are, then they come appearing as men.

It also speaks in Hebrews 13:2 Be not forgetful to entertain strangers: for thereby some have entertained angels unawares.

So, you simply saying, or thinking LORD should be Jesus, is not going to be nowhere near enough, seeing as scripture shows the Father is the LORD God.

 

[klutedavid]

Hello Lightray.

Your last post was straight forward and entirely correct.

In the early years of Christianity, for a decade or more, the apostles viewed Jesus as just a man, there is
no doubt about this Lightray. It is not difficult to observe in the three synoptic Gospels, how the apostles
struggled with identifying who Jesus was. In fact, Jesus constantly asked the apostles how the people
viewed Him. Jesus often also asked the apostles who they thought he was.

The synoptic Gospels are really all about the struggle by mankind, to correctly identify the Christ.

Matthew 16
13 Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say
that the Son of Man is?”

The identity of the Christ was a vexing issue for everyone, Jesus was identified by numerous titles, here
is a title that you mentioned below.

John 6
14 When the people saw the sign that he had done, they began to say, “This is indeed the prophet who is
to come into the world.”

This was definitely the fulfillment of the prophecy that Moses gave, Jesus was the prophet.

Now the issue of the identity of the Christ will become even more difficult to establish.

Below is a verse, in which Jesus discusses the identity of John the Baptist with the crowd around him.

Luke 7
26 What then did you go out to see? A prophet? Yes, I tell you, and more than a prophet. 27 This is the
one about whom it is written, ‘See, I am sending my messenger ahead of you, who will prepare your way
before you.’

So John the Baptist is more than a prophet, where as Jesus is just a prophet. Though John the Baptist only
prepared the way for Jesus. So we could not restrict ourselves to defining Jesus as just a prophet, even
though Moses said that Jesus was the prophet.

The progression of the identity of the Christ is not based on the earlier revelations that the apostles received.
The revelation of the Christ was dynamic and increasing over time. The final revelation that the apostle John
received, was that the Lamb was sitting in the very center of the throne in heaven.

Revelation 7
17 for the Lamb at the center of the throne will be their shepherd, and he will guide them to springs of the
water of life.

This final revelation of the true identity of the Christ, was a world away from the earlier concept of Jesus,
being just the son of Mary and Joseph, the predicted prophet to come. To even propose that Jesus was a
man is entirely inaccurate. Joseph was not the father of Jesus, nor was Mary the biological mother of Jesus,
Mary was a virgin when Jesus was born. Jesus was never really a man by any definition, even though the
apostles thought that he was. Jesus according to Acts was the 'Author of life', 'the Holy One', 'the Righteous One',
all these titles belong to YHWH in the Old Testament.

If you really want to know who Jesus really is, then look to the oldest apostle for the latest revelation, John
nailed His identity absolutely.

John 17
11 And now I am no longer in the world, but they are in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father,
protect them in your name that you have given me, so that they may be one, as we are one.

Jesus has exactly the same Name as the Father, Jesus surrended this Divine Name and became one of us,
then Jesus received this Name back again. Surely you can connect this Divine Name that Jesus received
with the Old Testament prophecy.

Judges 13
18 But the Malech of the Lord said to him, “Why do you ask my name? It is too wonderful.”

Jesus had this wonderful Name which He refused to reveal at this time.

Genesis 32
26 Then he said, “Let me go, for the day is breaking.” But Jacob said, “I will not let you go, unless you
bless me.” 27 So he said to him, “What is your name?” And he said, “Jacob.” 28 Then the man said,
“You shall no longer be called Jacob, but Israel, for you have striven with God and with humans, and have
prevailed.” 29 Then Jacob asked him, “Please tell me your name.” But he said, “Why is it that you ask my name?”
And there he blessed him.

Even early in the Old Testament, this wonderful Name would not be revealed, the true identity was always
hidden from view.

If you ever refer to the Father by any name, please remember to also apply that name to Jesus, He sits in the
center of the throne.

 

[7xlightray]

Hello Lightray.

Your last post was straight forward and entirely correct.

In the early years of Christianity, for a decade or more, the apostles viewed Jesus as just a man, there is
no doubt about this Lightray. It is not difficult to observe in the three synoptic Gospels, how the apostles
struggled with identifying who Jesus was. In fact, Jesus constantly asked the apostles how the people
viewed Him. Jesus often also asked the apostles who they thought he was.

The synoptic Gospels are really all about the struggle by mankind, to correctly identify the Christ.

Matthew 16
13 Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say
that the Son of Man is?”

The identity of the Christ was a vexing issue for everyone, Jesus was identified by numerous titles, here
is a title that you mentioned below.

John 6
14 When the people saw the sign that he had done, they began to say, “This is indeed the prophet who is
to come into the world.”

This was definitely the fulfillment of the prophecy that Moses gave, Jesus was the prophet.

Now the issue of the identity of the Christ will become even more difficult to establish.

Below is a verse, in which Jesus discusses the identity of John the Baptist with the crowd around him.

Luke 7
26 What then did you go out to see? A prophet? Yes, I tell you, and more than a prophet. 27 This is the
one about whom it is written, ‘See, I am sending my messenger ahead of you, who will prepare your way
before you.’

So John the Baptist is more than a prophet, where as Jesus is just a prophet. Though John the Baptist only
prepared the way for Jesus. So we could not restrict ourselves to defining Jesus as just a prophet, even
though Moses said that Jesus was the prophet.

The progression of the identity of the Christ is not based on the earlier revelations that the apostles received.
The revelation of the Christ was dynamic and increasing over time. The final revelation that the apostle John
received, was that the Lamb was sitting in the very center of the throne in heaven.

Revelation 7
17 for the Lamb at the center of the throne will be their shepherd, and he will guide them to springs of the
water of life.

This final revelation of the true identity of the Christ, was a world away from the earlier concept of Jesus,
being just the son of Mary and Joseph, the predicted prophet to come. To even propose that Jesus was a
man is entirely inaccurate. Joseph was not the father of Jesus, nor was Mary the biological mother of Jesus,
Mary was a virgin when Jesus was born. Jesus was never really a man by any definition, even though the
apostles thought that he was. Jesus according to Acts was the 'Author of life', 'the Holy One', 'the Righteous One',
all these titles belong to YHWH in the Old Testament.

If you really want to know who Jesus really is, then look to the oldest apostle for the latest revelation, John
nailed His identity absolutely.

John 17
11 And now I am no longer in the world, but they are in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father,
protect them in your name that you have given me, so that they may be one, as we are one.

Jesus has exactly the same Name as the Father, Jesus surrended this Divine Name and became one of us,
then Jesus received this Name back again. Surely you can connect this Divine Name that Jesus received
with the Old Testament prophecy.

Judges 13
18 But the Malech of the Lord said to him, “Why do you ask my name? It is too wonderful.”

Jesus had this wonderful Name which He refused to reveal at this time.

Genesis 32
26 Then he said, “Let me go, for the day is breaking.” But Jacob said, “I will not let you go, unless you
bless me.” 27 So he said to him, “What is your name?” And he said, “Jacob.” 28 Then the man said,
“You shall no longer be called Jacob, but Israel, for you have striven with God and with humans, and have
prevailed.” 29 Then Jacob asked him, “Please tell me your name.” But he said, “Why is it that you ask my name?”
And there he blessed him.

Even early in the Old Testament, this wonderful Name would not be revealed, the true identity was always
hidden from view.

If you ever refer to the Father by any name, please remember to also apply that name to Jesus, He sits in the
center of the throne.

Hello klutedavid,

First we don't just get our understanding from the N/T, I know I don't. So, my understanding does not just come from the N/T, and apostles. The N/T agrees with the O/T of who Jesus is, and who the Father is. And yes the disciples may have grappled with the full understanding of who Jesus was, to some degree at first, but they understood him to be a man. They knew Jesus in person and Jesus revealed himself to them, after they received the spirit, and I have no doubt they knew who Jesus was, and I believe they would know better then anyone, who Jesus was, not someone a hundred, or two, years later, who never met Jesus, nor was taught by him. John does not teach Jesus is the God, nor does he try to teach Jesus is the God in his Gospel. In fact John makes it very clear what Jesus taught, that the Father is the only true God.

Besides this, truth is important, for God is light, and it certainly is important concerning this matter.

The apostles warning that false doctrine would come into the church and would be accepted by the church, that what happened to the people would happen to us as Peter said 2 Peter 2, and John about the antichrist, or in place of Christ, or what Paul says.

And I can see this for myself, that this is what scripture prophesied...

Remember when Moses went up the mountain? This represents Jesus going up to heaven. Then when Moses delayed coming back down, what happened? This represents Jesus delayed second coming...

Exodus 32
1 And when the people saw that Moses [Jesus] delayed to come down out of the mount, the people gathered themselves together unto Aaron, and said unto him, Up, make us gods, which shall go before us; for as for this Moses , the man that brought us up out of the land of Egypt, we wot not what is become of him... 4 And he received them at their hand, and fashioned it with a graving tool, after he had made it a molten calf: and they said, These be thy gods, O Israel, which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt. 5 And when Aaron saw it, he built an altar before it; and Aaron made proclamation, and said, To morrow is a feast to the LORD. 6 And they rose up early on the morrow, and offered burnt offerings, and brought peace offerings; and the people sat down to eat and to drink, and rose up to play.

7 And the LORD said unto Moses [Jesus], Go, get thee down; for thy people, which thou broughtest out of the land of Egypt, have corrupted themselves: 8 they have turned aside quickly out of the way which I commanded them: they have made them a molten calf, and have worshipped it, and have sacrificed thereunto, and said, These be thy gods, O Israel, which have brought thee up out of the land of Egypt.​

God tries to show man that we ourselves are beasts Ecclesiastes 3:18-19, we have the same spirit/breath of life, created on the same day, and so forth. In 1 Corinthians 9:9-10 Paul also shows by oxe God is referring to man. The molten calf replaced Moses a man, who represents Jesus. They worshiped the oxe, the man as God Romans 1.

There are more of these kinds of witnesses in scripture.

Also notice it says, they turned quickly to other gods, because it also speaks this way in another place in Judges 2 of the generation after the time of the apostles (as they warned about that these men were coming). Notice verses like verse 3, then notice how it speaks of the times of Jesus and the apostles that out lived Jesus in verse 7, then when all that generation died (as the apostles warned us) verse 10 they went after other gods verses 11-13 notice how it mentions Baal and Ashtoreth, then verse 17 “they would not hearken unto their judges, but they went a whoring after other gods, and bowed themselves unto them: they turned quickly out of the way which their fathers walked in.”

So, to me you have it backwards, the apostles had it right, but later men went after other gods, and false doctrine.

I don't struggle with who Jesus is, I can see clearly that scripture teaches in New and Old Testament, that the Father IS the only true God.

As for Jesus in the center, or in the midst of the throne, is he sitting or standing? I read God is sitting on the throne “Salvation to our God which sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb. - Rev 7:10” Not so serous though: if Jesus is sitting, he is sitting on the Father's lap. For it is the Father's throne.

There is the end, when all enemies are put under him, “For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet.” when he hands over the kingdom to the God and Father. And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him [which it was the Father that put all things under him], that God [the Father] may be all in all. The Father will be ruling over all. This does not mean there will not be authorities, but the Father now, as He intended it, but we rejected Him and demanded a king instead of God the Father to rule over us, will be ruling over all.

And I truly, and absolutely have to disagree with you about Jesus being a man. He had to be a man, tempted as we are, yet without sin; resisted sin, so that he could destroy sin in the flesh for us, and be a faithful high priest. And he needed to die, to cancel the law against us, and raised back to life, that we may live the new life.
We still have Jesus after his resurrection calling God, his God and Father. How can the person, the “God person” who is only one person, call someone else God? Scriptures New and Old shows over and over, and in many different ways, that the Father is the only true God, plain and simple.

Simply stating men somehow later on, came to a better understanding then the apostles, is not going to be enough, and actually goes against what scripture does teach.

Yes, Jesus does have a new name.