Did Paul Invent Christianity?

a reply to: Matrixsurvivor

here is a link that debunks those so called contradictions.
No Contradictions in the Bible

You see we could go at this all year.

The point is if you don't believe the word of God is the word of God why even use it to prove or disprove anything?

Unless you are trying to convert people?

which is against the T&C of ATS.

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a reply to: Matrixsurvivor

here is a link that debunks those so called contradictions.
No Contradictions in the Bible

You see we could go at this all year.

The point is if you don't believe the word of God is the word of God why even use it to prove or disprove anything?

Unless you are trying to convert people?

which is against the T&C of ATS.

Bet you didn't even look at the link, did you?

I don't have any desire to convert anyone to anything anymore. As a Christian, that pressure was always on me...you know, "Win Soul's For Christ!".

Why are you on here arguing with those who don't think Paul is legit? Are you trying to convert people to the inerrant word of God?

Actually, since coming out of Pauline Christianity....I feel more free to love those OUTSIDE the "church" than ever before. No longer is it that "us against them" mentality. You know, the same one you have against Muslims.
I interact more with the rest of the world, instead of staying in a "holy huddle" in some church building or home group, afraid to interact with those outside who were "sinners", lest I get "stained or led astray".

You know.....kinda like Jesus did.

a reply to: MatrixsurvivorI have read most of those articles and am a friend of Ken.

I will discuss Paul because he and the inspired words of God penned by him are in the preserved Bible which I hold to be true, accurate and without corruption.

The term winning souls is not found in the Bible.

You are either for Christ or against him. If you are with them of the world then you are an enemy of God.

No you are trying to convert people to your way of thinking against the books God inspired and preserved in the Bible, namely Romans through Philemon. And any other books or verses you don't deem important or in error.

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a reply to: MatrixsurvivorI have read most of those articles and am a friend of Ken.

Then be daring and look at the one I sent you. Or, are you afraid, too?

a reply to: Matrixsurvivor

I have read it all before. Like the book says nothing new under the sun.

Like hating Paul is nothing new.

a reply to: whereislogic

Originally posted by Joecroft
How can you say the verses in Proverbs 8 are not talking about God and a co-creator…?

Verses 27 to 29 talk about the aspects of creation which were formed and then right after verse 30 states, “Then I was the craftsmen at his side…”…

Which means the “Co-creator” (the craftsmen), was right there by Gods side, helping God with creation from the beginning…

Originally posted by whereislogic
It doesn't mean "Co-creator". The power for creation came from God through his holy spirit, or active force.
Genesis 1:2:

2 Now the earth was formless and desolate,* and there was darkness upon the surface of the watery deep,* and God’s active force* was moving about over the surface of the waters.

JW’s believe Jesus is “a god”…a god is defined as a creator…which is what the entity (Jesus) in Proverbs 8 does i.e. helps God/Father with the creation…

Take the following example…

If you build a house on your own, who has created that house…? Now one could say “Well, God created the bricks, and the wood, God also created me and therefor God created the house”…

In other words, if we keep cancelling down, then only the Father God ever creates anything…Which in terms of Gods power is true and is why Jesus makes that statement that you quoted in Matthew 19:4… because Jesus always gives glory to the Father…

But when we cancel down like that, it’s kind of like saying “God the Father can’t create beings who can also create things…”… or similarly it’s like saying “YOU were the AGENT through which GOD built the house” etc…

You see, I would say that both YOU and the Father are co-creators of the house…IMO…but if you cancel down… it becomes God/Father created everything, including the house…

One can say the Father created Universe, but it can also be said that the Father and Son created the Universe too…it may seem like a paradox but both statements can be true…

For example, if I use Gods power to create something, then I am definitely a partaker in that creation along with God/Father…It may not be my power, but I am using that power to create…I am essentially co-creating with the Father…


The Holy Spirit is the Father and Son working together…IMO

The verses in proverbs 8 describe an entity (Jesus/Son) being brought forth, who is by Gods side the whole time throughout creation…but that entity is not just siting around observing things, but is described as being a craftsmen or worker.

Workers do some kind of work, and that work must be in context with the preceding verses which talk about creation. The other translation uses the word “craftsmen” which describes it even better, because a craftsmen is someone who builds things, again that’s tied in with creating…

You quoted Genesis 1:2…

But there’s also this verse below…Genesis 1:26

26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness:

The word “Us” is clearly talking about more than One being, and the very next word is “make” which means to create. Which means the phrase “let US CREATE” is talking about more than one entity doing the creating…This is all in complete alignment with those verses in Proverbs 8…


- JC

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a reply to: MatrixsurvivorI have read most of those articles and am a friend of Ken.

Oh....I'm for Jesus. He's the only one that speaks truth. You, however, can't seem to hear the "Lord and Savior" you profess, because Paul's rhetoric trumps your Savior. So, am I against Jesus because I ONLY believe what He said? Am I for Jesus or against Him, Chester?
You see, I've said continuously through this thread that I DO believe in Him and what He taught. Yet, somehow in your mind, since I've rejected Paul, then I'm NOT listening or adhering to Jesus. Dude, that's messed up from here to Sunday.

a reply to: Matrixsurvivor

Originally posted by Matrixsurvivor
It wasn't just "damage limitation". Jesus knew they would murder Him for what He brought to the Israelites, and the whole world....TRUTH. That was His whole mission. Not to be a "blood sacrifice", but to show the world the truth.

Well, he certainly knew he was going up against the establishment and could most likely get murdered for it. What Jesus did was very brave and also very loving…IMO…

But yes I agree; it’s Jesus message of truth which is what saves people (Saves Spiritually) not some blood sacrifice…

I totally agree…

- JC

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a reply to: MatrixsurvivorI have read most of those articles and am a friend of Ken.

I will discuss Paul because he and the inspired words of God penned by him are in the preserved Bible which I hold to be true, accurate and without corruption.

The term winning souls is not found in the Bible.

You are either for Christ or against him. If you are with them of the world then you are an enemy of God.

Do you mean ''for Christ...and Paul, or just Christ?

Because I am for Christ.

And not with Paul.

Oh, and you tried saying something about Islam having an Imam who taught the doctrine of the Antichrist (you would know the antichrist doctrines I suppose, being a follower of and all, though I would bet my last dollar you know nothing of what any Imam taught)?

You might want to look into the fact that Islam also has prophecies about an anti-Messiah who fools people into thinking he is Jesus that are pretty much identical to those of Christianity.

So...yeah. I don't think you should be taking about things of which you know nothing as absolute facts.

Never a good idea.

No you are trying to convert people to your way of thinking against the books God inspired and preserved in the Bible, namely Romans through Philemon. And any other books or verses you don't deem important or in error.

So basically the antichrist, as Christianity calls it, is called the Dajjal which means deciever.

Jesus the Messiah will appear alongside the Mahdi and defeat Al Dajjal.

I don't want to pretend that I didn't just learn about this and say something untrue so here is a link:

Oh, just a warning, while I can say that the prophecy in Islam of the Antichrist does exist I can not say for sure that some of the not so flattering to Islam or Christianity things this link says are true.

In hindsight I should have found a better link, but I am not going to delete it because it's not so flattering to my religion. These are not by any means my thoughts and may be slightly... wrong.

But it's confirmation that Islam believes Jesus is the Messiah and in an end times return of Jesus to defeat the Antichrist.

KEEP IN MIND it is written by a Christian who freely quotes Paul and is apparently hostile to Islam.

He says some things I know no Muslim actually believes outside of fanatics but also confirms that Islam believes in Christ and the Antichrist.

Antichrist in Islam

originally posted by: Joecroft
a reply to: Matrixsurvivor

Originally posted by Matrixsurvivor
It wasn't just "damage limitation". Jesus knew they would murder Him for what He brought to the Israelites, and the whole world....TRUTH. That was His whole mission. Not to be a "blood sacrifice", but to show the world the truth.

Well, he certainly knew he was going up against the establishment and could most likely get murdered for it. What Jesus did was very brave and also very loving…IMO…

But yes I agree; it’s Jesus message of truth which is what saves people (Saves Spiritually) not some blood sacrifice…

I totally agree…

- JC

Thank you, Joe. Yes, He was murdered....for going against the establishment (corrupt priests... who definitely followed YHWH). He taught truth...the truth that came directly from the TRUE Father, whim Jesus Himself said, " no man had seen or known".

And for the sake of fairness and truthfulness here is what an actual Muslim has to say regarding the Dajjal/Antichrist/beast.

Dijjal

I would have to imagine that this is a more Qur'an accurate version than the words of a Christian hostile to Islam.

It is testimony from both sides that Islam does believe Jesus is the Messiah and in the Antichrist.

Ruling out any notions of Islam BEING the Antichrist as so many a tolerant Christian like to say, whether jokingly or otherwise.

It doesn't offend me anyway because such ignorance is best reacted against with humor than anger.

originally posted by: Joecroft
a reply to: Malocchio

Originally posted by Malocchio
I always enjoy your comments.

Thanks…

I quite like your posts too, you’ve clearly done a lot of research into this subject. There’s tons of between the lines evidence for these things too…IMO

But the fact that you’re born of the Spirit outside of any Doctrine, makes it all the more awesome…

I appreciate the compliment, we have much in common I would say.

Originally posted by Malocchio
I feel that without the Spirit you will get stuck in exactly what you said, in fact I believe they want that.

The last thing any Church needs is for its members to understand the Bible, what it says and means.

They will provide the meaning for you usually.

Yes, the OT beliefs concealed the knowledge of the Spirit, and made it exclusive property for just the elite, the scribes and the priests etc…

Then Jesus came preaching the real Spiritual truth so that all could enter the kingdom of God, which naturally caused problems for the power elite and their fear based control system over others.

The genie was out of the bottle so to speak, which meant it was essentially a patch up operation, or a damage limitation project.

Rome with the help of Paul came along and brought back in elements from the original control system and put them along side some of Jesus true teachings, resulting in Christianity as we know it today.


- JC

Yes it seems if Paul had any real power it was his ''magic eraser" of all the Spiritually liberating teachings of Jesus and the Spirit.

Who is given at Baptism.

"Christ sent me NOT to Baptize..."

The proper way I should have structured that was:

"Christ sent me not..."

Because Christ and Paul never met, but it made my point and would have been a little misleading.

Interesting thing. I mentioned that most of what falls under the NT Apocrypha is classified as Clementina.

I think because like the Homilies and Recognitions of Clement they have the same source.

Christ makes post Ascension appearances in almost every Acts of...the individual Apostles helping them usually incognito before revealing himself and I wonder if it was an attempt at neutralizing Paul's claims while telling OT style stories, probably serving as the new scriptures of the Ebionites/Nazarenes before their demises?

Because Clementina refers to a large body of texts I have in a book about 700 pages long, 500 devoted to the Clementina and the rest ancient Syriac documents and the notorious ''false decretals."

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a reply to: Malocchio

If it doesn't agree with the preserved word of God they are lies and opinions. Because God's word is true and pure. Not error filled and corrupt.

That sounds... irrational.

The Bible has issues, nobody familiar with it would deny that so I guess you aren't familiar.

To boot you think that English was the only language it was ''preserved" in, and ONLY the 1611 KJV you use.

Sucks for all those non English speaking folks desirous of eternal salvation I guess because if only one version of one languages Bible is preserved:

That's pretty much saying God only cares about English speaking people who can bare that horrible old English with the thees and thous and ugh.

I am rather certain that your ''Authorized (By King James, not God)" has more flaws than the moderns like the Jerusalem Bible or the NRSV that actually used the Dead Sea Scrolls, being the oldest in the world, combined with the Septuagint, Vulgate and the Masoretic texts to determine the most accurate to the original Hebrew/Aramaic and Greek for the New Testament (as oddly they were written in Greek) as best as possible, is far more accurate and readable than that KJV.

If you think God only preserved one version of the Bible and in English, well you are welcome to believe that but it is hilarious and absurd that you do.

Do Messianic Jews that don't speak English have to reverse translate from English back into Hebrew to have the preserved word, how does that work?

Or do they have to learn English?

originally posted by: Malocchio

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a reply to: Malocchio

If it doesn't agree with the preserved word of God they are lies and opinions. Because God's word is true and pure. Not error filled and corrupt.

That sounds... irrational.

The Bible has issues, nobody familiar with it would deny that so I guess you aren't familiar.

To boot you think that English was the only language it was ''preserved" in, and ONLY the 1611 KJV you use.

Sucks for all those non English speaking folks desirous of eternal salvation I guess because if only one version of one languages Bible is preserved:

That's pretty much saying God only cares about English speaking people who can bare that horrible old English with the thees and thous and ugh.

I am rather certain that your ''Authorized (By King James, not God)" has more flaws than the moderns like the Jerusalem Bible or the NRSV that actually used the Dead Sea Scrolls, being the oldest in the world, combined with the Septuagint, Vulgate and the Masoretic texts to determine the most accurate to the original Hebrew/Aramaic and Greek for the New Testament (as oddly they were written in Greek) as best as possible, is far more accurate and readable than that KJV.

If you think God only preserved one version of the Bible and in English, well you are welcome to believe that but it is hilarious and absurd that you do.

Do Messianic Jews that don't speak English have to reverse translate from English back into Hebrew to have the preserved word, how does that work?

Or do they have to learn English?

a reply to: Malocchio

Originally posted by Malocchio
Christ makes post Ascension appearances in almost every Acts of...the individual Apostles helping them usually incognito before revealing himself and I wonder if it was an attempt at neutralizing Paul's claims while telling OT style stories, probably serving as the new scriptures of the Ebionites/Nazarenes before their demises?

I think it could be the other way around…because those “Acts of” books promote the idea that Revelations (post Ascension) from Jesus (which Paul claimed) were a natural thing…because many other disciples were (supposedly) having revelations too. In other words, it helps make Pauls claims look more natural if other Apostles are having revelations as well.

But the crazy thing is that those other 12 Apostles didn’t need extra secret revelations because they knew Christ during his lifetime…

Also the “Acts of Peter and Paul” for example appears to look favourably on Paul, as does the text “The Acts of Paul”, which actually ridicules the follower Hermogenes in some parts…

I’m not sure on the exact dating of each of those Acts Books (13 in total I think) but I think most were written in mid to late 2nd century…


- JC

a reply to: Joecroft

Well, the Apocryphal Acts don't have just a voice doing the revealing but actual sightings of, so they serve more to one up than make Paul seem legit.

And the Paul from Acts of Peter and Paul is entirely subservient to Peter, sometimes it is even hard to tell when Simon is speaking or Paul and he is never called Apostle so I can't imagine that he was included in the story to boost his rep.

Also the Acts of Paul and Thecla portrays him as a serious jerk even refusing to Baptize a woman.

Who is put through a Daniel like test and fed to the lions only to be saved by the lioness and freed.

At which point she Baptized herself and God sends a sign that he accepts.

So I think my first analysis fits better.

Christ said he would always be with the Apostles and he meant it, I see no issue with post Ascension appearances. It's very Old Testament style divine intervention.

a reply to: Joecroft

I never read Acts of Paul to be honest and don't think it would belong to the decidedly anti Pauline Clementina, I think it was thrown in to offset the tone of the rest which is anti Pauline or Pauline absent or has him subservient to Peter.

It's gotta be a misfit of all the texts, Ill have to give it a read.

Yeah and truthfully they may be second century they may be not but the same could honestly be said of the Gospels, so again no problem there.

As far as Homilies and Recognitions go while they show a knowledge of some Gospel teachings the manuscripts extant are as old as the oldest New Testament.

Dating is a guessing game anyway but the fact that the oldest of each are the same age is saying something.

a reply to: Malocchio

Originally posted by Malocchio
Well, the Apocryphal Acts don't have just a voice doing the revealing but actual sightings of, so they serve more to one up than make Paul seem legit.

Depends what’s being taught via the sightings of Jesus, because if you’re going to “one up” somebody, then you want a teaching/revelation which goes against what Paul and standard Christianity is teaching…

There’s a lot of those Acts books, maybe some of them do some “one upping”, but I would have to see specific examples in each case, and there’s quite a few of them altogether…(Acts Books that is)

Originally posted by Malocchio
And the Paul from Acts of Peter and Paul is entirely subservient to Peter, sometimes it is even hard to tell when Simon is speaking or Paul and he is never called Apostle so I can't imagine that he was included in the story to boost his rep.

Subservient to Peter…are you sure…?

Take a look at this extract from The Acts of Peter and Paul...below…

The Acts of Peter and Paul
And while they were thus doing, some of those that had repented out of the nations, and that had been baptized at the preaching of Peter, sent elders to Paul with a letter to the following effect: Paul, dear servant of our Lord Jesus Christ, and brother of Peter, the first of the apostles, we have heard from the rabbis of the Jews that are in this Rome, the greatest of the cities, that they have asked Caesar to send into all his governments, in order that, wherever thou mayst be found, thou mayst be put to death. But we have believed, and do believe, that as God does not separate the two great lights which He has made, so He is not to part you from each other, that is, neither Peter from Paul, nor Paul from Peter; but we positively believe in our Lord Jesus Christ, into whom we have been baptized, that we have become worthy also of your teaching.

The parts I’ve highlighted are clearly putting Paul on par with Peter by comparing them both to “two great lights”…

Looks like Pauls Rep is getting boosted in that extract above…IMO


And here’s an extract from “The Act of Paul”

1 When Paul went up unto Iconium after he fled from Antioch, there journeyed with him Demas and Hermogenes the coppersmith, which were full of hypocrisy, and flattered Paul as though they loved him. But Paul, looking only unto the goodness of Christ, did them no evil, but loved them well, so that he assayed to make sweet unto them all the oracles of the Lord, and of the teaching and the interpretation (of the Gospel) and of the birth and resurrection of the Beloved, and related unto them word by word all the great works of Christ, how they were revealed unto him (Copt. adds: how that Christ was born of Mary the virgin, and of the seed of David).

I’ve highlighted the key parts. But as you can see it ridicules Hermogenes, and makes Paul look like some kind of Saint…

But yeah, like I was saying, there are a lot of those Acts books; I would have to take each one, on a case by case basis, to make a decent overall conclusion…

Originally posted by Malocchio
Also the Acts of Paul and Thecla portrays him as a serious jerk even refusing to Baptize a woman.

Who is put through a Daniel like test and fed to the lions only to be saved by the lioness and freed.

At which point she Baptized herself and God sends a sign that he accepts.

So I think my first analysis fits better.

In the story of “the Acts of Paul and Thecla”, Thelca loves Pauls teachings, she follows him around…and finally ends up at his tomb…The underling theme of the whole story is really about Pauls teaching about chastity…so overall it’s trying to paint Paul in a good light…

Originally posted by Malocchio
Christ said he would always be with the Apostles and he meant it, I see no issue with post Ascension appearances. It's very Old Testament style divine intervention.

Does this mean you believe in Jesus resurrection, his later appearances to the disciples and then his Ascension into Heaven…?

- JC

a reply to: Joecroft
"a god" is not defined as "a creator" (or doesn't automatically mean "a creator"). The broader definition (or possible definitions and meanings, including nuances in meaning) for the Hebrew and Greek words that have been translated to "God", "gods", "god" and "a god" in English bible translations is quite well defined and discussed in the video I shared about that (first comment you were responding to); the context often makes it more clear which nuance to think about. The Hebrew and Greek words that have been translated as "the Creator" are completely different, are not synonyms, and can hardly be accidentily mistaken or conflated with the word "God" or "a god" just because the subject is related as explained below.

God: Insight, Volume 1

GOD

Anything that is worshiped can be termed a god, inasmuch as the worshiper attributes to it might greater than his own and venerates it. A person can even let his belly be a god. (Ro 16:18; Php 3:18, 19) The Bible makes mention of many gods (Ps 86:8; 1Co 8:5, 6), but it shows that the gods of the nations are valueless gods.—Ps 96:5; see GODS AND GODDESSES.

Hebrew Terms. Among the Hebrew words that are translated “God” is ʼEl, probably meaning “Mighty One; Strong One.” (Ge 14:18) It is used with reference to Jehovah, to other gods, and to men. It is also used extensively in the makeup of proper names, such as Elisha (meaning “God Is Salvation”) and Michael (“Who Is Like God?”). In some places ʼEl appears with the definite article (ha·ʼElʹ, literally, “the God”) with reference to Jehovah, thereby distinguishing him from other gods.—Ge 46:3; 2Sa 22:31; see NW appendix, p. 1567.

At Isaiah 9:6 Jesus Christ is prophetically called ʼEl Gib·bohrʹ, “Mighty God” (not ʼEl Shad·daiʹ [God Almighty], which is applied to Jehovah at Genesis 17:1).

The plural form, ʼe·limʹ, is used when referring to other gods, such as at Exodus 15:11 (“gods”). It is also used as the plural of majesty and excellence, as in Psalm 89:6: “Who can resemble Jehovah among the sons of God [bi·venehʹ ʼE·limʹ]?” That the plural form is used to denote a single individual here and in a number of other places is supported by the translation of ʼE·limʹ by the singular form The·osʹ in the Greek Septuagint; likewise by Deus in the Latin Vulgate.

The Hebrew word ʼelo·himʹ (gods) appears to be from a root meaning “be strong.” ʼElo·himʹ is the plural of ʼelohʹah (god). Sometimes this plural refers to a number of gods (Ge 31:30, 32; 35:2), but more often it is used as a plural of majesty, dignity, or excellence. ʼElo·himʹ is used in the Scriptures with reference to Jehovah himself, to angels, to idol gods (singular and plural), and to men.

When applying to Jehovah, ʼElo·himʹ is used as a plural of majesty, dignity, or excellence. (Ge 1:1) Regarding this, Aaron Ember wrote: “That the language of the O[ld] T[estament] has entirely given up the idea of plurality in . . . [ʼElo·himʹ] (as applied to the God of Israel) is especially shown by the fact that it is almost invariably construed with a singular verbal predicate, and takes a singular adjectival attribute. . . . [ʼElo·himʹ] must rather be explained as an intensive plural, denoting greatness and majesty, being equal to The Great God.”—The American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures, Vol. XXI, 1905, p. 208.

The title ʼElo·himʹ draws attention to Jehovah’s strength as the Creator [whereislogic: it still doesn't mean or isn't defined as "a creator"]. It appears 35 times by itself in the account of creation, and every time the verb describing what he said and did is in the singular number. (Ge 1:1–2:4) In him resides the sum and substance of infinite forces.

At Psalm 8:5, the angels are also referred to as ʼelo·himʹ, as is confirmed by Paul’s quotation of the passage at Hebrews 2:6-8. They are called benehʹ ha·ʼElo·himʹ, “sons of God” (KJ); “sons of the true God” (NW), at Genesis 6:2, 4; Job 1:6; 2:1. Lexicon in Veteris Testamenti Libros, by Koehler and Baumgartner (1958), page 134, says: “(individual) divine beings, gods.” And page 51 says: “the (single) gods,” and it cites Genesis 6:2; Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7. Hence, at Psalm 8:5 ʼelo·himʹ is rendered “angels” (LXX); “godlike ones” (NW).

The word ʼelo·himʹ is also used when referring to idol gods. Sometimes this plural form means simply “gods.” (Ex 12:12; 20:23) At other times it is the plural of excellence and only one god (or goddess) is referred to. However, these gods were clearly not trinities.—1Sa 5:7b (Dagon); 1Ki 11:5 (“goddess” Ashtoreth); Da 1:2b (Marduk).

At Psalm 82:1, 6, ʼelo·himʹ is used of men, human judges in Israel. Jesus quoted from this Psalm at John 10:34, 35. They were gods in their capacity as representatives of and spokesmen for Jehovah. Similarly Moses was told that he was to serve as “God” to Aaron and to Pharaoh.—Ex 4:16, ftn; 7:1.

In many places in the Scriptures ʼElo·himʹ is also found preceded by the definite article ha. (Ge 5:22) Concerning the use of ha·ʼElo·himʹ, F. Zorell says: “In the Holy Scriptures especially the one true God, Jahve, is designated by this word; . . . ‘Jahve is the [one true] God’ De 4:35; 4:39; Jos 22:34; 2Sa 7:28; 1Ki 8:60 etc.”—Lexicon Hebraicum Veteris Testamenti, Rome, 1984, p. 54; brackets his.

The Greek Term. The usual Greek equivalent of ʼEl and ʼElo·himʹ in the Septuagint translation and the word for “God” or “god” in the Christian Greek Scriptures is the·osʹ.

The True God Jehovah. The true God is not a nameless God. His name is Jehovah. (De 6:4; Ps 83:18) He is God by reason of his creatorship. (Ge 1:1; Re 4:11) [whereislogic: again, the word "God" still doesn't mean "creator" or "creatorship", and someone or something can be a god without "creatorship" as demonstrated with the different usages of that word above. Someone's belly doesn't have creatorship either to name an extreme example.] The true God is real (Joh 7:28), a person (Ac 3:19; Heb 9:24), and not lifeless natural law operating without a living lawgiver, not blind force working through a series of accidents to develop one thing or another. The 1956 edition of The Encyclopedia Americana (Vol. XII, p. 743) commented under the heading “God”: “In the Christian, Mohammedan, and Jewish sense, the Supreme Being, the First Cause, and in a general sense, as considered nowadays throughout the civilized world, a spiritual being, self-existent, eternal and absolutely free and all-powerful, distinct from the matter which he has created in many forms, and which he conserves and controls. There does not seem to have been a period of history where mankind was without belief in a supernatural author and governor of the universe.”

Jesus was created. He has a beginning (when he was created by Jehovah before his human existence as all the Scriptures about that subject show). He is a god/mighty one. He is not Jehovah or equal to Jehovah, who is his Father and his God. Jehovah has no Father, no God, no equal, no beginning and is not created.