Jesus is God !

[NWL]

..

If you do not answer my objections, questions, and reasoning, then I cannot fully substantiate my points. Lon, here are the question/points you either can't answer or that you're afraid to answer as you know it will reveal the truth:

Scripture expresses that "YHWH shares his glory with no one", does this imply that anyone who does share his glory must be God themselves?

Scripture expresses "there is no God beside YHWH", does this mean anyone else who is called God is YHWH themselves?

You’ve given no reason in relation to Rev 3:14, which after being scrutinized, gives me any other reason to believe that Jesus is not the “beginning of the creation of God”, as the verse reads.

You haven’t shown me anywhere where the Greek word “arche” means beginner, despite you assuming this meaning in Rev 3:14.

You’ve given me no reason that when Prov 8:22 says “YHWH made me at the beginning of his way”, that this was not in relation to Jesus. All you can say it that is “Ambiguous”, whilst ignoring the overwhelming evidence, you don’t even attempt to speak about the evidence I brought to the table in relation to it, why? I can only assume its because you reject the rendering ONLY because it does not fit your biblical worldview despite all the evidence to the contrary. Simply replying, “Ambiguous”, is a fool’s answer imo.

You’ve given me no explanation how Jesus is the part of the group of creation according to Col 1:15, as you have admitted, but not a created being himself despite him being ‘PART’ of creation since he’s the firstborn.

You’ve given me no answer how Jesus is the Father according to Isaiah 9:6, yet is a separate person from the Father according to the trinity doctrine.

You haven’t clearly articulated what person of the trinity creation is ‘from’ according to 1 Cor 8:6 and Hebrews 1:1,2, despite you clearly understanding and stating it is through Jesus in the texts.

You’ve nowhere told me if God and the Angels were part of the “all things” since “nothing was left not subjected when subjecting all things under man” in Hebrews 2:8. This question was posed to you as you denied Jesus could be part of creation by the wording of John 1:3. Our reasoning and theology must be consistent.

You’ve nowhere explained how “God gave his blood” by dying on the cross, yet it was only Jesus humanity that died. Our reasoning and theology must be consistent.

You have not answered if it's possible that an eternal God can have an origin.

Please let me know if you are going to answer these points or if you are going to run from them, which is it?

 

[Bright Raven]

You’ve nowhere explained how “God gave his blood” by dying on the cross, yet it was only Jesus humanity that died. Our reasoning and theology must be consistent.
Acts 20:28
New King James Version

Therefore take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood.

 

[NWL]

You’ve nowhere explained how “God gave his blood” by dying on the cross, yet it was only Jesus humanity that died. Our reasoning and theology must be consistent.
Acts 20:28
New King James Version

Therefore take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood.

The verse you quoted is the very verse being questioned. Trinitarians will say it wasn't Jesus deity that gave his life for us, rather it was his humanity, as God dying is not compatible in regards to Gods characteristics, namely that God is immortal. Acts 20:28 states God gave his blood as, I contend this as trinitarians do not believe Jesus diety (God) gave his blood, rather Jesus humanity did. As I pointed out to Lon, the "blood" is in reference to God the Father giving his own Son, that is, his "blood", on behalf of the world. It is for this reason many translations insert this point in the verse as that is what translators understand the "blood" to be in reference, the Son. The "God" mentioned relates to the Father in the verse, not Jesus.

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: to shepherd the church of God that he obtained with the blood of his own Son.
Darby: which he has purchased with the blood of his own.

Let me ask you what I asked him, was it Jesus deity that that died and gave his life on the cross?

 

[Lon]

The verse you quoted is the very verse being questioned. Trinitarians will say it wasn't Jesus deity that gave his life for us, rather it was his humanity, as God dying is not compatible in regards to Gods characteristics, namely that God is immortal. Acts 20:28 states God gave his blood as, I contend this as trinitarians do not believe Jesus diety (God) gave his blood, rather Jesus humanity did. As I pointed out to Lon, the "blood" is in reference to God the Father giving his own Son, that is, his "blood", on behalf of the world. It is for this reason many translations insert this point in the verse as that is what translators understand the "blood" to be in reference, the Son. The "God" mentioned relates to the Father in the verse, not Jesus.

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: to shepherd the church of God that he obtained with the blood of his own Son.
Darby: which he has purchased with the blood of his own.

Let me ask you what I asked him, was it Jesus deity that that died and gave his life on the cross?

:doh:
Acts 20:28 ...ἐκκλησίαν τοῦ Θεοῦ, ἣν περιποιήσατο διὰ τοῦ ἰδίου αἵματος

It doesn't matter what a translation says. It matters what it actually says.
Do you want to build your theology off of translations???????????

Most Arians/Unitarians and other cults do, but do you wonder, at all, why these Greek illiterates are the only ones that ARE cults?

Acts 20:28 literally says, 'His blood.' You and I already discussed this. Please don't put poor translations up as 'evidence.' The original language is this clear, that the translations are misleading and less than accurate for these discussions. No Trinitarian meant for this to be carried the wrong way when mentioning Son. They actually mean that both the Father and Son are God. It is splitting hairs, but this is important. We are 'partially' arian. The difference is we hold other scriptures (like this one) in great esteem and they inform our belief. With your previous posts, you are clearly close to Trinitarian thought, separate a bit more than most Trinitarians. I challenge you to focus a bit on where we agree because you are a Unitarian of a different color. You just have to have your 'translation' theology challenged and corrected. I DO think you are on the right discussion and path for clear Biblical thinking. As I said, I'm encouraged, not discouraged. You don't have to have me answer every question. You've a mind that can work over these things and reevaluate them properly. Keep on. In Him -Lon

 

[NWL]

:doh:
Acts 20:28 ...ἐκκλησίαν τοῦ Θεοῦ, ἣν περιποιήσατο διὰ τοῦ ἰδίου αἵματος

It doesn't matter what a translation says. It matters what it actually says.
Do you want to build your theology off of translations???????????

Most Arians/Unitarians and other cults do, but do you wonder, at all, why these Greek illiterates are the only ones that ARE cults?

Acts 20:28 literally says, 'His blood.' You and I already discussed this. Please don't put poor translations up as 'evidence.' The original language is this clear, that the translations are misleading and less than accurate for these discussions. No Trinitarian meant for this to be carried the wrong way when mentioning Son. They actually mean that both the Father and Son are God. It is splitting hairs, but this is important. We are 'partially' arian. The difference is we hold other scriptures (like this one) in great esteem and they inform our belief. With your previous posts, you are clearly close to Trinitarian thought, separate a bit more than most Trinitarians. I challenge you to focus a bit on where we agree because you are a Unitarian of a different color. You just have to have your 'translation' theology challenged and corrected. I DO think you are on the right discussion and path for clear Biblical thinking. As I said, I'm encouraged, not discouraged. You don't have to have me answer every question. You've a mind that can work over these things and reevaluate them properly. Keep on. In Him -Lon

You have failed to see why I showed the translations I did, I never stated the translations were correct according to the Greek, in fact, I clearly stated the translators "inserted" the idea that it was speaking about Jesus when it mentioned "blood". I never showed the scripture as evidence, but rather, I showed them as it expresses what they understand the text to mean according to the writers words. Again, translation isn't always about translating things word for word but rather getting the sense thoughts of the writer across.

Lon, you have selective reasoning, you shy away from the things you have difficulty answering and only reply to things you think you can handle, since you deep down reject the truth. Man up already and deal with my previous questions and reasoning.

It matters what it actually says

Says the man who applies other words in Exo 7:1, Ps 8:5 and 2 Cor 4:4 that are not found in the Greek as you can not make sense of other beings being referred to as G-god.The irony.

 

[Lon]

You have failed to see why I showed the translations I did, I never stated the translations were correct according to the Greek, in fact, I clearly stated the translators "inserted" the idea that it was speaking about Jesus when it mentioned "blood". I never showed the scripture as evidence, but rather, I showed them as it expresses what they understand the text to mean according to the writers words. Again, translation isn't always about translating things word for word but rather getting the sense thoughts of the writer across.

I agree with that to a point, but it is very important to mention where they were going: These Triniitarians knew God didn't have blood as a Spirit, but that God's blood is truly "God's." It is very much a Trinitarian concept AND Greek portrays it Trinitarian.

Lon, you have selective reasoning, you shy away from the things you have difficulty answering and only reply to things you think you can handle, since you deep down reject the truth. Man up already and deal with my previous questions and reasoning.

:nono: Nope. I do not. You can assert it all you like. I simply trim a lot of things I believe aren't central. It is important to present what scripture presents. If it is cloudy? I've many times, in thread, said we Trinitarians have "Arian" in our name. There are things we HAVE to agree on. The only need for us isn't to argue over your summations, it is to present clearly where we believe scriptures give an idea we MUST adhere to. That's really it. I don't HAVE to argue you out of a belief. That's God's job and grasping His scriptures is the answer. Me simply giving the clarity of them, is about the most important job I have in this conversation with you.

Says the man who applies other words in Exo 7:1, Ps 8:5 and 2 Cor 4:4 that are not found in the Greek as you can not make sense of other beings being referred to as G-god.The irony.

:doh: YOU said "REPRESENTATIVE not representation!" YOU did. If you accuse me, you accuse yourself.

Why do that? Not for a doctrine unworthy of scripture! Simply believe what it says and Agree with me when you can and know it is the right thing to do, because it best represents scriptures. After that? We'll continue to disagree on others. For me, it is isn't a holy war, it is one scripture at a time. YOU agreed with me that Elohim meant Moses was God's representative and INSISTED upon that term. Don't forget and make up points on issues we ALREADY agreed upon and I'd thought moved on. It does no good to try and one-up me here, especially when I saw the agreement as a good thing AND that it came out of YOUR head.

Psalm 8:5 we never talked about. Yes there are echos of the Lord Jesus Christ there, but David was talking about himself and the rest of mankind. God DID put man in the garden and everything under his feet.

2 Corinthians 4:4 is Trinitarian. If you look in a mirror, what do you see? (help: Yourself). If the Lord Jesus Christ is a reflection of God, what does it make Him? :think:

 

[Lon]

You yourself already proven the matter to some small degree, how many backhanded comments have you made about Unitarians, why would you say such comments if you hold unitarians in high regard. Many -if not most- Christians see unitarians as the “conspiracist” theorist of the biblical world, and it has not always been this way but rather far worst, with many people being put to death simply for claiming Unitarianism as I mentioned before.



1% is the definition of special pleading??? Where are you pulling this stuff from? Special pleading is when someone tries to push their idea as an exception to a general or universal principle or rule. There is no need for any numerical value when gauging what is to be deemed special pleading or not.

Er, thus 1% IS special pleading. You are pushing an 'exception' to universal Christianity. 1% then, pushing against the whole of Christian scholasticism and expertise IS special pleading.

Yes, you showed Jamieson Fausset and Brown commentary regarding the word, BUT I negated their claim and asked you a question regarding it which to this day you fail to address, thus, their point, which is also your point, was moot. I clearly recognized that you attempted to evidence your claim in my previous replies when I said, “You’ve given no reason in relation to Rev 3:14, 'WHICH AFTER BEING SCRUTINIZED', gives me any other reason to believe that Jesus is not the “beginning of the creation of God”, my claim that you were special pleading in this matter was due to your lack of reply to my rebuttal and answer to my question. You still clearly believe “arche” in rev 3:14 should mean beginner, and to date you’ve provided NO EVIDENCE that suggests it should be understood this way, apart from the already negated Jamieson Fausset and Brown commentary. Unless you bring anything else to the table the idea that you believe ‘arche’ means beginner here is special pleading.

You aren't grasping it, which I view as your lack of education, indoctrination to not be able to grasp, etc.(doesn't mean I'm correct, just that I'm seeing this as problematic).
"He is the beginning of all Creation" can easily be understood, as the verse sits, as the one who 'is the beginning of' all creation. It is ONLY an assumption that would force this to mean "He is the creation." It doesn't. Do YOU want to build a theology off of such an obscure assumption?

Well of course a Jew wouldn’t see Prov 8:22 as referring to Jesus, since Jews reject that Jesus was the Messiah. Neither would they see Isaiah 9:6 as speaking about Jesus or any other prophetic text that relates to Jesus for that matter, if they did, they would no longer be Jews but Christians.

Right. Unless a NT passage quotes Proverbs 8:22, referring in context to "Wisdom" as "Jesus," it is simply a 'desire' to read such into the passage, ESPECIALY driven by a particular desired theology. In my adult years, I'm learning not to so much desire 'my' theology as to be corrected by His, Hope the same is true for all those I speak with.

In Proverbs 8 verse four onwards it has wisdom speaking in the first person, this is the only time we find such a thing occurring in the bible. Wisdom, when being personified in the chapter has attributes and actions applied to it that make no sense if it is indeed speaking about God’s personal wisdom. For example, verse 30 states, “Then I [wisdom] was beside him [Jehovah] as a master worker. I was the one he was especially fond of day by day; I rejoiced before him all the time”. How can wisdom be “beside” God, how can YHWH be “fond” of wisdom, how can wisdom “rejoice”, these things only make sense if wisdom if referring to a person, and not an attribute. Moreover, if the wisdom that is being spoken of is in regards God's attribute of wisdom, then logically it means God was without wisdom since it was created/made/produced as stated in v22. God is eternal and so are his attributes, including internal wisdom, therefore the wisdom being spoken of cannot be in relation to his own internal wisdom and must refer to something else.

It is poetic. Solomon told his sons to 'listen to "her'" for instance. We ALL need to be careful when speculating.

Jesus is clearly mentioned as being the “wisdom of God” (1 Cor 1:24) in scripture, Jesus himself identifies himself as wisdom in his teachings, “The Son of man did come eating and drinking, but people say, ‘Look! A man who is a glutton and is given to drinking wine…All the same, wisdom is proved righteous by its works”. Even what is spoken of in Proverbs 8 parallels Jesus, for example, Jesus is the one whom the Father made all things through (Hebrews 1:1,2, 1 Cor 8:6), Jesus helped in creating all things but is not the source of creation, Prov 8:30 and the preceding context states in regards to creation “Then I [wisdom] was beside him [Jehovah] as a master worker”. What is said ties in perfectly that Jesus was beside the Father and the one aiding him in creating, with the Father creating all things through him.

Yet Proverbs 8:2, 3 etc. say "she" regarding Wisdom. Why then is the Lord Jesus Christ the "Wisdom" of God? Because the Lord Jesus was God's (wise) answer to sin and the need of a dying people. Thus: 1Co 1:24 But to them...Christ is the power of God and the wisdom of God.

As I've mentioned before, many of the early church fathers -even the trinitarian ones- understood Prov 8:22 as referring to Jesus, understood the word qā-nā-nî to mean 'create', with even the Septuagint using the word 'create' in v22. All this being said, tied in with the fact Jesus is identified as wisdom in the NT along with the contextual parallels when reading the chapters (Prov 8v30 compare Hebrews 1:1,2, 1 Cor 8:6), it should be clear Jesus is the one being spoken of as wisdom. The only reason you and other Trinitarians deny the overwhelming evidence here is because it contradicts the doctrine of the trinity.

:nono: It is SIMPLY because it is 'evidence' and not something given in clarity. AGAIN, the VERY last place I want to be with my theology is resting upon assumptions and deductions. THOSE are what make theology problematic.

How is it possible that YHWH produced/made/possessed/created wisdom if YHWH as the eternal God has always internally had wisdom? Did YHWH have wisdom what is outlined in Prov 8:22?

:idunno: I'm not following. Wisdom is a characteristic of God, thus has always existed in His being.

Sigh...this is the issue when people refuse to answer questions. It was you that admitted that Moses was so-called god by God, have you forgotten already. In fact, I tried to highlight your contradiction and questioned you on it and you refused to answer, as usual. With one breath you say, "Moses was so-called god by God", and with the next you seem to say "Moses wasn't called god he was called a representative". Remember, it is my position that Moses was called Elohim IN THE SENSE of being a representative. The words "in the sense of" are what you should be focusing on here. Me saying that I believe Moses was a representative by being called Elohim, does not negate the fact he was called Elohim, try and stay focused and remember this.

AND YOU already said "representative." You cannot take it back, now that you've said it AND I've agreed!

Then please do so, show me an example where I made a special plea.

Anytime one makes an assumption/theory, and posits it as the only acceptable, while ignoring the rest of Christendom and what it says, then it is pleading against what most others found to be inaccurate, especially if it doesn't hold up under scrutiny, and here is the important part: When the ONLY reason for believing that one way, over the rest of Christianity, is tied directly to a UNITARIAN assumption.

Am I to take from your above response that you cannot make sense of how is called the Father in Isaiah 9:6 despite the trinity doctrine saying Jesus is a separate person from the Father? Only after you admit this is the case, or give some other explanation to your request, will I tell you my understanding of it. I am not here to be disagreeable to you or other Trinitarians, I'm here to try and speak and deduce the truth, but that also means that you must be humble enough to admit when you cannot explain something, as you have done at times, but only when it is convenient for you.

:nono: Nope. All I asked was if YOU could explain it. Modalists believe Jesus IS the Father.

​​​​​

Remember, we're talking about 'translation' here, It is undeniable that the literal "translation" of John 1:1c is "and the word was a thoes", you are disagreeing with big leaguers here:

This was one of my very first introductions to Greek. I certainly aced the class on these days, so am not at all worried about 'big league." There is no 'a'. As I told you, Greek and English have this in common: No article, don't put it in.

"If translation were a matter of substituting words, a possible translation of [John 1:1c] would be, "The Word was a god". As a word-for-word translation it cannot be faulted " - C. H. Dodd, Technical Papers for the Bible Translator, 1977

He's incorrect. It isn't there. There IS an indefinite article that COULD have been placed there, in Greek. Call up Dodd and ask him.

"In fact the KIT [Appendix 2A, p.1139] explanation [why they have rendered John 1:1c as the Word was "a god"] is perfectly correct according to the best scholarship done on this subject." – Dr. Jason BeDuhn

"Accordingly, from the point of view of grammar alone, [theós en ho lógos] could be rendered "the Word was a god" - Murray J. Harris, p. 60, Jesus as God, 1992

Yay. One honest scholar. "Could be" doesn't mean "should be." There is no way one "should" unless it is needed and in English, it isn't. The ONLY reason is to write a translation (not in the Greek!) with that article is ONLY (ONLY) because of a presupposition driving the addition.

"a god was the Word" - (based on grammar alone) W. E. Vine, An Expository Dictionary of the New Testament, p. 490

Incorrect. If it isn't in Greek, it SHOULD be left out of a transliteration as well. They are "word-for-word" after all, and very much adequate to the task with few exceptions. "A" IS an ADDED word. There is no question about it.

Lon, if God was the word then who was he with?

EXACTLY! You HAVE to reject part of God's written verse to hold to a Unitarian view, right? I don't. He was with, in some sense and clearly (even if some things are hard to grasp or don't seem to make sense) 'was' God. The verse is exactly this clear.

Remember, you state the verse states "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with THE GOD, and THE God was the word", the Word cannot both be with 'ho theos' and be God too since that would imply that he was either the Father, namely, the being he was with, or, he was with himself. This is exactly what Rob Bowman, the person whose response you said was a "fancy dance", highlighted; he said "The significance of theon being definite in Clause B, then, is to identify the One spoken of there as a specific person-God the Father. If then, theos in Clause C were to be ‘definite’ in the same way that theon is in Clause B, it would then be saying that the Word was God the Father". If the thoes in 1:1c is definite then Jesus is being identified as the Father!

I want to say "exactly" again, but it is also the reason I wanted you to weigh in on Isaiah 9:6. There is some equatedness to God (ONLY one God) and yet clearly in Isaiah, the son is also called "Almight God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace." I do not 'presume' what Jesus means saying "I and the Father are One." A LOT of Unitarians say "One in purpose" but it doesn't say that here. In fact, He has just been asked to "Show us the Father." "Well, I'm doing God's purpose...." wouldn't have answered his question.

The anarthrous predicate noun (thoes) before the verb in John 1:1c points to quality and class, it cannot be referring to identity. Hence the reason many scholars have stated the "word was divine", as what is being expressed by the language is qualitative and referring to the word having the same nature as THE God and not being identified as THE God mentioned. So you can try and claim Jesus was THE God mentioned in John 1:1 all day long, it simply means you're a modalist at heart.

Then you've not met many medalists. You are correct: I am equally modalist as I am Arian: with disagreements and reservations. That is WHY I'm TriUne.

This is why some translations render it "a god" rather than divine as they understand the term as applying Jesus to what type of being he is, namely a divine one, much like the angels are divine (1 Kings 22:21) who too also have the nature of God, namely, a spirit nature (see Hebrews 1:7, Hebrews 1:7).

(Pslams 82:1) "..God presides in the DIVINE assembly; He renders judgment among the gods.."

....polytheism.

(1 Kings 22:21) "..Then a spirit came forward and stood before Jehovah and said, ‘I will fool him.’ Jehovah asked him, ‘How will you do it?.."

(John 4:24) "..God is a Spirit..

"
Needs more clarity.

Trinitarians scholars are honest enough and come out and speak out about the traditional rendering of John 1:1c and you simply put it down and say "They really don't know", oh what, and YOU do? These people, who have become established in their field, no doubt to their above-average prowess would put themselves out there simply "because"??? If the translation is so clear in John 1:1 then why is there so much disagreement with it even with people who are on the same side? What you say and what is actually evident are two different things.

I've been over this enough. If you've a scholar that wants to talk with me, then bring him/her here.

Again, if the translation is definite in John 1:1c then Jesus is either the trinity or the Father; Jesus cannot be with 'the' God and be 'the' God, John was identifying who the word was with in the beginning, he was with 'The God', namely the Father, if John's language in John 1:1c was intended to be definite then John was stating Jesus was God when he stated "and God was the Word".

Yet that is 'literally' what the verse says. I HAVE talked this over with Greek professors.

When you say "JW quotes", do you mean quotes made by Trinitarians? Lol.

Watchtower

You say "I CAN read Greek and I KNOW what it says. I'd simply have to argue the point with that professor that disagreed with me because I really do know what it says and I wrote it above", and no doubt those trinitarian scholars would say the same thing about anyone who disagrees with them. The unique thing about them if that they're speaking out against the grain in their own community, it earns them ZERO brownie points and only disgruntlement from others who favour the traditional rendering, I doubt any trinitarian would put themselves out their like that unless they were very sure what they were saying had some substance.

There are a good many that have put their names on this, and rightly so. What I DO know of Greek leaves John 1:1 very clear.

I clearly stated when I said it, they weren't only apologist but scholars.

It makes them Greek 'students.' It may make them apt in Greek but such should not be an assumption.

 

[NWL]

You aren't grasping it, which I view as your lack of education, indoctrination to not be able to grasp, etc.(doesn't mean I'm correct, just that I'm seeing this as problematic).
"He is the beginning of all Creation" can easily be understood, as the verse sits, as the one who 'is the beginning of' all creation. It is ONLY an assumption that would force this to mean "He is the creation." It doesn't. Do YOU want to build a theology off of such an obscure assumption?

YOU are the one not grasping it Lon, again John NEVER uses the term in that sense, he ONLY EVER uses the term in relation to the first person or thing in a series! You are litreally clutching at straws, you are clearly reading your theology into the text, I say this because you say "as the verse sits", no one when reading that Jesus is "the beginning of the creation of God" would understand that to mean Jesus was the source/beginner. The verse "as it sits" implies Jesus is simply the beginning (first thing) of Gods creation, the "of God" is the fundamental thing you left out in your above statement. The "of God" clearly shows the "creation" being mentioned is God's creation and NOT Jesus, who is rather the beginning 'of Gods' creation.

This is the very reason I asked questions Lon, again and again I've asked you, WHO IS THE SOURCE/BEGINNER of creation according to Hebrews 1:1,2 and 1 Cor 8:6, I've asked these questions as they clearly show Jesus CANNOT be the beginner of creation as you keep claiming since it states the Father is the source of creation and that Jesus is merely the person THROUGH whom creation was done through. Rev 3:14 confirms this further as the creation is God's creation and has Jesus separate from him.

(1 Cor 8:6) "..the Father, FROM whom all things came...Jesus Christ, THROUGH whom all things came.."
(Hebrews 1:2) "..[God the Father] has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world.."

If ONLY you answered my question we could once and for all get to the bottom of this, but you're too chicken to simply confirm who Hebrews 1:1,2 and 1 Cor 8:6 identify as the beginner of creation as you know it contradicts your assumed rendering of Rev 3:14. You ever going to answer them, Mr Phd, Mr "bring me the scholars", stop posturing and answer the basics and simple questions.

Do YOU want to build a theology off of such an obscure assumption?

I'm not assuming anything! The verse literally states Jesus is "the beginning of the creation of God", and that's exactly what I believe, that Jesus is the beginning of the creation of God. It is YOU that assumes beginning here means beginner, you give ZERO legitimate reasons why this is the case other than you asserting you are correct. Show me otherwise.

It is poetic. Solomon told his sons to 'listen to "her'" for instance. We ALL need to be careful when speculating.

Yet Proverbs 8:2, 3 etc. say "she" regarding Wisdom. Why then is the Lord Jesus Christ the "Wisdom" of God? Because the Lord Jesus was God's (wise) answer to sin and the need of a dying people. Thus: 1Co 1:24 But to them...Christ is the power of God and the wisdom of God.

No doubt its poetic, that isn't being called into question. As I mentioned, wisdom starts speaking in the first person commencing from Prov 8:4, it is not my claim that all and any other reference of wisdom is in relation to Jesus in the preceding chapters and verses. Also, as you should already know, just because feminine words are used it does not necessitate that the person being spoken about cannot be applied to a male, God or even Jesus, as there is no masculine word for wisdom in the Hebrew language. God is called love (1 John 4:8), this does not necessitate that he is feminine as the Hebrew word for love is feminine. So it doesn't matter that wisdom was called "she" since that merely reflects the Hebrew, it certainly does mean that when wisdom speaks it cannot be in relation to Jesus, so your point is moot.

:nono:

​ It is SIMPLY because it is 'evidence' and not something given in clarity. AGAIN, the VERY last place I want to be with my theology is resting upon assumptions and deductions. THOSE are what make theology problematic.

And yet you are happy to claim Ps 8:5 echos Jesus, you are happy to accept trinitarianism which is nowhere explicitly stated in scripture, your reasoning, as I have stated many times, is all over the place, you apply rules to scripture when it suits you but then ignore them when it comes to your own theology.

These facts remain:
Attributes are applied to wisdom that make no sense if it's in reference to God's attributes; wisdom was beside God (v30), God was fond of wisdom (v30) and wisdom was fond of humans (v31).
Wisdom was produced/made/created according to Prov 8:22, we know God's wisdom was never made/created/produced.
Jesus is identified as wisdom multiple times in scripture
Attributes of wisdom and of Jesus parallel each other; Jesus was the agent "through" which God created (Heb 1:1,2), Wisdom helped in creation as the "master worker"(v30).
The early church fathers understood Jesus to be the wisdom of Prov 8:22

You've shown 'NOTHING' that suggest Jesus was NOT wisdom from what I've shown, all you've stated is that it's not clear enough, despite believing in Jesus who was God/Man, the second part of the triune God who is three persons in one being, with each of these persons being is co-equal, co-eternal, where are these doctrines ever clearly defined in scripture? They never are, rather, you use deductions and assumptions to conclude the trinity is true.

:idunno:

​ I'm not following. Wisdom is a characteristic of God, thus has always existed in His being.

Exactly! Yet Prov 8:22 states "Jehovah produced/made/created/possessed me [wisdom] at the beginning of his way", so if the verse is in reference to God wisdom in a personified manner, as you claim, then how is it possible such a thing could be said if God's wisdom has always existed as part of his being as both you and I agree, how can Gods wisdom be created/produced/possessed. The verse contradicts God's eternal nature, the verse 'must' be speaking about wisdom as something/someone separate from God, everything points to that being, being Jesus. This point is irrefutable.

AND YOU already said "representative." You cannot take it back, now that you've said it AND I've agreed!

Stay focused Lon. Below is how you and I understand Exo 7:1:

You (Lon): Moses is NOT called God in Exo 7:1, rather the word 'elohim' should be translated as 'representative'.
Me (NWL): Moses IS called God in Exo 7:1, he is referred to as God as he is his representative.

These are two different ideas Lon, you need to work on your reading and comprehension skills as I keep repeating myself.

Notice how you completely side-stepped the point I made, YOU claimed Moses WAS called God when you applied the passage found in 1 Cor 8:5 to him, you said Moses was 'so-called god' by God. So I'm confused, do you believe Moses was a so-called god by God, or do you deny he was called god in Exo 7:1? Try not to evade the point this time.

Anytime one makes an assumption/theory, and posits it as the only acceptable, while ignoring the rest of Christendom and what it says, then it is pleading against what most others found to be inaccurate, especially if it doesn't hold up under scrutiny, and here is the important part: When the ONLY reason for believing that one way, over the rest of Christianity, is tied directly to a UNITARIAN assumption.

Lol, you're trying to use what my reasoning implies overall instead of showing what I asked. Repeatedly you've claimed I've used special pleading in my specific points regarding certain topics and scriptures, NOTHING I've said has been anything everyday scholars haven't themselves stated. John 1:1c, Rev 3:14, Prov 8:22, Exo 7:1, John 10:34, Acts 20:28, 2 Cor 4:4, Ps 8:5, Hebrews 2:8 among others are the verses I've used, all my reasoning has been based on these verses, again, what I've stated about them has been nothing new or unorthodox in relation to how they should be understood. So again, show me where I've used special pleading in relation to my reasoning in my texts, I haven't! My overall reasoning is unorthodox, but I'm not here claiming my overall position is correct, rather, we are discussing multiple verses individually and allowing the conclusion to follow.

:nono:

​ Nope. All I asked was if YOU could explain it. Modalists believe Jesus IS the Father.

Of course, I can explain it, I'm the one who asked the question! Without trying to sound arrogant, but please do not think I need your help for biblical answers, I ask you question to reason with you, not gain knowledge from you, that is not to say that knowledge cannot be gained through our discussions, I have spoken to many trinitarian laypersons who have put up a better fight than you twice over.

I'm very aware modalists believe Jesus is the Father, but we're not talking about Modalists, I'm talking about you and questioning your biblical understanding in relation to this verse, so again, please explain how Jesus is separate from the Father if he himself is the eternal Father according to Isaiah 9:6? Stop evading the question.
​​​​​

This was one of my very first introductions to Greek. I certainly aced the class on these days, so am not at all worried about 'big league." There is no 'a'. As I told you, Greek and English have this in common: No article, don't put it in.

So should indefinite articles not be used at all throughout NT translation in any given text?

This is where it starts becoming ridiculous, please explain to me why the scholarly community would claim the translation "a god" is perfectly acceptable translation according to Greek grammer if it is not. Please explain, and when I say explain I do not mean insist you cannot explain to me or that I cannot understand, but rather, explain the question I ask.

He's incorrect. It isn't there. There IS an indefinite article that COULD have been placed there, in Greek. Call up Dodd and ask him.

You keep repeating the same nonsense despite the point that your making NOT being in dispute, you keep saying "it isn't there", no one is saying it SHOULD be there in the greek, the point these scholars are making is that it can be there when translating the verse into English.

You said "There IS an indefinite article that COULD have been placed there, in Greek", why are you holding back, why make only assertions, show me, and when you show me show me it in actions with another verse that has a similar syntax with John 1:1.

Yay. One honest scholar. "Could be" doesn't mean "should be." There is no way one "should" unless it is needed and in English, it isn't. The ONLY reason is to write a translation (not in the Greek!) with that article is ONLY (ONLY) because of a presupposition driving the addition.

As I've stated, it is necessary in English, since, Jesus cannot be THE GOD and also be 'with' THE GOD. The 'theos' in John 1:1c being understood as definite contradicts not only the trinity but John 1:1b, you've yet to address this point.

Incorrect. If it isn't in Greek, it SHOULD be left out of a transliteration as well. They are "word-for-word" after all, and very much adequate to the task with few exceptions. "A" IS an ADDED word. There is no question about it.

We're not talking about transliteration, I've mentioned this before, we'rere talking about basic translation and what the texts means. Then the entire bible is in error as there are indefninte articles throughout it, are you implying they all need to be removed?

EXACTLY! You HAVE to reject part of God's written verse to hold to a Unitarian view, right? I don't. He was with, in some sense and clearly (even if some things are hard to grasp or don't seem to make sense) 'was' God. The verse is exactly this clear.

No, I'm not rejecting God's written word, I'm rejecting a specific translation of God's word as it contradicts itself. The traditional translation of John 1:1c isn't hard to grasp, I fully understand why Trinitarians believe what they believe about it. I only reject the translation of the verse as it contradicts itself, it's sad that you fully admit you there's a contradiction and yet still believe. You've yet to explain how Jesus was both 'with THE GOD' and yet 'was THE GOD', you ever going explain?

I want to say "exactly" again, but it is also the reason I wanted you to weigh in on Isaiah 9:6. There is some equatedness to God (ONLY one God) and yet clearly in Isaiah, the son is also called "Almight God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace." I do not 'presume' what Jesus means saying "I and the Father are One." A LOT of Unitarians say "One in purpose" but it doesn't say that here. In fact, He has just been asked to "Show us the Father." "Well, I'm doing God's purpose...." wouldn't have answered his question.

You've yet to demonstrate that you even understand what it means for Jesus to be the eternal Father in Isaiah 9:6, and as you've just admitted you don't even know what it means when Jesus states he and the Father are on, so why even bring up the verses.

You say "A LOT of Unitarians say "One in purpose" but it doesn't say that here", well if you check the preceding context John 10:38 states in relation to the oneness he mentions in John 10:30 "But if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father", so when unitarians link passages such as John 17:20 and claim Jesus words were in relation to oneness it's pretty obvious to most that the idea is more consistent than the trinitarian one, which you aren't even bold enough to admit you have here.

(John 10:30,28) "...I and the Father are one...what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world?...believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father"
(John 17:20) "..that all of them may be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I am in You. May they also be one in Us, so that the world may believe that You sent Me.."

Both the context talk about Jesus and the Father being "in" each other and Jesus being "sent" and being "one", apart from John 17 which includes followers of christ in this unity, it is undeniable the oneness is in unity and parallel John 17:20-22.

You say "A LOT of Unitarians say 'One in purpose' but it doesn't say that here", do you also know what the trinirian doctrine states, the THREE persons are 'one', not one person, not two persons, BUT THREE, and what does John 10:30 says? Jesus and the Father are 'one', so if you're trying to imply the verse is speaking about Godship then the verse rejects the trinity since as so say "doesn't say that here". Your reasoning is not consistent.

....polytheism.

Again, did God so call other beings god according to 1 Cor 8:5, you admitted he did in the past, and yet you call me a polytheist simply for stating scripture. Notice how you do not actually deal with the scripture but make a baseless one-worded accusation, lol.

I've been over this enough. If you've a scholar that wants to talk with me, then bring him/her here.

:dog:

Lon, where have you given an explanation as to why John 1:1c has to be translated "and the Word was God" (when I say translated, I'm not talking about transliteration but translation into English)? You haven't. Where have you explained how Jesus was with THE GOD and yet was THE GOD he was with? You haven't. You said a lot but showed little, stop posturing.

All you've managed to state so far is "there is no indefinite article in the Greek" when we already know there is no indefinite article in the greek that would express 'a god', is that the best you've got?

Yet that is 'literally' what the verse says. I HAVE talked this over with Greek professors.

No, the verse doesn't litreally say the Word was with the Father, it states the Word was with THE GOD. Remember, I'm unitarian, the term THE GOD (ho thoes) applies to the Father, therefore I can say thoes was with THE GOD (father), you on the other hand believe THE GOD is the Father, Son and HS. The text states the word was with "THE GOD", thus Jesus was with the Father/Son/HS and the Word 'was' the FATHER/SON/HS, this makes NO SENSE, you fail to address this point. Is the Father THE GOD or is the Father 'of' THE GOD according to trinitarian theology?

Watchtower

Lon, you really need to stop making assumptions and assertions, where and when have I used quotes from the WT?

There are a good many that have put their names on this, and rightly so. What I DO know of Greek leaves John 1:1 very clear.

And yet you refuse to actually state what you know apart from the obvious, the Greek lacks the indefinite article, which goes without saying.

Lon, you ingored the easy to answer questions I posed in the last reply, please give a reply as to allow a good flow of conversation, if you don't reply I'll simply add it to the list of question you've run away from so far.

Here they are again:

Is the Father the ONLY person who is categorized as the 'one God' in 1 Cor 8:6?
What exactly was I in error with when I stated an Israelite king was called God in Ps 45:6 with the said text being applied to Christ in Hebrews 1:8?

 

[NWL]

I agree with that to a point, but it is very important to mention where they were going: These Triniitarians knew God didn't have blood as a Spirit, but that God's blood is truly "God's." It is very much a Trinitarian concept AND Greek portrays it Trinitarian.

Your reply here is nonsensical, it also seems that you're not brave enough to substantiate what seemingly try to express. You say "God didn't have blood as a Spirit, but that God's blood is truly "God's", this statement is self-contradicting, if God as a spirit doesn't have blood then you can't say that "God's blood is truly God's". Moreover, what you state does not add up to what those trinitrains translated the text as, they wrote, "It is the flock he bought withTHE BLOOD OF HIS OWN SON", the blood here doesn't refer to God's blood, but rather "that of his Son", so I don't get how your statement that they believed "God didn't have blood as a Spirit, but that God's blood is truly God's" is an honest reflection of their translation and understanding.

:nono: Nope. I do not. You can assert it all you like. I simply trim a lot of things I believe aren't central. It is important to present what scripture presents. If it is cloudy? I've many times, in thread, said we Trinitarians have "Arian" in our name. There are things we HAVE to agree on. The only need for us isn't to argue over your summations, it is to present clearly where we believe scriptures give an idea we MUST adhere to. That's really it. I don't HAVE to argue you out of a belief. That's God's job and grasping His scriptures is the answer. Me simply giving the clarity of them, is about the most important job I have in this conversation with you.

I do not think you know what 'assert' means my friend. I stated you have selective reasoning and only answer my counterpoints and question you want to, you claim this is simply my assertion, if this is the case where is your response to all (or at least a decent amount) the points and question in the post 3301?

:doh: YOU said "REPRESENTATIVE not representation!" YOU did. If you accuse me, you accuse yourself.

I do not know how many times I have to make myself clear, yes I said representative, but NEVER HAVE I STATED THE WORD 'REPRESENTATIVE' SHOULD BE A DIRECT TRANSLATION OF THE WORD 'ELOHIM' IN EXO 7:1, rather, I claim Moses was called Elohim as he represented YHWH, I made this extremely clear in the post of 3300.

It is YOU Lon that that states the word 'Elohim' in Exo 7:1 should be directly translated as 'representative', again, I do not agree with this but ONLY agree Moses was called Elohim since he was a representative. YOU ARE CONFUSED.

Psalm 8:5 we never talked about. Yes there are echos of the Lord Jesus Christ there, but David was talking about himself and the rest of mankind. God DID put man in the garden and everything under his feet.

Wow, I highly doubt you've been honest in regards to your apparent academic achievements, many of your responses are sub-standard for someone who's accomplished so much. From what I can understand you believe the 'Elohim' mentioned in Ps 8:5 to be in reference to God...seriously? So man was made only a 'little' lower to an infinite God? How is it possible anything that is finite be "a little lower" than something that has no limit? Such an idea is absurd. As most translations read, man was made a little lower than the angels/godlike-one/heavenly-beings, thats who the 'elohim' was in reference to.

Secondly, if one were to believe the 'Elohim' in Ps 8:5 was in reference to God (you made him a little lower than God) then you'd be disagreeing with the inspired writer of Hebrews who understood the reference to be in relation to angels, as most English translations read. Hebrews 2:7 quote of Ps 8:5, "You made them a little lower than the angelous", thus it is clear angels were the ones being spoken about by the usage of 'elohim' in Ps 8:5.

This all being taken into account, the reason behind my statement stands, you cannot make sense of how other beings who are not God are referred to as G-god(s), hence the reason why you constantly choose translations that try and make sense of the plain to see truth that contradicts the trinity.

2 Corinthians 4:4 is Trinitarian. If you look in a mirror, what do you see? (help: Yourself). If the Lord Jesus Christ is a reflection of God, what does it make Him? :think:

Your reading comprehension skill is poor! If this was me who made such a blunder you'd be having a field day, lucky for you we are not the same. The reason why I referenced the verse had nothing to do with Jesus being the image of God and everything to do with the verse reference of "ho theos of the world" being in relation to Satan. Again, you've previously stated Satan being called God here should be translated "ruler", but it's YOU YOURSELF that denies other translations of verses, such as the word 'divine' being used in John 1:1c, as there are better words that could have been used, but you'll happlily ignore your rule when it comes to 2 Cor 4:4!. Your reasoning is inconsistent!

 

[Lon]

I do not think you know what 'assert' means my friend. I stated you have selective reasoning and only answer my counterpoints and question you want to, you claim this is simply my assertion, if this is the case where is your response to all (or at least a decent amount) the points and question in the post 3301?
. Your reasoning is inconsistent!

Er, it means you say things with little to no support to your 'assumption.' I'm smarter than you: there is no post 3301 :doh: Is it pride that makes me say "smarter?" No, it is just what is true. One of my degrees is assessment. I know when I'm talking with someone who hasn't had the education or isn't following comprehension and grammar points. MANY Unitarians/Arians don't! Is that bad? In a sense, yes, in a sense no. Possibly 'no,' because you don't have to be wickedly intelligent to receive grace, Bad, and so yes, because it leaves a lot of you arrogant and prideful without the where-with-all to have that high opinion.

Don't be 'offended,' instead ask yourself and God if it is true (it is or I wouldn't have said it). YOU are placing yourself arrogantly above my prowess and education and frankly, it shows you don't have it yourself. You run to 'translation' after someone's 'idea' instead of actually knowing scriptures and the languages they are written in. Try to think, for a moment, that you are arguing with God, instead of me. It is, I believe, the first hurdle for cults that disagree with centuries of strong Trinitarian theology. Arians/Unitarians died out the first century BEFORE any persecution started SPECIFICALLY because of 1) arrogance and 2) infighting - Exactly the same problem as today!

Your reply here is nonsensical. Your reasoning is inconsistent!

Look, if you just want to be unreasonable or smooth over your conscience for not listening to scriptures, as they are written, then you can excuse yourself from this conversation. I absolutely hate 'mean' and inane posturing just so you can feel good about being a Unitarian. You want to be one? Go ahead. I want to follow God wherever He leads. You? Not open at this point. Stay with your comfort zone and forget about all this then. When you are ready to glorify God and talk about what scripture says, let me know. My degrees are higher than yours and my IQ is higher than yours. What that means? You are being arrogant, frankly AND for NO other reason than pride and an unhealthy attachment to a doctrine-at-all-costs. Which do you love more? Jesus or YOUR doctrine you contrived with less education and less intelligence? It doesn't automatically make me right, but it definitely means you are the one being arrogant here. Sorry. Fact.

Don't you WANT to have a theology that is challenged and affected by your Savior and God???? I do. Until such a time as ANY Unitarian/Arian 'can' convince me otherwise, I'll change for Christ's sake. What you just wrote? NO possible way to convince me of anything. It is just a treatise of arrogance and pride AND YOU KNOW IT!

I'll not respond to an emote repost. I simply must ignore you until you humble yourself under God's hand. This is not it. Things may not look consistent BUT the Triune position is a careful balance and it'd behoove you to learn what they believe and think BEFORE you go off against them. -Lon

 

[NWL]

I've been meaning to reply to your post -which is shocking- for a number of weeks, but time escaped me.

Er, it means you say things with little to no support to your 'assumption.' I'm smarter than you: there is no post 3301 :doh: Is it pride that makes me say "smarter?" No, it is just what is true. One of my degrees is assessment. I know when I'm talking with someone who hasn't had the education or isn't following comprehension and grammar points. MANY Unitarians/Arians don't! Is that bad? In a sense, yes, in a sense no. Possibly 'no,' because you don't have to be wickedly intelligent to receive grace, Bad, and so yes, because it leaves a lot of you arrogant and prideful without the where-with-all to have that high opinion.

There is a post 3301, surely someone who claims to be intelligent than me would know this basic fact, check the top post on this page (pg 221, post 3301) and you'll find it. Lon, I do not say this to insult but you are not smart, hear me out. There are various different levels and types of smartness and intellect, I have a friend who has a masters degree and doctorate in two different fields, he is incredibly smart, yet if you spoke or reasoned with him most would assume he's stupid, and that's because he is. My friend is book smart but in regards to common sense and reasoning ability, he's thick. Only a fool would claim they are smarter than another without knowing their academic background, current career progression among many other things. Moreover, you say "I'm smarter than you", but what exactly have you outsmarted me with? Grammar? This is hardly something to boast about. Time after time I've shamed your reasoning skill along with your ignorance of basic biblical teachings; do you want proof, simply go to post 3301 and look at all the points and questions that have accumulated from our discussion you've been unable to answer.

Don't be 'offended instead ask yourself and God if it is true (it is or I wouldn't have said it). YOU are placing yourself arrogantly above my prowess and education and frankly, it shows you don't have it yourself. You run to 'translation' after someone's 'idea' instead of actually knowing scriptures and the languages they are written in. Try to think, for a moment, that you are arguing with God, instead of me. It is, I believe, the first hurdle for cults that disagree with centuries of strong Trinitarian theology. Arians/Unitarians died out the first century BEFORE any persecution started SPECIFICALLY because of 1) arrogance and 2) infighting - Exactly the same problem as today!

[/QUOTE]

You said much foolishness in the above:

You said "YOU are placing yourself arrogantly above my prowess and education and frankly", HOW?! I'm the one who's asked you questions repeatedly and you've repeatedly refused to answer them! How is asking questions me being arrogant, an arrogant person does not ask questions. Rather, you're the one who's repeatedly stated scholars are wrong 'just because you say they are' and you're the one that insists John 1:1c should be rendered "was God", 'just because' you say it is. Granted, you've made an appeal that there are grammatical reasons behind why you say you're correct, but where have you ever expressed those appeals? Nowhere!

You said "You run to 'translation' after someone's 'idea' instead of actually knowing scriptures and the languages they are written in", wherein God's word, either in the OT or NT, do we find this idea that one must learn the original languages to have any credibility as you imply? We find no such idea, only someone who is stupid would insist such an idea is true.

You said "Try to think, for a moment, that you are arguing with God, instead of me", this statement is full of pride, arrogance, and borderline blasphemy, how you can't see this I don't know. Hardly anything you said has been shown or made clear with the scripture, you have demonstrated your unwillingness to do so, so how on earth could I ever envision you human assumptions and assertions as the words of God?

Look, if you just want to be unreasonable or smooth over your conscience for not listening to scriptures, as they are written, then you can excuse yourself from this conversation. I absolutely hate 'mean' and inane posturing just so you can feel good about being a Unitarian. You want to be one? Go ahead. I want to follow God wherever He leads. You? Not open at this point. Stay with your comfort zone and forget about all this then. When you are ready to glorify God and talk about what scripture says, let me know. My degrees are higher than yours and my IQ is higher than yours. What that means? You are being arrogant, frankly AND for NO other reason than pride and an unhealthy attachment to a doctrine-at-all-costs. Which do you love more? Jesus or YOUR doctrine you contrived with less education and less intelligence? It doesn't automatically make me right, but it definitely means you are the one being arrogant here. Sorry. Fact.

You say "My degrees are higher than yours and my IQ is higher than yours", and yet I have still have a better knowledge and greater understanding of the scriptures than you,how shameful for you. Let me remind you of some of your bad reasoning; It is you who states the word 'divine' should not be used in John 1:1c (not that I ascribed that it should) as there are "better" words that would have been used, yet it's you who insists 'Elohim' in Exo 7:1, Ps 8:5. 2 Cor 4:4 should be translated (not understood) as 'representative, or 'ruler' instead of 'G-god', despite the lack of any translations doing this and "better" words being available. It's YOU who stated Heb 7:3 is a comparison of Christ to Melchizedek when in fact its the other way around, with you applying "in being Fatherless" to Christ, despite him having both a human and also supernatural Father, namely 'the Father', all because you couldn't read and comprehend basic context. It's YOU that stated the Elohim in Ps 8:5 was in relation to God despite Hebrews 2:7 and the surrounding context demonstrating it was not, and it was YOU who stated such things as "No article [in the greek], don't put it in" even though doing such a thing would make all English translations of the bible indecipherable as the English language makes no sense without the use of indefinite articles. These are all schoolboy blunders you have made, and I could have mentioned more.

Don't you WANT to have a theology that is challenged and affected by your Savior and God???? I do. Until such a time as ANY Unitarian/Arian 'can' convince me otherwise, I'll change for Christ's sake. What you just wrote? NO possible way to convince me of anything. It is just a treatise of arrogance and pride AND YOU KNOW IT!

Lol, you really have no clue. You say you want a challenge and yet refuse to answer difficult questions, you say until a Unitarian can convince you otherwise and yet you'll refuse to answer difficult questions, which if you did answer would humble you to see the truth. I'm aware I cannot convince you, that is not a failing on my side, some people's hearts are so hard like Pharaoh's own heart was that even God's own supernatural acts wouldn't convince them otherwise.

I'll not respond to an emote repost. I simply must ignore you until you humble yourself under God's hand. This is not it. Things may not look consistent BUT the Triune position is a careful balance and it'd behoove you to learn what they believe and think BEFORE you go off against them. -Lon

As I've said many times you run as you cannot deal with the reasoning I lay out, you are fooling no one. Below are the question/points you either can't answer or that you're afraid to answer, I humbly request that you answer them so that I can have a glimpse of your supposed "superior intellect", you won't because you can't, hence why you lose.

Scripture expresses that "YHWH shares his glory with no one", does this imply that anyone who does share his glory must be God themselves?

Scripture expresses "there is no God beside YHWH", does this mean anyone else who is called God is YHWH themselves?

You’ve given no reason in relation to Rev 3:14, which after being scrutinized, gives me any other reason to believe that Jesus is not the “beginning of the creation of God”, as the verse reads.

You haven’t shown me anywhere where the Greek word “arche” means beginner, despite you assuming this meaning in Rev 3:14.

You’ve given me no reason that when Prov 8:22 says “YHWH made me at the beginning of his way”, that this was not in relation to Jesus. All you can say it that is “Ambiguous”, whilst ignoring the overwhelming evidence, you don’t even attempt to speak about the evidence I brought to the table in relation to it, why? I can only assume its because you reject the rendering ONLY because it does not fit your biblical worldview despite all the evidence to the contrary. Simply replying, “Ambiguous”, is a fool’s answer imo.

You’ve given me no explanation how Jesus is the part of the group of creation according to Col 1:15, as you have admitted, but not a created being himself despite him being ‘PART’ of creation since he’s the firstborn.

You’ve given me no answer how Jesus is the Father according to Isaiah 9:6, yet is a separate person from the Father according to the trinity doctrine.

You haven’t clearly articulated what person of the trinity creation is ‘from’ according to 1 Cor 8:6 and Hebrews 1:1,2, despite you clearly understanding and stating it is through Jesus in the texts.

You’ve nowhere told me if God and the Angels were part of the “all things” since “nothing was left not subjected when subjecting all things under man” in Hebrews 2:8. This question was posed to you as you denied Jesus could be part of creation by the wording of John 1:3. Our reasoning and theology must be consistent.

You’ve nowhere explained how “God gave his blood” by dying on the cross, yet it was only Jesus humanity that died. Our reasoning and theology must be consistent.

You have not answered if it's possible that an eternal God can have an origin.

Did God so-call other beings "gods" according to 1 Cor 8:5?

Please let me know if you are going to answer these points or if you are going to run from them, which is it?

 

[Lon]

I've been meaning to reply to your post -which is shocking- for a number of weeks, but time escaped me.



There is a post 3301, surely someone who claims to be intelligent than me would know this basic fact, check the top post on this page (pg 221, post 3301)

Link? This thread goes to 198, This is post 2959, the highest in thread at this date. Perhaps you are thinking of another thread....

I'll not respond to an emote repost. I simply must ignore you until you humble yourself under God's hand. This is not it. Things may not look consistent BUT the Triune position is a careful balance and it'd behoove you to learn what they believe and think BEFORE you go off against them. -Lon

Not only think, pray before you respond. I said I'd not respond to an emote and that is all you did above. Grow up some before participating in theology discussions NW.

 

[NWL]

Link? This thread goes to 198, This is post 2959, the highest in thread at this date. Perhaps you are thinking of another thread....

Why is it I'm smart enough to work out that for some reason either our individual operating systems, browsers or TOL itself is displaying this thread along with its numbering of post differently and you are not, shouldn't someone who has a higher IQ and who is apparently smarter than me be able to work this out before me? Apparently not.

Your browser no doubt shows you last post as 2959 on page 198, but on mine, it's post 3312 on page 221. I'm not sure if it will display for you but I've attached an image of my desktop showing this.

Not only think, pray before you respond. I said I'd not respond to an emote and that is all you did above. Grow up some before participating in theology discussions NW.

What in my previous reply could be considered 'emotional'? How do you know I didn't pray and haven't already thought? You assume too much. Let me make express zero emotional so that you won't have a reason to use the same excuse, answer the questions:

Scripture expresses that "YHWH shares his glory with no one", does this imply that anyone who does share his glory must be God themselves?

Scripture expresses "there is no God beside YHWH", does this mean anyone else who is called God is YHWH themselves?

You’ve given no reason in relation to Rev 3:14, which after being scrutinized, gives me any other reason to believe that Jesus is not the “beginning of the creation of God”, as the verse reads.

You haven’t shown me anywhere where the Greek word “arche” means beginner, despite you assuming this meaning in Rev 3:14.

You’ve given me no reason that when Prov 8:22 says “YHWH made me at the beginning of his way”, that this was not in relation to Jesus. All you can say it that is “Ambiguous”, whilst ignoring the overwhelming evidence, you don’t even attempt to speak about the evidence I brought to the table in relation to it, why? I can only assume its because you reject the rendering ONLY because it does not fit your biblical worldview despite all the evidence to the contrary. Simply replying, “Ambiguous”, is a fool’s answer imo.

You’ve given me no explanation how Jesus is the part of the group of creation according to Col 1:15, as you have admitted, but not a created being himself despite him being ‘PART’ of creation since he’s the firstborn.

You’ve given me no answer how Jesus is the Father according to Isaiah 9:6, yet is a separate person from the Father according to the trinity doctrine.

You haven’t clearly articulated what person of the trinity creation is ‘from’ according to 1 Cor 8:6 and Hebrews 1:1,2, despite you clearly understanding and stating it is through Jesus in the texts.

You’ve nowhere told me if God and the Angels were part of the “all things” since “nothing was left not subjected when subjecting all things under man” in Hebrews 2:8. This question was posed to you as you denied Jesus could be part of creation by the wording of John 1:3. Our reasoning and theology must be consistent.

You’ve nowhere explained how “God gave his blood” by dying on the cross, yet it was only Jesus humanity that died. Our reasoning and theology must be consistent.

You have not answered if it's possible that an eternal God can have an origin.

Did God so-call other beings "gods" according to 1 Cor 8:5?

Explain why John 1:1c has to be translated that the Word "was God" according to the grammar, also explain how it's possible that John 1:1 is definite in its sense but somehow doesn't contradict that Jesus was with the God he apparently was.

Please let me know if you are going to answer these points or if you are going to run from them, which is it?

 

[Lon]

Why is it I'm smart enough to work out that for some reason either our individual operating systems, browsers or TOL itself is displaying this thread along with its numbering of post differently and you are not, shouldn't someone who has a higher IQ and who is apparently smarter than me be able to work this out before me? Apparently not.

Uhmm, YOU gave the number.

Your browser no doubt shows you last post as 2959 on page 198, but on mine, it's post 3312 on page 221. I'm not sure if it will display for you but I've attached an image of my desktop showing this.

If you are all that smart, simply start making links such as here. It is pretty easy for an intelligent person.

How do you know I didn't pray and haven't already thought?

Because I think it shows. Scripture calls us to try to do these conversations with grace and gentleness.

You assume too much.

Er, It shows.

Let me make express zero emotional so that you won't have a reason to use the same excuse, answer the questions:

Posturing. It is why I don't believe you've prayed or understand scriptures in regard to instruction and correction. Can I say that in all gentleness and grace without you posturing?

Scripture expresses that "YHWH shares his glory with no one", does this imply that anyone who does share his glory must be God themselves?

To a Trinitarian or Modalist (majority of Christians)? Yes.

Scripture expresses "there is no God beside YHWH", does this mean anyone else who is called God is YHWH themselves?

To a Trinitarian or Modalist? Yes.

You’ve given no reason in relation to Rev 3:14, which after being scrutinized, gives me any other reason to believe that Jesus is not the “beginning of the creation of God”, as the verse reads.

This, as stated amounts to/is a lie. You know very well I quoted 3 Greek scholars that said 'beginner.' THAT, is a reason. I also gave the 'reasoning' behind that translation: He is the beginning of all creation. Thus beginning is, is the verb. You might disagree, but you cannot say, with any truthfulness, that no reason was given. How many of these do YOU need me to field? All of them? To what end, NW? "Why?" Is it so you will become a Trinitarian? Is it simply to hunt for every reason NOT to believe the rest of Christianity? "Why?" do you think the majority of Christianity doesn't agree with you? Because 'we' are not Christians? What is the point to all of this, NW? Why must every one of these threads be fought tooth and nail on TOL? What is the purpose Arians/Unitarians (at least you)?

 

[Caino]

If Jesus died then he is not God for God can not die.

Paul says he is the image of God, not God.

Only the temporary mortal body of Jesus died. He waited 3 days and returned in a new form on his own volition.

 

[Right Divider]

Only the temporary mortal body of Jesus died. He waited 3 days and returned in a new form on his own volition.

Please identify this "new form" from the scripture.

Jesus showed, clearly, that He had the same body that went to the tomb.

Luk 24:36-44 KJV And as they thus spake, Jesus himself stood in the midst of them, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you. (37) But they were terrified and affrighted, and supposed that they had seen a spirit. (38) And he said unto them, Why are ye troubled? and why do thoughts arise in your hearts? (39) Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have. (40) And when he had thus spoken, he shewed them his hands and his feet. (41) And while they yet believed not for joy, and wondered, he said unto them, Have ye here any meat? (42) And they gave him a piece of a broiled fish, and of an honeycomb. (43) And he took it, and did eat before them. (44) And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.

Joh 20:26-28 KJV 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.

 

[Caino]

Please identify this "new form" from the scripture.

Jesus showed, clearly, that He had the same body that went to the tomb.

After the resurrection in the new form Jesus would "suddenly appear" and vanish because his body is the new form we will have in heaven.

Jesus saith unto her, Mary. She turned herself, and saith unto him, Rabboni; which is to say, Master. 17Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father:

Then the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you. 20And when he had so said, he shewed unto them his hands and his side.


“And their eyes were opened, and they knew him; and he vanished out of their sight.”

 

[Right Divider]

After the resurrection in the new form Jesus would "suddenly appear" and vanish because his body is the new form we will have in heaven.

Jesus saith unto her, Mary. She turned herself, and saith unto him, Rabboni; which is to say, Master. 17Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father:

Then the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you. 20And when he had so said, he shewed unto them his hands and his side.

“And their eyes were opened, and they knew him; and he vanished out of their sight.”

Agreed... and yet He still had the marks on His body from His life on earth.

 

[Caino]

Agreed... and yet He still had the marks on His body from His life on earth.

When the apostles and other witnesses went out to tell people they had seen the resurrected Jesus they naturally didn't want people to think they has seen a ghost or something.

 

[Right Divider]

When the apostles and other witnesses went out to tell people they had seen the resurrected Jesus they naturally didn't want people to think they has seen a ghost or something.

Agreed... and God did not what them to think that as well.