Why the LORD/Lord [KJV] argument to argue that Jesus isn't G- d, doesn't work

Disciple of Jesus said:

This is your argument regarding the name & word 'G- d'.

Click to expand...

Uhhhh . . . not so much. It's a criticism of your argument and a suggestion of possible solutions.

Disciple of Jesus said:

You are contradicting yourself, because you just wrote, that 'G- d', can mean satan, is just a title, so forth.

Click to expand...

No. If you look up God in a dictionary it will give various usages of the word. All of them apply to the simple basic meaning of the word god, i.e. something or someone who is considered mighty or is venerated. The first example is usually god spelled with an upper case G. God. With, by the way, a letter g, a letter o and a letter d. The word means almost nothing. It can be applied to **** or the creator of the universe. To anything and anyone.

Getting past that is the jumping of a huge hurdle. It prevents you, for example, from falling into the trap of confusing God with Jesus or writing out God like G-d.

This response addresses the fact that Jesus was a god just as Moses and other men were gods, though not to be confused with Jehovah God.

John 1:1 (KJV) - "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

1808: "and the word was a god." The New Testament, in an Improved Version, Upon the Basis of Archbishop Newcome's New Translation: With a Corrected Text, London.

1864: "and a god was the Word." The Emphatic Diaglott, by Benjamin Wilson, New York and London.

1935: "and the Word was divine." The Bible-An American Translation, by J. M. P. Smith and E. J. Goodspeed, Chicago.

1935: "the Logos was divine." A New Translation of the Bible, by James Moffatt, New York.

1975: "and a god (or, of a divine kind) was the Word." Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Siegfried Schulz, Gottingen, Germany.

1978: "and godlike sort was the Logos." Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Johannes Schneider, Berlin.

1979: "and a god was the Logos." Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Jurgen Becker, Wurzburg, Germany.

John 1:1 - In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God (Literally "was toward the God." Greek en pros ton Theon; Christian Greek Scriptures, Heb., by Franz Delitzsch, London, 1981 ed., Christian Greek Scriptures, Heb., by Isaac Salkinson and C. D. Ginsburg, London. the Hebrew, hayah eth ha Elohim), and the Word was a god (Greek, theos, in contrast with ton Theon, "the God," in the same sentence; Hebrew, welohim, "and god.")

The Greek word theos is a singular predicate noun occurring before the verb and is not preceded by the definite article. This is an anarthrous theos. The God with whom the Word, or Logos, was originally is designated here by the Greek expression ho theos, that is, theos preceded by the definite article ho. This is an articular theos. The articular construction of the noun points to an identity, a personality, whereas a singular anarthrous predicate noun preceding the verb points to a quality about someone. John was saying that the Word or Logos was "a god" or "divine" or "godlike" rather than that he was the God with whom he was.

There are many cases of a singular anarthrous predicate noun preceding the verb, such as in Mark 6:49; 11:32; John 4:19; 6:70; 8:44; 9:17; 10:1, 13, 33; 12:6. Where "a" or "an" is inserted "an appatition" or "a spirit" or "a liar" or "a prophet" or "a god."

In the article "Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns: Mark 15:39 and John 1:1," published in the Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 92, Philadelphia, 1973, p. 85, Philip B. Harner said about John 1:1: "with an anarthrous predicate preceding the verb, are primarily qualitative in meaning. They indicate that the logos has the nature of theos. There is no basis for regarding the predicate theos as definite." On p. 87 of his article, Harner concluded: "In John 1:1 I think that the qualitative force of the predicate is so prominent that the noun cannot be regarded as definite."

In other words Jesus was a god, which is completely in harmony with scripture. Jesus was prophetically called a mighty god (Hebrew El Gibbohr) at Isaiah 9:6.

John 1:14 - "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."

Jesus was the word, or spokesperson, of Jehovah God. He existed in heaven in spirit form before he came to earth. (John 3:13; 6:51; 17:5)

John 8:58 - "Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am."

A Grammar of the Idiom of the New Testament, by G. B. Winer, seventh edition, Andover, 1897, p. 267, says: "Sometimes the Present includes also a past tense (Mdv. 108), viz. when the verb expresses a state which commenced at an earlier period but still continues, a state in its duration; as, Jno. xv. 27 aparkhes met emou este], viii. 58 prin Abraam genesthai ego eimi."

A Grammar of New Testament Greek, by J. H. Moulton, Vol. III, by Nigel Turner, Edinburgh, 1963, p. 62, says: "The Present which indicates the continuance of an action during the past and up to the moment of speaking is virtually the same as Perfective, the only difference being that the action is conceived as still in progress . . . It is frequent in the N[ew] T[estament]: Lk 248 137 . . . 1529 . . . Jn 56 858 . . . "

Before Abraham came into existence is the first person singular present indicative and so properly translated with the perfect indicative. So from the fourth/fifth century the Syriac edition translates John 8:58 as "before Abraham was, I have been." (A Translation of the Four Gospels from the Syriac of the Sinaitic Palimpsest, by Agnes Smith Lewis, London, 1894.

From the fifth century the Curetonian Syriac Edition translates "before ever Abraham came to be, I was." (The Curetonian Version of the Four Gospels, by F. Crawford Burkitt, Vol. 1, Cambridge, England, 1904)

The Syriac Pe****ta Edition, The Old Georgian Version, also from the fifth century and the Ethiopic Edition of the sixth century all do the same.

In an attempt to confuse Jesus as Jehovah some suggest that ego eimi is the same as the Hebrew expression ani hu, "I am he," which is used by God, but it is also used by man. (1 Chronicles 21:17)

Others try and use the Septuagint's reading of Exodus 3:14 which reads Ego eimi ho on meaning "I am The Being," or "I am The Existing One" which can't be sustained because the expression at Exodus 3:14 is different than John 8:58.

At Exodus 3:14 the Hebrew Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh "I shall prove to be what I shall prove to be" is God's self designation. Leeser reads "I will be that I will be;" Rotherham reads "I Will Become whatsoever I please." Latin ego sum qui sum "I am Who I am." Ehyeh comes from a verb hayah which means to "become; prove to be" and at 3:14 is in the imperfect state, first person singular meaning "I shall become" or "I shall prove to be." It isn't a comment on God's self existence but a statement about what he intends to become towards others.

John 10:30-31 - "I and my Father are one. Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him."

Novatian (c. 200-258 C.E.) wrote: "Since He said 'one' thing, let the heretics understand that He did not say 'one' person. For one placed in the neuter, intimates the social concord, not the personal unity. . . . Moreover, that He says one, has reference to the agreement, and to the identity of judgment, and to the loving association itself, as reasonably the Father and Son are one in agreement, in love, and in affection." - Treatise Concerning the Trinity, chapter 27.

What Havatian meant is that the word for "one" in the verse is in the neuter gender. So its actual meaning is "one thing." John 17:21 uses the exact same syntax. This would mean that if Jesus and the Father were one in as the same one in the same then those to whom Jesus spoke of at John 17:21 were God as well.

John 10:38-39 - "The Father is in me, and I in him. Therefore they sought again to take him."

The Catholic Jerusalem Bible reads: "Jesus said to them, 'I have done many good works for you to see, works from my Father; for which of these are you stoning me?' The Jews answered him, 'We are not stoning you for doing a good work but for blasphemy: you are only a man and you claim to be God'. Jesus answered: 'Is it not written in your Law: I said, you are gods? So the Law uses the word gods of those to whom the word of God was addressed, and scripture cannot be rejected. Yet you say to someone the Father has consecrated and sent into the world, "You are blaspheming", because he says, "I am the Son of God". If I am not doing my Father's work, there is no need to believe me; but if I am doing it, then even if you refuse to believe in me, at least believe in the work I do; then you will know for sure that the Father is in me and I am in the Father'" - John 10:32-38

Notice that Jesus wasn't claiming to be the God, the Father or even be equal but rather the Son of God.

John 14:9 - "he that hath seen me hath seen the Father."

Jesus wasn't saying that he was God, so that anyone seeing him would be seeing God. For no man has seen God. Jesus was the image of as well as the representative of God. (Genesis 1:26 / Exodus 33:20 / John 1:1, 18 / Colossians 1:15)

John 20:28 - "And Thomas answered and said unto him, My LORD and my God."

A god is anything that anyone attributes might or venerates. The Bible calls Moses, Jesus, the judges of Israel, Tammuz - all mortal men who are called gods. It also calls angels, including Satan and Michael as gods. Also pagan Gods like Dagon, Molech, Baal, Bel, Astarte. Carved idols. The dictionary definition agrees.

Atheists don't agree because they are influenced by the apostate and uninformed teachings of Christianity and because, really, the very definition of atheism is a belief that there are no gods, and if anything, whether or not it exists, can be a god, that makes their position sort of silly and obviously influenced by the inaccurate teachings of modern day Christianity.

The very Hebrew word translated god is El and various forms of El (Elohim for example, applied to Jehovah, men and pagan gods and goddesses) which means simply "mighty" or "strong one." It is a similar title as Lord, which usually signifies authority over something or someone. Land lord, for example. God father.

As indicated earlier in this response the scriptures teach that Jesus, like other men, are gods, but not that he is the same as Jehovah God. This is evident only three verses after the Thomas account given where John writes that these things were written down so that we would believe that Jesus was the Christ, Son of God. Not that he was God. (Isaiah 9:6 / John 1:18; 20:30)

Acts 20:28 - "Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood."

The Jerusalem Bible, Douay, and NAB all use similar wording in translation of Acts 20:28. The NWT and TEV reads to the effect of "the blood of his own [Son."] The RS 1953 reads "with his own blood," but the 1971 edition reads "with the blood of his own son."

J. H. Moulton in A Grammar of New Testament Greek, Vol. 1 (Prolegomena), 1930 ed., p. 90, says: "Before leaving idios something should be said about the use of ho idios without a noun expressed. This occurs in Jn 1:111:31, Ac 4:23; 24:23. In the papyri we find the singular used thus as a term of endearment to near relations . . . . In Expos. VI. iii. 277 I ventured to cite this as a possible encouragement to those (including B. Weiss) who would translate Acts 20:28 'the blood of one who was his own.'"

The New Testament in the Original Greek, by Westcott and Hort, Vol., 2, London, 1881, pp. 99, 100 of the Appendix, Hort stated: "it is by no means impossible that huiou, "of the Son" [dropped out after tou idiou, "of his own"] at some very early transcription affecting all existing documents. Its insertion leaves the whole passage free from difficulty of any kind."

The KJV and others are not grammatically incorrect in the way they translate "with his own blood." However the Codex Alexandrinus, Codex Ephraemi rescriptus (5th century), Bezae Codices (Greek and Latin 5th / 6th Century) and the Philozenian-Harclean Syriac Version (6th / 7th century) and thus Moffat's translation all contain a marginal reading of "the congregation of the Lord" instead of "the congregation of God" to avoid confusion. The Codex Sinaiticus (4th century) Vatican ms 1209 (4th century) and Latin Vulgate all read God (articulate) and so translate 'God's blood."

With the Greek tou idiou which follows the phrase "with the blood" the expression conveys the notion that it was "with the blood of his own." The noun in the singular being God's closest relative, his only begotten Son, Jesus Christ.

Colossians 1:16 - "For by him [Jesus] were all things created."

This text speaks nothing of Jesus as being God or being equal to Jehovah God, it is in harmony with scripture in that Jesus was the master worker of God. (Proverbs 8:27-30 / John 1:3)

Colossians 2:9 - "For in him [Jesus] dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily."

From the Greek theotetos and Latin divinitatis comes the term "godhead" or "divine quality," "godship."

2 Peter 1:4 uses the same "divine quality" or "godship" in application to the first century Christians he was addressing. Just as the Christian can be of "divine nature" through the decision of God and not being God or being equal to God so was Jesus. (Colossians 2:9)

1 Timothy 3:16 - "God was made manifest in the flesh."

The sacred secret of the ages which Jesus revealed was that mankind could live in perfect obedience to Jehovah God's sovereignty. Jesus demonstrated that he could do what Adam chose not to do.

There is an interesting story behind 1 Timothy 3:16 and the KJV.

Kyrillos Loukaris, a patriarch of Alexandria Egypt was a great collector of books and in 1621, while in Constantinople, Turkey, he took the Codex Alexandrius there. The unrest in the Middle East and the possibility that it might be destroyed by Muslims provoked him to give it to the British ambassador in Turkey as a gift for King James I in 1624. King James died and it was given instead to King Charles I three years later.

The Alexandrian Codex, mentioned earlier in this response, was one of the first major Bible manuscripts accessible to scholars so its discovery was instrumental in constructive criticism of the Greek Bibles.

Since it dated back to the 5th century C.E. and several scribes shared in its writing it had corrected text throughout. The scribes did something unusual and important when gathering together readings from different families or exemplars, whereas other scribes would usually stick to one family. It was an older and better manuscript than any of those used in the making of the KJV of 1611.

Its reading of 1 Timothy 3:16 caused a great deal of controversy because the KJV read "God was manifest in the flesh." The Alexandria Codex though, indicated that the contraction for "God" which was formed by two Greek letters, appeared to have originally read the almost identical "OC" which was the word for "who." Thus Christ Jesus was not "God." Over the next 200 years the discovery of other older manuscripts would confirm this.

Bruce M. Metzger in his Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament concludes: "No uncial (in the first hand) earlier than the eighth or ninth century . . . supports theos; and no patristic writer prior to the last third of the fourth century testifies to the reading theos."

Titus 2:13 - "Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ."

The Riverside New Testament, 1934 - "of the great God and of our Savior Christ Jesus"

A New Translation of the Bible, by James Moffat, 1935 - "of the great God and of our Saviour Christ Jesus"

New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures, 1950 - "of the great God and of our Savior Christ Jesus"

La Sainte Bible, by Louis Segond, 1957 - "of the great God and of our Savior Jesus Christ"

The New American Bible, 1970 - "of the great God and of our Savior Christ Jesus"

The New Testament in Modern English, 1972 - "of the great God and of Christ Jesus our saviour"

From the Greek tou megalou Theou kai soteros hemon Khristou Iesou. The text presents no difficulty in the distinction of two separate people; Jehovah God and Christ Jesus. The Authorship of the Fourth Gospel and Other Critical Essays, by Ezra Abbot, Boston, 1888, p. 452: "Take an example from the New Testament. In Matt. xxi. 12we read that Jesus 'cast out all those that were selling and buying in the temple, tous polountas kai agorazontas. No one can reasonably suppose that the same persons are here described as both selling and buying. In Mark the two classes are made distinct by the insertion of tous before agorazontas; here it is safely left to the intelligence of the reader to distinguish them. In the case before us [Tit 2:13], the omission of the article before soteros seems to me to present no difficulty, not because soteros is made sufficiently definite by the addition of hemon (Winer), for, since God as well as Christ is often called "our Saviour," he doxa tou megalou Theou kai soteros hemon, standing alone, would most naturally be understood of one subject, namely, God, the Father; but the addition of Iesou Khristou to soteros hemon changes the case entirely, restricting the soteros hemon to a person or being who, according to Paul's habitual use of language, is distinguished from the person or being whom he designates as ho Theos, so that there was no need of the repetition of the article to prevent ambiguity. So in 2 Thess. i. 12, the expression kata ten kharin tou Theou hemon kai kyriou would naturally be understood of one subject, and the article would be required before kyriou if two were intended; but the simple addition of Iesou Khristou to kyriou makes the reference to the two distinct subjects clear without the insertion of the article."

Philippians 2:6 - "Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God."

The KJV and Douay both read the passage similar, but the Jerusalem Bible reads: "he did not cling to his equality with God." The RS, NE, TEV and NAB all read similar to the NWT which reads: "who, although he was existing in God's form, gave no consideration to a seizure (Greek harpagmon), namely, that he should be equal to God."

The text is encouraging Christians to imitate Christ, obviously by not thinking of themselves as equal to God. Otherwise the text would be encouraging them to imitate Christ in being equal with God, which of course, it doesn't. (Mark 10:18)

The Expositor's Greek Testament: "We cannot find any passage where harpazo or any of its derivatives including harpagmon has the sense of 'holding in possession,' 'retaining'. It seems invariably to mean 'seize,' 'snatch violently'. Thus it is not permissible to glide from the true sense 'grasp at' into one which is totally different, 'hold fast.'" - (Grand Rapids, Mich.; 1967), edited by W. Robertson Nicoll, Vol. III, pp. 436, 437.

Hebrews 1:8 - "But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom."

The RS, NE, TEV, Dy, JB, NAB all read similar to the KJV. The AT, Mo, TC all read similar to the NWT, which reads; "But with reference to the Son: 'God is your throne forever and ever." The passage is quoting Psalm 45:6-7which is directed at a human king.

B. F. Westcott states: "The LXX [Septuagint] admits of two renderings: ho theos can be taken as a vocative in both cases (Thy throne, O God, . . . therefore, O God, Thy God . . . ) or it can be taken as the subject (or the predicate) in the first case (God is Thy throne, or Thy throne is God . . . ), and in apposition to [ho theos sou] in the second case (Therefore God, even Thy God . . . ). . . . It is scarcely possible that Elohim in the original can be addressed to the king. The presumption therefore is against the belief that ho theos is a vocative in the LXX. Thus on the whole it seems best to adopt in the first clause the rendering: God is Thy throne (or, Thy throne is God), that is 'Thy kingdom is founded upon God, the immovable Rock.'" - The Epistle to the Hebrews (London, 1889), pp. 25, 26.

Revelation 1:17 - "Fear not; I am the first and the last."

Revelation 22:13 - "I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last."

Both verses listed here from Revelation are in reference to Jehovah God rather than Jesus Christ.

Disciple of Jesus said:

The methodology with using the LORD, to signify the Tetragrammaton, and paralleled also in the New Testament, is used sometimes to argue that Jesus isn't G- d, that 'Lord', just means teacher, so forth.

Except it doesn't work.

Not only does it not work, to argue that Jesus isn't G- d, it doesn't even work to argue that Jesus isn't the Tetragrammaton, directly.

So, for example,
1 Corinthians 6:18
'Lord Almighty'.

Matthew 22:37
'Lord thy God'

Matthew 22:43
'David in spirit call him Lord'

Matthew 22:45
'If David then call him Lord'
The context does matter, aside from the fact that, already, directly, the argument that Jesus isn't G- d, because of the LORD/Lord usage, contradicts these verses. Matthew 22:37. It goes further, though, because, Matthew 22:37 is a general commandment, not contextual, to just Christians. Thusly, it could be argued that Jesus is the LORD, as that is what would actually correlate to the LORD/Lord usage argument, that Jesus isn't G- d.[also 1 Corinthians 6:18

Presenting the argument that Jesus isn't G- d, because of the LORD/Lord, usage, is worse than just not presenting that argument, at all, in other words.

Click to expand...

Very well said. And there are dozens or hundreds of additional verses for evidence.

You wrote this. The word can refer to anything or anyone...


Do you understand, that what you wrote, contradicts itself?
Do you understand, that what you wrote, makes no sense?

If the word can refer to anything, or anyone, then why could it not refer to Jesus?

Interesting to see all the changes from 1808 to 1976. Satan has been busy slipping his twisted ideas into translations as humans try to make the scripture match their false ideas.

Disciple of Jesus said:

You wrote this. The word can refer to anything or anyone...
Do you understand, that what you wrote, contradicts itself?
Do you understand, that what you wrote, makes no sense?

If the word can refer to anything, or anyone, then why could it not refer to Jesus?

Click to expand...

No. First of all, how does it not make sense, and secondly just because it can refer to Jesus doesn't mean that Jesus is God any more than the fact that it can refer to Satan means Satan is God.

G with the upper case is specifically commonly used in the West as the Jewish / Christian God. Using it in application to Jesus is incorrect. That contradicts itself.

Ones own belly? A god. (Philippians 3:18-19) Many gods and many lords. (1 Corinthians 8:5-6)

Since Jesus is called G- d, the name/title is thusly contextual.

The reason why someone practicing Judaism, can read the Tanakh, in English, or, write G- d, is because, they don't use the New Testament, not because it is a matter of religion. Or here, not because Jesus isn't called G- d. [ they also have a different theological interpretation, and book adherence, to that.

lostwanderingsoul said:

"Jesus is the Son of God and not Lord"? So what does I Corinthians 8:16 mean when it says "one Lord Jesus Christ"? People use the name "God" incorrectly. There is no "person" or being" named God. There is a "person" or "being" called the Father and a "person" or "being" called the Word. The Word later was born into a human body and was called Jesus. These two "persons" or "beings" are God. They are like a family. And the Father says He wants to adopt more members into his family. When this happens, God will not be two persons but many more, maybe millions. This is why the idea of a trinty is incorrect. It forever limits God to three persons. But God will not be limited and will expand his family to many more.This is what Satan does not want people to know. You can be part of God's family. But it is not just by believeing or being baptized or anything else. Jesus must raise yu from death and give you a second birth as a child of God.

Click to expand...

I only have one life, and it is continuous process of discovering the truth and living accordingly.

lostwanderingsoul said:

When you were born as a human no one was required to tell you who your parents were. Some babies are kidnapped at birth and never know their true parents. Jeus physical bodt died and was buried. Three days later he rose from the tomb. That was his second birth and at that time he was God's spiritual son. The same thing can and will happen to people some day when Jesus returns and gives spiritual birth to his brothers and sisters.

Click to expand...

Nice story.

Shantanu said:

Nice story.

Click to expand...

Thanks. And some people actually believe it.

lostwanderingsoul said:

Thanks. And some people actually believe it.

Click to expand...

For years I distrusted the story of Jesus Christ as a historical event but the story of being persecuted by the State for being a renegade is borne out by the facts. States hate free thinking rebels.

Shantanu said:

For years I distrusted the story of Jesus Christ as a historical event but the story of being persecuted by the State for being a renegade is borne out by the facts. States hate free thinking rebels.

Click to expand...

Wouldn't call this an argument that refutes anything.

Disciple of Jesus said:

Wouldn't call this an argument that refutes anything.

Click to expand...

The way I see it, a few people whether it was Paul or someone else concocted the story of Jesus but set it in a proper setting of the Roman Empire where a spiritual person who rebelled against the Jewish priests was persecuted and hounded for preaching love thy enemies and so forth, to the point that the Roman State killed him. The story was created to say that God will have his way. What is the evidence for this: the use of Numerology (Chaldean Hebrew version) to create the name Jesus Christ (a perfect 9).

Disciple of Jesus said:

The methodology with using the LORD, to signify the Tetragrammaton, and paralleled also in the New Testament, is used sometimes to argue that Jesus isn't G- d, that 'Lord', just means teacher, so forth.

Except it doesn't work.

Not only does it not work, to argue that Jesus isn't G- d, it doesn't even work to argue that Jesus isn't the Tetragrammaton, directly.

So, for example,
1 Corinthians 6:18
'Lord Almighty'.

Matthew 22:37
'Lord thy God'

Matthew 22:43
'David in spirit call him Lord'

Matthew 22:45
'If David then call him Lord'
The context does matter, aside from the fact that, already, directly, the argument that Jesus isn't G- d, because of the LORD/Lord usage, contradicts these verses. Matthew 22:37. It goes further, though, because, Matthew 22:37 is a general commandment, not contextual, to just Christians. Thusly, it could be argued that Jesus is the LORD, as that is what would actually correlate to the LORD/Lord usage argument, that Jesus isn't G- d.[also 1 Corinthians 6:18

Presenting the argument that Jesus isn't G- d, because of the LORD/Lord, usage, is worse than just not presenting that argument, at all, in other words.

Click to expand...

You have referenced 1 Corinthians 6:18 - there is nothing there about "Lord Almighty" but Flee from sexual immorality.

Is Jesus Christ, Lord? Yes he is.
Is God, Lord? Yes he is.
Is Jesus Christ, God? No he isn't
But Jesus Christ is Lord, isn't he? Yes.

Who made Jesus Christ, Lord? From the Bible Acts 2:36
It was the Lord God who made Jesus both Lord and Messiah - and that is undoubtedly written in your Bible.
And this one is assured.

Disciple of Jesus said:

The methodology with using the LORD, to signify the Tetragrammaton, and paralleled also in the New Testament, is used sometimes to argue that Jesus isn't G- d, that 'Lord', just means teacher, so forth.

Except it doesn't work.

Not only does it not work, to argue that Jesus isn't G- d, it doesn't even work to argue that Jesus isn't the Tetragrammaton, directly.

So, for example,
1 Corinthians 6:18
'Lord Almighty'.

Matthew 22:37
'Lord thy God'

Matthew 22:43
'David in spirit call him Lord'

Matthew 22:45
'If David then call him Lord'
The context does matter, aside from the fact that, already, directly, the argument that Jesus isn't G- d, because of the LORD/Lord usage, contradicts these verses. Matthew 22:37. It goes further, though, because, Matthew 22:37 is a general commandment, not contextual, to just Christians. Thusly, it could be argued that Jesus is the LORD, as that is what would actually correlate to the LORD/Lord usage argument, that Jesus isn't G- d.[also 1 Corinthians 6:18

Presenting the argument that Jesus isn't G- d, because of the LORD/Lord, usage, is worse than just not presenting that argument, at all, in other words.

Click to expand...

What makes you think that Jesus isn't God or is God.?

It all goes back to the word "God". There is no person or being or spirit named "God". There is a supreme eternal spirit called "the Father". And there is another separate eternal spirit being called "the Word". When the Bible says the Word was with God it really means the Word was with the Father. Both spirits together are God. God is like a family. One family with several members. One God with two members. Another reason God is like a family is that He wants to adopt more members into His family. Don't people says they are children of God? Children are part of a family. In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with the Father and they were God.