H3069
יְהֹוִה
yehôvih
BDB Definition:
1) Jehovah — used primarily in the combination ‘Lord Jehovah’
Part of Speech: noun proper deity
A Related Word by BDB/Strong’s Number: a variation of H3068 [used after H136, and pronounced by Jews as H430, in order to prevent the repetition of the same sound, since they elsewhere pronounce H3068 as H136]
Total KJV Occurrences: 304
god, 304

H136
אֲדֹנָי
’ădônây
BDB Definition:
1) my lord, lord
1a) of men
1b) of God
2) Lord — title, spoken in place of Yahweh in Jewish display of reverence
Part of Speech: noun masculine
A Related Word by BDB/Strong’s Number: am emphatic form of H113
Same Word by TWOT Number: 27b
Total KJV Occurrences: 432

No sure why they chose to use this word for Ba'al for our God Yehovah. Perhaps because they were forced to by Babylon. Yet they kept it. That just confuses me as to why did they do that.

Lord also means Ba'al Yet Baal means Ba'al. Why does the supreme pagan god Ba'al keep his name in the KJV and other bibles yet Yehovah our One True God does not keep his name in the Bible and why is it that Lord which means Ba'al is used for Yehovah.

H1168
בַּעַל
ba‛al
BDB Definition:
Baal = “lord”
1) supreme male divinity of the Phoenicians or Canaanites (noun proper masculine)

Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew Lexicon (BDB)

1 Corinthians 15:28

**1 Corinthians 15:28 - King James Version (KJV)**

```Dust


<28> And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all. ```

the Son subject to the Father, who was the one who gave him his glory

co equal?

nope

I would agree. At least while living the Son was just a man. He just claimed to have the spirit of God within him as he said we all could do.

Later Paul and others took it further. Not at all sure that was a valid thing to do. The foremost thing that made me Question the New Testament.

I do not see enough text to validate what the true story even is. Why there is so much contention on this subject. The Apostles differed on it.

They didn't take it further they were giving him credit as he's the messiah

Seems to me they did take it further. But without doubt the Church Fathers took it further. Where the Trinity originated from.

Like the passage. Jesus came from the breath of God like we all do. Thus Jesus was always inside that breath of God.

Seems to me these passages are just taken out of context. Generally we have no knowledge from God on these things. Jesus seemed to have more knowledge on this than most do. We are all part of God is what Jesus often said in many different ways but people do not want to believe that.

As to the Messiah we just do not see that the same. Mark ending without a ressurection was the straw for me. Impossible for me to comprehend why someone would end it that way had the ressurection occured. That would have been by far the most important thing to write about.

So I think Jesus though he was the Messiah yet it turned out he was mistaken. Just my personal belief on the subject. Mark is a huge problem for me. The first Gospel written.

wrong, he knew he was the messiah

and the pharisees in their hatred of him ended up making the prophecies be fulfilled

you alwys go back to mark

in case you haven't noticed, mark is shorter than the other gospels

some details aren't in

luke and matthew are the most detailed

Mark was the first Gospel written. About ten years later Matthew was written.

This is why I go to Mark. First Gospel written.

You are correct the Gospels do not always tell all that occured. But nothing more important than the Resurrection. Without that Jesus was proven to be a False Prophet.

But you are free to see it how you see it. As are all Christians. I Question. I am not making any claim I am correct.

There is no way to know why did Mark end his Gospel with no ressurection. Perhaps we miss some of his words could be one possibility I suppose. I have not seen people claim that though.

@Bibleman yaaa finished exodus

My one sentence review: that’s a lot of blood

All holy books were written by people, claiming to be inspired yb God

But God wouldn't have inspired hundreds of people with different stories.

Religion only exists because people keep teaching their children it

I won’t introduce religion if I have kids

obviously all the others are false

I’ll introduce them to all of them

But it’s just folklore really

thats wrose than introducing them to none

Eh folklore around the world is nice

Kinda messed up to restrict your world view to one book as a kid

Gotta get exposed to everything

wrong, the ways of the ungodly are poison

Sigh

are there any proof of god or jesus existing?

@Alexandre Yes there is. Jesus is the biggest historical figure

oh god

Jesus did exist but the chances of him doing the miricales are low and he wasn't white rather and an new at some stage

@Tejiu The Gecko There's a site called suttacentral.net, That has a lot of the Pali Canon of Buddhist texts on it.