Do you know the truth? Is Jesus God? Find out here!

a reply to: Akragon

I do not want to argue.

I am curious as you state you are not Christian but you say you have faith. OK What church do you belong to? Do you attend church anymore?

Can you give me a statement of your faith? Another words explain what you believe or send me to one of your threads

Thanks

a reply to: DeathSlayer

I am curious as you state you are not Christian but you say you have faith. OK What church do you belong to? Do you attend church anymore?

Does one need to belong to a church or congregation to have faith?

Or perhaps accept a particular label?

Can you give me a statement of your faith? Another words explain what you believe or send me to one of your threads

Sure... Believe

Life is much more then what is seen..

And love all as yourself

a reply to: whereislogic

But I don't think angels in heaven have literal knees they can bend. I'm also noticing that it isn't mentioned that they should bend the knee for or to Jesus but "in the name of Jesus". Such as when you're doing something in the name of .....

Let's see what the Bible says...

Romans 14:11

11 For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God.

Romans 14:8-9

8 For whether we live, we live unto the Lord; and whether we die, we die unto the Lord: whether we live therefore, or die, we are the Lord's.

9 For to this end Christ both died, and rose, and revived, that he might be Lord both of the dead and living.

Everything will bow and confess that Jesus Christ is Lord.

By the way, what power do you think is in "the name of Jesus", if Jesus himself wasn't of God?

According to the Bible, we will be the ones judging the angels.

a reply to: whereislogic

Since "Christ" means "anointed one" giving a clear indication of being anointed by someone else (the bible also teaches elsewhere that it was God who anointed him), and since Trinitarians will make no mention of this, they can say Jesus is the Christ all they want but they are still denying that Jesus is the Christ (Messiah), the anointed one of Jehovah, appointed by Jehovah to be "heir of all things". On top of that they are denying Jehovah's existence in the manner I just explained, thus they deny the Father and the Son (which includes their teachings, not just their existence as 2 different individuals).

Trinitarians are not denying God by believing that Father/Son/Holy Spirit are ONE, as explained in the Bible.

1 John 5:7 - For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

Matthew 28:19 - Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

John 1:1-2 - 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

2 The same was in the beginning with God.

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

So, just to be clear, God did not create Jesus. Jesus was in the beginning with God and was God, according to scripture.

a reply to: whereislogic

Hebrews 1:8,9

8 But about the Son, he says: “God is your throne forever and ever, and the scepter of your Kingdom is the scepter of uprightness. 9 You loved righteousness, and you hated lawlessness. That is why God, your God, anointed you with the oil of exultation more than your companions.”

Here is another verse showing why Paul is stating, "That is why God, your God...

John 20:26-28

26 And after eight days again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them: then came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace be unto you.

27 Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing.

28 And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.

a reply to: whereislogic

16 After being baptized, Jesus immediately came up from the water; and look! the heavens were opened up, and he saw God’s spirit descending like a dove and coming upon him. 17 Look! Also, a voice from the heavens said: “This is my Son, the beloved, whom I have approved.”

So was Jesus performing some kind of ventriloquist act here? Or was that his God speaking about him and calling him "my Son", not "my God" or "God" like the way Jesus constantly refers to Jehovah as "my God"? Does Jesus have a God that is greater than Jesus?

It amazes me how people try to put limitations on God, who we all know (or should know) is capable of being everywhere at once (in as many forms as he wishes) while speaking to as many people at the same time as he chooses. Do you think he only hears and responds to each individual's prayers one at a time?

Of course Jesus was going to refer to God as his God and his Father while he was in the flesh, even though he was in the beginning with God also. He is a part of God, yet they are ONE. This is the only way that he could get people to understand who God was while showing them how to be servants here on earth in the flesh. As we can plainly see, a lot of people are not capable of understanding it any other way.

a reply to: whereislogic

Mark 12:29

29 And Jesus answered him, The FIRST of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord:

a reply to: Deetermined

"Our" God. Jesus includes himself in that saying it's His God also. Separating himself from God. Outside of stretched interpretations, the bible doesn't support Jesus being God.
It's fine for you to believe Jesus is God. Its just not something everyone can do though. Considering that Jesus left behind zero texts and that the Gospels were written 80 years after Jesus' death. Plus you have to "interperet" scripture to get it to mean things.

a reply to: Milkweed

"Our" God. Jesus includes himself in that saying it's His God also. Separating himself from God. Outside of stretched interpretations, the bible doesn't support Jesus being God.

Of course he does, he's there with them in the flesh, but he also had this to say...

John 14:8-10

8 Philip saith unto him, Lord, show us the Father, and it sufficeth us.

9 Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Show us the Father?

10 Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.

He doesn't just say that the Father is in him, he says "I am in the Father". Those who have seen Jesus, have seen a part of God. Just as those who lived during the time of Moses saw God/Jesus through the "Angel of the Lord" (which was another title). Jesus is the Word (who was in the beginning with God and is God), both written and spoken about in both the Old and New Testaments, just with different names.

Deuteronomy 6:4

4 Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord:

a reply to: Milkweed

John 5:39 - 47

39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.

40 And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life.

41 I receive not honour from men.

42 But I know you, that ye have not the love of God in you.

43 I am come in my Father's name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive.

44 How can ye believe, which receive honour one of another, and seek not the honour that cometh from God only?

45 Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father: there is one that accuseth you, even Moses, in whom ye trust.

46 For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me; for he wrote of me.

47 But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?

a reply to: Deetermined

While it is possible that those scriptures do point to that conclusion...I'd say that they don't.

1) These are words that someone claims Jesus spoke. Not his direct words.

2) The people who wrote the Gospels had determined the divinity of Jesus long before they wrote them. This would cause a bias...especially when recalling events of Jesus' life.

3)interpretation is still necessary to get to "Jesus is God".

To take a leap of faith and put your trust in someone as your Lord and savior is a huge deal. We can't know anything for certain about Jesus or his life.

Scriptures are written by man. Man is fallible.
I don't read them as God's word. They are man''s word.

a reply to: Milkweed

1) These are words that someone claims Jesus spoke. Not his direct words.

2) The people who wrote the Gospels had determined the divinity of Jesus long before they wrote them. This would cause a bias...especially when recalling events of Jesus' life.

Don't you remember how the apostles were supposed to remember what Jesus had told them and show them what they should say?

John 14:13-18

13 And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son.

14 If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it.

15 If ye love me, keep my commandments.

16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;

17 Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.

18 I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you.

(Emphasis on "I" (Jesus) as being the Comforter, otherwise known as the Holy Spirit, who helped them to remember all things. In verse 18, Jesus himself admits that he is the one who will be coming to them in the form of the Holy Spirit.)

John 14:25-26

25 These things have I spoken unto you, being yet present with you.

26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

a reply to: Deetermined

Again...referencing the Bible will only benifit you in a conversation with a Christian. I don't believe in the word of man. And even after reading the scriptures you provided...I still see no claim to be God by Jesus.

a reply to: Milkweed

That's the same reason why Jesus spoke in parables.

Matthew 13:13-15

13 Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.

14 And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive:

15 For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.

Luke 8:10-11

10 And he said, Unto you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God: but to others in parables; that seeing they might not see, and hearing they might not understand.

11 Now the parable is this: The seed is the word of God.

a reply to: Deetermined

So what's your explanation for scriptures that contradict you?

Joh 7:16 Jesus answered them and said, "My doctrine is not Mine, but His who sent Me.

Joh 12:49 "For I have not spoken on My own authority; but the Father who sent Me gave Me a command, what I should say and what I should speak.

Mat 27:46
About three in the afternoon Jesus cried out in a loud voice, "Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?" (which means "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?").

So which of Jesus' statements do we ignore to come to the conclusion that he is God?

originally posted by: Deetermined
a reply to: whereislogic

1 John 5:7 - ...

These are Trinitarian scholars:

John 1:1... and the Word was God.

You seem to be repeating many verses that I already discussed (I already discussed 1 John 5:7 before as well, as did Akragon, page 4) so I'll just add the next piece of evidence how this verse should be translated and what John really was talking about.

Was the Word “God” or “a god”?

THAT question has to be considered when Bible translators handle the first verse of the Gospel of John. In the New World Translation, the verse is rendered: “In the beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.” (John 1:1) Some other translations render the last part of the verse to convey the thought that the Word was “divine,” or something similar. (A New Translation of the Bible, by James Moffatt; The New English Bible) Many translations, however, render the last part of John 1:1: “And the Word was God.”—The Holy Bible—New International Version; The Jerusalem Bible.

Greek grammar and the context strongly indicate that the New World Translation rendering is correct and that “the Word” should not be identified as the “God” referred to earlier in the verse. Nevertheless, the fact that the Greek language of the first century did not have an indefinite article (“a” or “an”) leaves the matter open to question in some minds. It is for this reason that a Bible translation in a language that was spoken in the earliest centuries of our Common Era is very interesting.

The language is the Sahidic dialect of Coptic. The Coptic language was spoken in Egypt in the centuries immediately following Jesus’ earthly ministry, and the Sahidic dialect was an early literary form of the language. Regarding the earliest Coptic translations of the Bible, The Anchor Bible Dictionary says: “Since the [Septuagint] and the [Christian Greek Scriptures] were being translated into Coptic during the 3d century C.E., the Coptic version is based on [Greek manuscripts] which are significantly older than the vast majority of extant witnesses.”

The Sahidic Coptic text is especially interesting for two reasons. First, as indicated above, it reflects an understanding of Scripture dating from before the fourth century, which was when the Trinity became official doctrine. Second, Coptic grammar is relatively close to English grammar in one important aspect. The earliest translations of the Christian Greek Scriptures were into Syriac, Latin, and Coptic. Syriac and Latin, like the Greek of those days, do not have an indefinite article. Coptic, however, does. Moreover, scholar Thomas O. Lambdin, in his work Introduction to Sahidic Coptic, says: “The use of the Coptic articles, both definite and indefinite, corresponds closely to the use of the articles in English.”

Hence, the Coptic translation supplies interesting evidence as to how John 1:1 would have been understood back then. What do we find? The Sahidic Coptic translation uses an indefinite article with the word “god” in the final part of John 1:1. Thus, when rendered into modern English, the translation reads: “And the Word was a god.” Evidently, those ancient translators realized that John’s words recorded at John 1:1 did not mean that Jesus was to be identified as Almighty God. The Word was a god, not Almighty God.

So no, "the idea that Jesus was God" is not found in John unlike what Akragon said (I was quoting Akragon). John teaches that when Jesus (the Word) was with God (Almighty) he was a god (or divine, a divine being, which is what that word means in that particular grammar and context; the evidence for this is extensive and I haven't even shared all of it). Did you know there's a Trinitarian translator that worked on the ASV that acknowledges this yet the ASV still says "and the Word was God" at the end of John 1:1? As mentioned earlier on page 4:

Or to put it in the words of Joseph Henry Thayer, a scholar who worked on the American Standard Version: “The Logos [or, Word] was divine, not the divine Being himself.”

Yet, the ASV still says , "the Word was God", how about that for hypocrisy, deception and dishonesty? They know the truth of the matter but they still want people to read "the Word was God" and be none the wiser.

More details about the Coptic translation can be found in my commentary in the thread:

The Word was with God, and the Word was A god

Coptic John 1:1 -- Ambiguous?

According to Dr. Jason D. BeDuhn, the Greek text of John 1:1 is, grammatically, not a difficult verse to translate. "It follows familiar, ordinary structures of Greek expression." (Truth in Translation, 2003, p. 132) Dr. BeDuhn would render the Greek of John 1:1c literally as "and the Word was a god," or in "a slightly polished" variant carrying the same meaning, "and the Word was divine." According to BeDuhn, the traditional, Latin Vulgate-inspired reading formalized by the King James Version, "and the Word was God," is the least accurate rendering of the Greek text, a reading that violates the grammar and syntax.

The same conclusion can be readily drawn about the Sahidic Coptic translation of John 1:1c. This is a fairly literal translation of the Greek, made in the 2nd or 3rd century of our Common Era, at a time and place where the Koine Greek of the New Testament was still a living language and widely understood in Egypt.

In regular Coptic syntax, auw neunoute pe pSaje means, straightforwardly, "and the Word was a god." And just as the Greek sentence at John 1:1c may express a qualitative force, the Coptic syntactical unit which corresponds to that Greek sentence may express an adjectival force. In other words, both may also be rendered as "and the Word was divine." (Cf. Bentley Layton, Coptic in 20 Lessons, 2006/7, pp. 7, 34) But is this ambiguity? No, for as Dr. BeDuhn states, both translations carry "the same basic meaning."

Still, some scholars are not satisfied with even their preferred "qualitative" meaning for John 1:1c, unless they can define "qualitative" as synonymous with "definite." For example, Daniel B. Wallace, in Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics (1996, p. 269) prefers a qualitative rendering for John 1:1c, but then goes on to say that "and the Word was God" is the simplest, most straightforward translation. That is a non sequitur. [Latin for "it does not follow"]

John 1:1c is not carrying on a Greek philosophical dissertation about "persons" or "essences." But it is making an important distinction between "God" (Greek, ho theos; Coptic, p.noute) and another entity whom John describes simply with the Greek word theos (Coptic, ou.noute). The noun theos in the Greek of John 1:1c is pre-verbal and anarthrous. The noun noute in the Coptic of John 1:1c is in a regular indefinite syntactical unit. The force in both cases is the same: the Word is being distinguished from God, not identified as being God.
...

Source: John 1:1 and the Coptic Versions (blogspot)

a reply to: Deetermined
Continued from previous comment:

Further, John 1:1b emphasizes that this Word is "with" (Greek) or "in the presence of" (Coptic) God.

If, as some Trinitarian scholars assert, the idea of a qualitative rendering highlights the "nature" or "characteristics" of the Word rather than his identity, but this Word shared all the attributes and qualities that God (= the Father) has [whereislogic: which would include being eternal and uncreated; which is not the case, not the truth of the matter as the bible clearly teaches and even some of the spiritual fathers of Trinitarianism and Christendom, like Tertullian for Trinitarianism and Tatian for Christendom], then logically, the Word would be the Father. Yet, mainstream Trinitarians deride that idea as Sabellianism or modalism, "heresies" condemned by the church.

Is Coptic John 1:1 ambiguous? Not at all. But to be sure, it is the Trinitarian scholars who are forcing John 1:1 to be "ambiguous," not the Greek nor the Coptic text. The Greek text is not definite ("the Word was God") and neither is the Coptic text. Both the Greek and the Coptic texts agree that "the Word was a god" or "the Word was divine," which mean essentially the same thing.

Translating The Indefinite Article at Coptic John 1:1c

Some Trinitarian apologists are trying hard to make the Coptic text of John 1:1c support a qualitative meaning rather than an indefinite one. They have to acknowledge the witness of Coptic grammarians who have said that "the Word was a god" is a perfectly legitimate translation there, because the Coptic indefinite article is clearly present.

But just like they look at YHWH in the Hebrew text of the Bible and yet come away denying that God has a unique Name, or insist that His name is Lord, they try to deny what is plainly in front of their face: Coptic has the indefinite article; the indefinite article is used at John 1:1c; and the regular translation of the Coptic indefinite article into English is "a."

'It's all so difficult to understand,' they opine. 'It will take years and years of Coptic study to fathom the "mystery" of the Coptic indefinite article'! For example, one such apologist writes:

"The grammar, alone, cannot prove that the Word was 'a god,' 'a God,' or 'had the quality of God' in the minds of the Coptic translators. Indeed, a thorough study of the Sahidic Translation, based on the published MSS, is needed to even begin such a task."

I agree that there should be a thorough study of the Sahidic translation, but not because this is needed to understand how the Coptic translators used the indefinite article. Just about any currently-present Coptic grammar book explains that quite well. Also, there is Coptic scholar Reverend George W. Horner's 1911 English translation of the Coptic text, still available, though hard to find.

In just the book of John, how does Horner's English translation render Coptic sentence constructions that are just like John 1:1c? Well, let's look at a few. The Coptic construction found at John 1:1c is the neu...pe, construction: neunoute pe pSaje, with noute being the Coptic word for "god," and pSaje meaning "the word."

Look at some other neu....pe constructions, translated into English by Horner:

John 8:44 neureFHetb rwme pe = “was a murderer”
John 12:6 neureFjioue pe = “was a thief”
John 18:40 neusoone pe = “was a robber.”

So why should John 1:1c, neunoute pe be rendered as anything in English other than “was a god”????

In each of the other instances of the indefinite article before the noun in the Gospel of John, Horner accurately translates the indefinite article into English as “a” and does not put any brackets around the “a, ” as he does, without any grammatical cause, at John 1:1c.

After years of insisting that the anarthrous QEOS of John 1:1c is definite, the new theory of Trinitarian apologists is that it is "qualitative." But then they try to define "qualitativeness" to mean definiteness anyway! This is a disingenuous attempt to put definiteness out by the front door, while slipping it back in through the back door, and it doesn't work.

An indefinite construction can be "qualitative" in meaning when translated into English, and to say "the Word was divine" does not actually differ from saying "the Word was a god." But it does distinctly differ from saying "the Word was God."

Therefore, whereas the Coptic sentence at John 1:1c literally reads, "the Word was a god," it would not be incorrect to convey that into English also as "the Word was divine." But this is not to be overlooked or glossed over: The Coptic of John 1:1c definitely and specifically does not say "the Word was God." Indeed, that is ruled out by the Coptic indefinite article in that verse.

And you don't need to examine any further than the rest of the Coptic Gospel of John to affirm that point. ...

Source: see previous comment

This video has more bible translations that have "and the Word was a god" or "and the Word was divine" or "the Word was a divine being" (also "the Logos was a god" and a couple of other variations that carry the same meaning). Starting at 6:30 (before that the 'first and the last' argument is discussed):

Could be that I already linked that video before. Here's one I didn't link yet but an article I quoted from partially (so one can see the rest):

The video further below shows someone who thinks she's being clever by asking the question 'What would be the difference between "a god" and "God"?' (paraphrasing) The whole tone with which she asks the question tells me everything I need to know about her mental attitude regarding spiritual knowledge, divine truth and developing an "understanding heart".

The “understanding heart is one that searches for knowledge”; it is not satisfied with a mere superficial view but seeks to get the full picture. (Pr 15:14) Knowledge must become ‘pleasant to one’s very soul’ if discernment is to safeguard one from perversion and deception.—Pr 2:10, 11; 18:15; see KNOWLEDGE.

Source: Understanding: Insight, Volume 2

Man...everytime I hear her voice I have to lower the volume, it's sooo....can't even find the right word for it. Cringeworthy? Because the insincerity is dripping off it as we say in the Netherlands, which is an expression when something is very obvious and overflowing with something; English uses different expressions for the same notion, such as "dripping with envy" or "signature is all over it" or "sarcasm is as thick as butter", "dripping with judgement".

originally posted by: Milkweed
a reply to: Deetermined

So what's your explanation for scriptures that contradict you?

Joh 7:16 Jesus answered them and said, "My doctrine is not Mine, but His who sent Me.

Joh 12:49 "For I have not spoken on My own authority; but the Father who sent Me gave Me a command, what I should say and what I should speak.

Mat 27:46
About three in the afternoon Jesus cried out in a loud voice, "Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?" (which means "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?").

So which of Jesus' statements do we ignore to come to the conclusion that he is God?

Personally, I don't ignore any of it. There are reasons why it appears that there are contradictions in the Bible, when there really aren't.

For starters, we know that had Jesus declared himself outright as God at the moment he started preaching, he wouldn't have had three to four years to deliver the message or train his disciples, as he would have been killed much sooner. This is precisely what the Pharisees accused him of doing, which led to the beginning of the end for his human life on earth...

John 5:17-18

17 But Jesus answered them, My Father worketh hitherto, and I work.

18 Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God.

John 10:33

33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.

The Jews wanted a human messiah and a leader like David. For all scriptures to be fulfilled, Jesus had to play a human role and in a way that they could somewhat understand.

Mark 12:35-37

35 And Jesus answered and said, while he taught in the temple, How say the scribes that Christ is the son of David?

36 For David himself said by the Holy Ghost, The Lord said to my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool.

37 David therefore himself calleth him Lord; and whence is he then his son? And the common people heard him gladly.


John 5:21-23

21 For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them; even so the Son quickeneth whom he will.

22 For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son:

23 That all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him.

a reply to: whereislogic

John 1:1-3 and the deity of Christ

Jehovah’s Witnesses teach that Jesus Christ is not the Creator God but a lesser created angel (Michael2) who was termed “a god” by John in the New World Translation (the Jehovah’s Witnesses translation of the Bible). The NWT says:

In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god. This one was in [the] beginning with God. All things came into existence through him, and apart from him not even one thing came into existence (John 1:1–3 NWT).

According to the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ theology, Jesus is a being that came into existence. But even their own translation says that apart from Jesus not even one thing came into existence. So then, did Jesus create himself? Of course that is a ridiculous proposition, but you see how Watchtower theology contradicts the Bible, even their New World Translation.

Another contradiction surfaces in such a theology: Jehovah’s Witnesses are firm that there is only one God. But they also admit that there is at least one other god, though not as powerful as Jehovah. Jehovah’s Witness literature states:

answersingenesis.org...

We can play this game all day long on whether or not you believe in two gods (God vs. god) versus them both making up one God.

originally posted by: Deetermined
a reply to: whereislogic

I said:

But I don't think angels in heaven have literal knees they can bend. I'm also noticing that it isn't mentioned that they should bend the knee for or to Jesus but "in the name of Jesus". Such as when you're doing something in the name of .....

You responded:

Let's see what the Bible says...

Romans 14:11

11 For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God.

Romans 14:8-9

8 For whether we live, we live unto the Lord; and whether we die, we die unto the Lord: whether we live therefore, or die, we are the Lord's.

9 For to this end Christ both died, and rose, and revived, that he might be Lord both of the dead and living.

Everything will bow and confess that Jesus Christ is Lord.

I was obviously responding to Hebrews 1. What I said only counts for Hebrews 1. It's Hebrews 1 that is talking about everyone in heaven and everyone on earth (the first including angels).

But since you brought it up, I'll just keep on quoting God's word truthfully instead of relating my (day)dreams, imaginations and theosophies...

Romans 14:11

11 For it is written: “‘As surely as I live,’ says Jehovah, ‘to me every knee will bend, and every tongue will make open acknowledgment to God.’

As soon as you see "for it is written" you can know it's a quotation from the Hebrew Scriptures (a.k.a. the OT). That's how you can confirm that it has the divine name there and not the Hebrew word for "lord" even when those who made Greek copies and translations later on swapped it out. Note more hypocrisy from the ASV translators...

Isaiah 49:18 (ASV)

...As I live, saith Jehovah,...

Romans 14:11 (ASV)

For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord,

See how inconsistent they are? They'll say Jehovah in the Hebrew Scriptures (cause it's harder to deny that it's in the Hebrew manuscripts) but then when Paul is quoting from Isaiah 49:18 at Romans 14:11 they quickly change it to "the Lord" (not even "the LORD" to indicate that the Divine name is used here), because it's easier to deny that the Divine name was used in the Greek Scriptures cause the only Greek manuscripts that we still have and we're working with were made by people who hate Jehovah and replaced his name with the Greek word for "lord" (Kurios). Of course there's still evidence that the Divine name was used in the Greek as well, but that evidence is shoved under the carpet and ignored by those translators who stick with "the Lord" in the Christian Greek Scriptures (a.k.a. the NT). And they're implying that Paul (and many other writers of the NT) was a liar who misquotes God's word like Trinitarians are used to doing.

Regarding a correct translation of Romans 14:8 (only verse 9 has "Lord", verse 8 has "Jehovah"):