Jesus is God !
- Thread starter beloved57
- Start date
NWL
Active member
Stop repeating yourself and show it, once again, refer me to a post which express the things you seem only able to assert. Where is Jesus called the one true God or living God?
NWL
Active member
Whilst I appreciate your efforts to try and aid beloved57 your answer doesn't satisfy my previous questions, which you should know if you've been following along. I've previously asked beloved57 to show me reasoning against what I said in post 3222, a previous post of his which negates what I said in post 3222, or where the Bible claims Jesus is the one true or living God, since these are things he either spoken out against or asserted without evidence when speaking to me.
You above post that Jesus is God according to the highly debated TSKS rule does not answer any of my previous points or questions to beloved57, and whilst I have no issue is admitting Jesus is called God in a few passages, such as John 20:28, Isaiah 9:6, and Hebrews 1:8, to name a few, Titus 2:13 is not one of these. Numerous Trinitarian scholars rejected Granville's rule, in relation to Titus 2:13 when he first presented it and many still reject it today. For one the rule does not apply to proper names or epithets, the phrase "great God" in Titus 2:13 is an epithet of YHWH, the God of Jesus, and thus the TSKS rule can readily be dismissed in Titus 2:13 since the proper name negates the rules usage.
Moreover, if you were to do a simple word search study of the word "God" in Titus you would find the term always is in reference to the God of Jesus, namely the Father, with it clearly identifying Jesus as a separate person from him, this true of most of the NT where an unidentified 'God' is mentioned. So for someone to claim that Paul, the writer of Titus, randomly called Jesus God in Titus 2:13, when he nowhere speaks of Jesus this way, is to ignore his writing style and overall context.
Last edited:
NWL
Active member
I'm aware, but as I've requested many many times now can you simply pick/show/refer me to one of your post in your thread that you believe expresses what you say, why are you having such a hard time doing this.
This is a self defeating question, it is widely known that is pointless asking someone to prove the negative. For example, show me a scripture in the bible that states YHWH is not a giant spaghetti monster? This is impossible to show, should we assume that God is a giant spaghetti monster since there is no scripture that does not deny him being one, of course not!
Likewise, just because there is no scripture that states Jesus is NOT the 'one true' or 'living God' it is not proof that he is the 'one true' or 'living God', it is very surprising that you even used such reasoning. So again, please show me the passages where Jesus is called the 'one true' or 'living God' for you to accuse me of denying the truth. Or are you humble enough to admit that Jesus is nowhere called the 'one true' or 'living God' and it is only your presumption he is?
NWL
Active member
And you cant find a scripture that explicitly states YHWH isn't a giant spaghetti monster!
Foolish, and in my opinion, pathetic reasoning.
Again, show me where in the scriptures it states Jesus is the 'one true' or 'living' God. Show me where scripture states YHWH isn't a giant spaghetti monster. I'll play along with your childish games for now.
Foolish, and in my opinion, pathetic reasoning.
Again, show me where in the scriptures it states Jesus is the 'one true' or 'living' God. Show me where scripture states YHWH isn't a giant spaghetti monster. I'll play along with your childish games for now.
Last edited:
NWL
Active member
Show me a scripture that says Jesus is not the one only True God. You can't
Again you display your stupidty, I cant show a scripture saying Jesus was not the true God, you're correct, but this proves nothing as I've already explained.
I can't show you a scripture saying jesus did not have homosexual feelings, or that YHWH isnt a giant spahgetti monster, or a scripture saying that Paul and John were not murders, the are an infinite number of things the bible DOESN'T say, but there is a finite number of things the bible DOES say, I believe the things the bible does say, you clearly are demonstrating you believe what the Bible doesn't say, as you take the fact the Bible doesn't say that Jesus isn't the true God as evidence Jesus is the true God, its actually mind boggling you think you have me with this argument, its laughable.
Again, show me a scripture saying YHWH isnt a giant spagetti monster. You can't. See how stupid your argument is, it provesn nothing.
You need to read what the rule states:
The Granville Sharp Rule says that when two singular common nouns are used to describe a person, and those two nouns are joined by an additive conjunction, and the definite article precedes the first noun but not the second, then both nouns refer to the same person.
NWL
Active member
As I said in my last reply to you the TSKS rule does not apply when proper names (this includes titles and epithets) are part of the structure, the 'great God' is a proper name of the Father YHWH as the OT (LXX) shows, many scholars (Trinitarians included) accept this and reject that TSKS rule when applied to Titus 2:13. As I also stated in my last reply Paul never refers to God as relating to Jesus, rather, in all his writings, except what Trinitarians argue about Titus 2:13, his writings always have the Father, not Jesus as being the identity of the person he refers to as God.
NWL
Active member
Show me a scripture that says Jesus is not the one only True God. You can't
Silence is golden.
Lon
Well-known member
Special WatchTower pleading.
While we all have moments in the flesh, this doesn't help at all. What did it actually accomplish? :nono:
Scriptures are scriptures are scriptures: Nobody can change them. They say what they say and are clear enough. Most of us are caught between modalism and polytheism/Arian concepts. None of these express clearly what the scriptures convey. The councils said rather to 'avoid' than to hold to a particular. In the pendulum swing, I've seen Trinitarians argue 3 gods (poly) and one (modal). Their emphasis may exceed the triune position, but the idea is right: scriptures are saying things and we never want to trample any particular one.
R.O. sentence. Most Arians I've come across aren't very good with English let alone any other language. It doesn't mean you are defacto wrong on everything else, but it does give you room for great pause on your own abilities to assess truths given grammatically.
:nono: You've not logically demonstrated this. It means assertion without substance.
He was giving you what it'd take, however weighty or thin such a demand, I'd think. There are DEFINITELY scriptures that say Jesus is God, even Arians admit this when they say 'we are all gods.' Keypurr admits this when he says Jesus is a god. The NWT admits this when they rewrite John 1:1 'a' god. It is 'why' Arianism is also polytheism. Scripture is very clear there is only One God. Scripture calls all other gods 'so-called-gods.'
Psalm 82:5They do not know or understand; they wander in the darkness; all the foundations of the earth are shaken. 6I have said, ‘You are gods; you are all sons of the Most High.’7But like mortals you will die, and like rulers you will fall.”
Look at the context: ONLY in the sense that we are made (not created ourselves like an actual god) by and like Him, are we considered 'little' gods. It means that we are made in His image but I'd have to lift you up on your feet if you tried to worship me. Why? Because polytheism is forbidden: Exodus 20:5 The reason most of us CANNOT be Arian is because scripture strictly forbids polytheism.
What do I hope to accomplish in thread? One: to post what is and isn't true. Some of your assertions are not. Scriptures do, often, equate Father and Son, though different, as one. That is an inescapable truth. I've a thread replete with scriptures that prove this.
What is clear? Do you see it?
NWL
Active member
Special pleading? In what way, do you care to explain?
I stand by what I said, all too often people insult each other which I agree is not agreeable. But my intention in my comment was not to insult, but rather to highlight, to highlight that beloved57 was acting, unintelligent, or commonly said, being stupid. I do not believe I need to highlight why beloved57 was acting stupid but will do so nonetheless since you call in to question me calling him stupid/unintelligent, which he was being. Beloved57 expressed that since the bible does not state Jesus is nowhere denied as being the 'one true' or 'living' God, that this somehow proved that he was the 'one true' or 'living' God. I conducted a thought experiment whereby I asked him where the bible states YHWH isn't a giant spaghetti monster, since a lack of a negative statement apparently proves the unstated. Rather than accepting his line of reasoning was self-defeating and folly, he came back at me with exactly the same reasoning, whilst ignoring mine, in an attempt to try and show that Jesus was the 'one true' and 'living' God by the bibles lack of denial that Jesus was him, plainly said, beloved57 ignored my good and sound reasoning and repeated his same weak argument, this, by definition was stupid of him, hence the reason why I called him stupid.
I disagree, since, as a unitarian, the scripture expresses exactly what I believe, the scriptures states "there is one God the Father" (1 Cor 8:6), and I believe there is one God the Father, the scriptures state the Father is the "only true God", and I believe the Father is the only true God, I see other persons referred to as God, such as Moses (Exo 7:1), such as Angels (ps 85), such as Israelites kings (Ps 45:5), as well as Jesus (Heb 1:8, Isa 9:6), and instead of assuming they are themselves, God, by the usage of the term, I accept the usage of the term in line with the fact that scripture plainly highlights the Father as the 'one' and 'only' God, and therefore see them as Gods/gods in the secondary lessor sense of the term.
As you perfectly expressed by what you said, you do not have this same soundness with your biblical worldview, hence why I do not accept it.
You obviously haven't been following the conversation, if you were, you'd notice my negative grammatical reasoning is down to beloved57 bad reasoning. Again, he used the reasoning based on the bible lack of denail, he asked questions such as "Show me a scripture that says Jesus is not the one only True God?", to show how stupid his reasoning was I turned the tables on him by stating such things as "I can't show you a scripture saying Jesus did not have homosexual feelings, or that YHWH isn't a giant spaghetti monster, or a scripture saying that Paul and John were not murderers", if you somehow think my English isn't satisfactory, I'd have to put this down to your own competence with the English language.
Your reply shows you ignorance in the back and forth beloved57 and I have had. Again, he somehow believes the bibles lack of denial that Jesus is the "one true" and "living" God as evidence that he is the "one true" and "living" God, this is what I was expressing him as believing what the bible "doesn't say". When I stated I believe in what the bible "does say", this was in relation to what I was speaking about regarding Rev 1:4,5, Rev 1:8, and Rev 5:1,6,7 in the prior conversation I had with beloved57. So to say I have not logically demonstrated this is wrong since I clearly did to beloved57 in our discussion which you clearly weren't following, or were, but was unable to grasp.
I too accept that other beings are called "GODS/GOD", the mistake you make however is when you say "The NWT admits this when they rewrite John 1:1 'a' god. It is 'why' Arianism is also polytheism", the term 'Arianism' is a human invention, the words of the bible that are inspired by God aren't. It is the Holy Bible and NOT Arianism, or any other creed for that matter, that calls other beings, or what you call polytheism, gods. It is Psalms 8:5, Exo 7:1, Ps 45:6, among many other verses that call other beings gods. Yes, scripture is clear that there is only 'one God', and there lies your spiritual blindness that you cannot see past.
You believe its Arians/unitarians/JW's that push the fact that other beings, including Jesus, are called Gods, despite there being 'only one' God, when in fact, its the bible that expresses such a thought by verses such as Psalms 8:5, Exo 7:1 and Ps 45:6. You say, "Scripture calls all other gods 'so-called-gods", despite scripture NOT saying this, you lie! What the scripture you try and quote states is this, "there is no God but one. 5 For even though there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth, just as there are many “gods” and many “lords,” 6 there is actually to us one God, the Father". In the very verse you lie about by saying, "Scripture calls all other gods 'so-called-gods", it in facts differentiates different types of gods, doing so in threecategories, the first one being "so-called gods", the second being the "many gods", and the third being the "one God" who is identified as being the Father. The verseDOES NOT call other beings who are referred to as gods as 'so-called gods' as you falsely claim.
Why do trinitarian always try and use verses to proves the ultimate deity of Jesus with debated verses. You do realize there are numerous translations and numerous trinitarian scholars who freely admit that the "blood" in Acts 20:28 was in relation to the anthropomorphic blood lineage of Jesus in relation to his Father, hence the reason why numerous translations render the verse in this way:
CEV: It is the flock he bought with the blood of his own Son.
GNT: which he made his own through the blood of his Son.
NET: that he obtained with the blood of his own Son.
LEB: which he obtained through the blood of his own Son
NWT: which he purchased with the blood of his own Son.
GNB: which he made his own through the blood of his Son.
NWL
Active member
How so, explain.
Lon
Well-known member
There are very very few times where the rule doesn't apply, exactly as given and ONLY for conveying an idea better in English, NOT to propagate a theological idea. That's an abuse of the rule, thus special pleading that doesn't cover, at all, the exception.
It doesn't matter what the reason, it doesn't help anything. I too have seen it plenty on TOL, but such rarely does anything except show a bit of exasperation when someone doesn't get it.
Only some of them. If I only read what a Unitarian reads, then I'd agree, but the rest of scriptures give a larger and different picture. To ignore that Thomas, for instance, clearly said "my Lord and my God" "To Jesus" is to ignore the rest of scriptures. I have a bit of empathy, but it stops when scriptures give details. Unitarianism ultimately, becomes polytheism and I'm strictly monotheistic because I believe scripture demands it and that there can be no exceptions. When the Lord Jesus Christ quoted 'ye are gods,' it is caveated in a strict and limited sense as an adjective, not a noun (in some respects, the image of our Creator). Anything further is polytheism and outside of Jewish/Christian monotheism.
:doh: "Perfectly expressed" then 'not have the same soundness?' :nono: These are in-congruent.
You don't know what a run-on sentence is? Try not to let pride stand in the way on these issues. There is a strong evidence that Unitarians aren't as adept at grammar. Its a GOOD thing. Why? Because God reaches us through grace. You 'can' get scriptures wrong, and still be His. He makes and molds us in His image. I've met a good many ex-Unitarians/Arians. I admit that there are a few who cannot adequately explain the Triune view (trinitarian) at times. We don't believe in three gods (polytheism) either, just emphasize God's distinctions blurring the lines, but the triune view does see and agree with Modalists about there only being one God and Arians, that the Father is not the Son is not the Spirit.
Somewhat accurate, I haven't read all of your exchanges, however, I do recognize what he is saying, I believe. It is that 'unless' you could find very very clear proof that Jesus isn't God, that he'd not ever be persuade, such is the strength of his conviction. It isn't necessarily 'stupid' for that, just an insistence I think I understand.
:think:
You are special pleading again. Terms mean something and you've called yourself a unit-arian already.
1 Corinthians 8:4So about eating food sacrificed to idols: We know that an idol is nothing at all in the world, and that there is no God but one. 5For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as there are many so-called gods and lords), 6yet for us there is only one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we exist. And there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we exist
Did I 'lie' or do you need to apologize? :think:
It's an important paragraph from scripture and marks a need in your life today. I pray you are open to Him, I'm not really anything but a messenger today. Scripture is our goal and we being changed by it is the need, to be conformed to His image.
Paraphrases are just 'okay.' I've no bone to pick when someone is at least trying to give meaning when they try and put it in English, but let's look:
First of all, the KJV is one of your better translations because they do word-for-word from Greek to English when possible. "Son" doesn't appear in the Greek text:
Act 20:28 .. τοῦ Θεοῦ, ἣν περιποιήσατο διὰ τοῦ ἰδίου αἵματος.
"God purchased through his own blood" Literally.