Jesus is God !

[NWL]

I, a trinitarian, am telling you that you're wrong, and I already provided you with the definitions I accept for "God" and "Trinity."

Repeatedly asserting the above claim will not magically make it come true, no matter how many times you claim it is "undeniable."

Now, that being said, perhaps I could help you out:

A more appropriate comparison would be between "Trinity" and "Godhead."

You seem to be forgetting something, as well. Trinitarians also assert that each Member of the Godhead are Themselves the entirety of God.

I don't know how that works, how God is three Persons, as one Being, and how each Person is also the full manifestation of God, and I doubt I ever will, or maybe God will be able to explain it to me after I get to heaven.

It's something where, at least for now, I'm simply going to have to appeal to the mystery of Who and What God is, because all other options, as @Lon puts it, do damage to the rest of scripture.

Does the Trinity teach there are three persons who are one being who are the Father, Son and HS?

Is God three persons who is one being, namely the Father, Son and HS?

Is the explanation of who the 'one God' is that God is the Father, Son and HS, or is the explanation of who God is that God is only Jesus?

 

[JudgeRightly]

It is painfully hard and awkward to read and respond to your post JR

Or perhaps your cognitive dissonance is the problem. I'm trying to help you with that.

due to misquotations

How have I misquoted you? Be specific.

Over and over you make a series of pointless comments

Here's a hint: Nothing I say is pointless.

Again, how could you come to the conclusion I was making an assertion without evidence when in the paragraph before you quoted the scholarly source that was accompanied with my claim, thus it was not merely an assertion.

Did you not notice that I actually agreed with the point that was made by you quoting the NIV Study Bible, referring to the plural of majesty? I even mentioned that it is the origin of the royal "we" used by royalty.

However, one source is not "a vast amount of scholarly work."

You cited one source which isn't very good (let alone scholarly) to begin with based on its ability (or lack thereof) to accurately convey what the bible says.

I asked you to "cite to some of this scholarly work."

Again, how could you act and pretend

I'm neither acting nor pretending. I'm simplly responding to what I see

I'm simply asserting it's not a good argument despite me making it extremely clear why it was not a good argument.

Because you did not, in fact, make it extremely clear why it was not a good argument, as all you did was assert it was not a good argument, and mention that the Septuagint didn't make any distinction, which is not, in and of itself, an argument, but another claim.

Might I remind you that simply asserting your position does not count as an argument against mine.

Might I ALSO remind you that the Septuagint is in another language, which inherently causes some information to be lost simply due to the nature of translation, which is why I said the Hebrew text has priority over the Septuagint.

I understand you contest the arguments I presented, but to suggest I'm claiming I'm correct "just because I say so" is a misrepresentation of what I expressed.

Except it's not.

Note that I was quoting a very small portion of what you said when I said that.

JudgeRightly, do you really think I was making a claim that the correct and only way for God's name to be written or spoke was in the form of YHWH?

I think you need to lighten up and focus on the more important part of what I said, which was that the version of Deuteronomy 6:4 that you quoted is phrased differently than what you said, and I then showed you the Hebrew.

Your comments above were in reply to me saying "if the Elohim in reference to the one God should be understood in the plural sense then it implies not one God but GODS; "in the beginning, GODS created the heavens and the earth",

I can't change what the Bible says, NWL. The Hebrew word we English speakers translate as "God" in Genesis 1:1 is a plural word, not singular, and it's used with a singular verb.

Which violates the rule of grammar (applicable in every language where a distinction is made based on number) which says that the subject must agree with the verb.

You seem to give an example of the English usage of the word "one",

Then your reading comprehension sucks.

I gave you the hebrew word "echad" (the word used in Deuteronomy 6:4) and its definition according to Strong's.

ignore the issue I present with understanding "Elohim" as 'GODS' in Gen 1:1 and shift the argument to Deut 6:4.

It's called using scripture to interpret scripture.

You should try it.

You nowhere explained how it's possible how the usage of "Elohim" as applied to YHWH doesn't infer 'more than one God' if understood in the plural sense, namely GODS.

I did, but because you ignored what I said about your misquotation of Deuteronomy 6:4, and my correction of what you said, I can see how you would think that.

Your forgetting that the Bible has its own error correction mechanisms throughout.

Here is where it comes into play:

Genesis 1:1 uses the plural form of "God" but the singular form of "created." Alone this would either mean that Genesis 1:1 is grammatically incorrect, or that Moses intentionally wrote it that way to make a point.

Deuteronomy 6:4 helps to clarify, because Moses states directly that God is one God, but instead of using a word like yachad or bad (Hebrew words that both mean "one," but of singularity, not unity), he uses echad (which does not mean a singular "one," but one of unity). Echad is the same word used in Genesis 2:24, which describes man and woman being unified as one flesh. Two persons, one unit.

Which is a lesser imitation YHWH God, Who is three Persons, but one Being.

And finally, God Himself states truthfully that: "I alone am God, besides Me there is no other."

Those three passages together point out that God is a single, plural being.

He is not multiple singular beings. He is one God who is three Persons.

we are not debating the English

Again, your reading comprehension sucks.

I never said anything about the "english word 'one'."

I was talking about the HEBREW word for "one" used in Deuteronomy 6:4, which is also used in Genesis 2:24, because there are multiple words that mean "one" in Hebrew, and its important to note which one is being used (pardon the pun), because it makes a HUGE difference in how the text should be understood.

rather, we're discussing the usage of the Hebrew word "Elohim"

Duh. Haven't you been paying attention this whole time?

Deut doesn't say "ELOHIM is one God" . . . it states “Listen, O Israel: Jehovah our God is one Jehovah."

Go back and read what I said, and look at the image I posted.

It literally says:

"[Hear] [Israel] [YHWH] [our] [God] [YHWH] [(is)one]."

Again, the "(is) one" here is "one of unity" not the singular "one."

So again, your argument falls flat on its face.

Because you say so?

Only the Father is ever called YHWH/Jehovah/Yahweh.

Because you say so?

It's called begging the question. It's why you can't see that there are two Persons in Genesis 19:24, and not one.

you presuppose Jehovah is three persons in the verse

No I don't.

and therefore understand the word "echad" to mean "united entity".

I didn't make up the definition of the word echad, NWL.

It means "one of unity." A united "one." That's what it means! I didn't just make it up!

Strong's h259 - Lexical: אֶחָד - Transliteration: echad - Part of Speech: Adjective - Phonetic Spelling: ekh-awd' - Definition: one. - Origin: A numeral from 'achad; properly, united, i.e. One; or (as an ordinal) first.

If we simply read the verse for what it says, it just means the single entity and person, namely YHWH, is one being and person, YHWH.

Because you say it does?

You're reading the English version (and a poor translation at that) and demanding that what you say is what the Hebrew says and means? How can someone be so arrogant!?

How do you get "YHWH is one being and person" out of "YHWH our God, YHWH is one", especially when the meaning of the word used for "one" refers to a unity, and not a singular entity, where the parallel is being drawn between Elohim and one (of unity).

YHWH our God
YHWH is One

God is One
Elohim united

the verse was simply reminding the nation of Israel that YHWH was not a God that consisted of many beings or persons, but rather a single deity.

This is conjecture and is begging the question.

The passage says nothing about the surrounding nations being polytheistic. In fact, it doesn't mention other nations at all until later in the chapter.

No translation of Deut 6:4

So lets stick to what the Hebrew actually says then. It literally says:

"[Hear] [Israel] [YHWH] [our] [God] [YHWH] [(is)one]."

they all understand the term in that specific passage to simply mean "one", as in numerically one.

Saying it doesn't make it so, NWL.

The word "echad" (used in Deuteronomy 6:4, Genesis 2:24, and elsewhere, means a united "one."

nothing you've provided so far has said anything close to that trinitarian statement.

Because you say so?

On the contrary, everything I have presented so far is perfectly in line with and supportive of God being triune.

You saying "correct" was in reply to my comment and quote of "in the beginning, GODS created the heavens and the earth".

Yes it was. Because that's exactly what it says if we were to translate directly from the Hebrew straight to English without any consideration of grammatical rules.

JR, does the trinitarian doctrine teach, and do you believe, there is one God, or does it teach and, you believe, there are Gods in the trinity?

The Bible teaches that there is one God who is three Persons who are each fully God.

It does not teach tri/poly-theism. The "trinity" is a monotheistic concept.

If it was not a mistake then why does the LXX say singular "God" in Gen 1:1,

Because it's a different language. Duh.

For the umpteenth time: When you translate something from one language to the other, you inherently lose some of the fidelity of phrase that was present in the original language.

why would an ancient scholar miss this clear remark.

Why do you think they missed it?

My position is that Moses, in writing "Gods (pl.) created (s.)," was making a point that unitarians, such as yourself, ignore, which is that God is a plural unity.

Before you say the LXX is not authoritative

I have never made such a claim. I said that the Hebrew takes priority over the Septuagint, in the context of what we were talking about.

As I have already said scholars agree "Elohim" in reference to God does not refer to a plurality of persons when referring YHWH:

Is this where you finally cite your "vast amount of scholarly work"? If so, thank you.

Also, next time, if you're going to copy/paste something from online, please use the "Paste as plain text" option in the right-click dropdown menu. It will eliminate all of the unnecessary original formatting from the page and result in much cleaner, easier-to-read text, especially in the post editor, which is generally where I read and respond to your post, thus the formatting is wasted, at least on me.

Smith’s Bible Dictionary, p. 220, Hendrickson Publ: “The fanciful idea that [elohim] referred to the trinity of persons in the Godhead hardly finds now a supporter among scholars.
It is either what grammarians call the plural of majesty or it denotes the fullness of divine strength, the sum of the powers displayed by God.”

It refers to all of the above, despite what Smith says, as I have shown.

Young’s Concise Critical Commentary, p. 1: “Heb. elohim, a plural noun ... it seems to point out a superabundance of qualities in the Divine Being rather than a plurality of persons .... It is found almost invariably accompanied by a verb in the singular number.”

Would you be so kind as to post the entire quote, as I don't currently have access to the full commentary.

Today’s Dictionary of the Bible, 1982, Bethany House Publishers, p208: “[Elohim] Applied to the one true God, it is the result in the Hebrew idiom of a plural magnitude or majesty. When applied to the heathen gods, angels, or judges ..., Elohim is plural in sense as well as form.”

Peloubet’s Bible Dictionary, 1925 ed. Pg. 224: "[Elohim] is either what grammarians call the plural of majesty, or it denotes the fullness of divine strength, the sum of the powers displayed by God."

Unger and White, 1980, p. 159. Nelson’s Expository Dictionary of the Old Testament, describes elohim: “The common plural form ‘elohim,’ a plural of majesty.”

No disagreement.

Correct, the term 'Elohim' does not necessitate that the one being spoken of refers to persons.

Correction: the term Elohim does not necessitate that the one being spoken of refers to multiple entities.

It CAN refer to multiple persons. (e.g. angels are persons too)

We can see this when looking at Exo 7:1 when it applied the term to Moses who is a single person,

Moses is not called God, he is said to be "God to pharaoh," and as such, it's not applied to him in the literal sense, but rather metaphorically.

I have already addressed this, and cited this link:

Was Moses “a god”? Exodus 4:16 and 7:1

Jehovah's Witnesses claim that in Exodus (4:16; 7:1) Moses was a god in the sense of God's representative; Mormons claim that Moses was deified. This article refutes both interpretations.

bib.irr.org

to the singular Philistine god Dagon 1 Samuel 5:7 (5:7 - "[Jah's] hand has dealt harshly with us and our god/Elohim Daʹgon"),

I almost want to chalk this up to the fact that it says "is harsh His hand towards us and Dagon, our god" in the Hebrew, where "our god" is "elohenu" and not just "elohim." By that I mean that they, as a plural entity, are describing their one god.

@Lon Thoughts?

to the god Chemosh in Judges 11:24 (11:24 - "Do you not possess whatever your god Cheʹmosh gives you to possess")

Same as above.

@Lon perhaps this has something to do with eastern thought of thinking in groups verses western thought of thinking as a singular entity?

among other references to other persons/gods who are not multi-personal beings.

Supra.

If "Elohim" was to always be understood in relation to a plurality of persons or beings then such verses, as the the ones above, would make little sense.

No one is saying Elohim has to be understood always has to.

But the fact that it IS plural means something, and that meaning should not simply be discarded because it doesn't fit with your theology.

There is no reason why it would be wrong to accept "elohim" to simply mean "God" as the word means in english, the vast majority of scholars would agree.

Supra. Don't throw the baby out with the bath water.

Lol, you are truley confused.

Says the person who apparently can't spell...

Slow down when typing. Proofread your posts before posting them, or at the very least, pay more attention to what you type...

I'm not going to argue a point with a trinitarian who suggesting "Gods created".

I'm not the one saying it, NWL.

The Bible is.

And not only that, it CONSISTENTLY, throughout the scripture, uses the plural noun with singular verbs when speaking of God doing something.

Again, the trinity doctrine teaches that God is one being, by your comments here you're suggesting there is not one God but multiple Gods.

False.

I'm saying that it's referring to one God as a plurality of Persons, not multiple Gods.

That's why "Elohim" is used in places where it matters, and not "El" or "Elah," and why it's translated as "God" rather than "Gods."

I asked if the trinity doctrine teaches there is one God who is three persons, or if there are three Gods who are three persons.

The Bible teaches one God who is three Persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

You're meant to be showing me where the Bible teaches the trinity,

That's what I've been doing.

not contradicting it by claiming the bible teaches Gods and not God in relation to the trinity.

I'm not contradicting it.

I'm telling you that I am a monotheist.

I'm telling you that the Bible says "Elohim" not because it means multiple Gods, but rather because it means one God who is a united plurality.

Gen 19:1 states, "Now the two angels came to Sodom in the evening",

Yup.

then, Gen 19:13 has the two angels stating "we will destroy this place...Yahweh has sent us to destroy it",

Yup.

v24 futher adds, "Yahweh rained...sulfur and fire from Yahweh out of the sky".

Yup.

I've claimed these angels were not lying when they stated they we sent by Yahweh to destroy the city,

I agree.

I also have to make sense that v24 that states Yahweh rained fire and sulfar from Yahweh out of the sky.

Correct.

The only reasonable conclusion is that these angels were Yahweh's representatives and were ordained by Yahweh himself to destroy the city, thus their action of destroying the city was as if Yahweh was destroying it himself, hence "Yahweh rained...sulfur and fire from Yahweh out of the sky".

False. It is not the only conclusion, but it IS unreasonable.

The other possible AND very reasonable conclusion is.... Well, I'll get to that in a moment, but first...

If you insist these angels were YHWH

I'm not the one insisting that they are being called YHWH because they're His representatives.

That would be you.

then it contradicts other teachings of the bible,

Your position does. Mine does not.

as these two angels were the same two of the three angels/men who appeared Abraham under the tree in Gen 18:1,2,

Correct.

"Yahweh appeared to him [Abraham]

Oh?

Who was it that appeared to Abraham?

YHWH.

Who was it that rained down fire, from YHWH out of the heavens?

YHWH.

Have you connected the dots yet?

Let's clear this up with a question, were the Angels mentioned in Gen 19:1 angelic beings or were they God in the in manner of a theophany?

The two angels NOT described as "the Angel of the Lord" or "YHWH" were simply angels, created beings. They themselves were not a theophany, as they are not God.

If the angels in Gen 19:1 were God, being the two of the three who appeared to Abraham in Gen 18:1,2

The two angels were simply that, angels.

However, YHWH is, in fact, YHWH, and YHWH did, in fact, appear to Abraham.

then explain the contradiction with 1 John 4:12 that expresses "no one has seen God at any time",

Seeing isn't just about physical sight. It's also used to refer to spiritual understanding.

since Abraham and Sarah saw all three persons of the trinity.

Well, no, they didn't.

They saw Christ pre-incarnate, in the image He created that He made man in. Christ, being YHWH, is called such.

Grammatically, yes, generally "THE GOD" (ho theos or ton theon) would be a reference to the God of Israel;

Correct.

contexutally pertaining to theology, also yes; Paul makes it clear in 1 Cor 8:5,6, "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."

Why did you stop and leave off the rest of the verse?

That's' not the end of the verse.

Therefore concerning the eating of things offered to idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is no other God but one.For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as there are many gods and many lords),yet for us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we for Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and through whom we live. - 1 Corinthians 8:4-6 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1Corinthians8:4-6&version=NKJV

You can't just leave off half the verse because you don't think it's relevant...

Paul clearly made a distinction and placed only the Father in the category of the "one God" despite of his claim of other gods existing.

He also put Christ in the category of the "one Lord . . . through whom are all things, and through whom we live."

"I am the Lord your God. There is none beside me"

Who is your Lord, NWL?

This is nothing more than an assertion.

Except it's not just an assertion.

The phrase "Angel of Yahweh" denotes the "angel" is simply Yahweh's Angel, the same way the phrase the "messenger of the King" denotes the messenger is the Kings messenger. There is no reason not to accept the Malek YHWH's (angels of Yahweh) as simply being Yahwehs angels, it's without doubt a clear possibilty of the verse and its primary meaning upon reading the text.

Who Is the Angel of the Lord in the Old Testament?

Though all the good angels are angels of God, or angels of the Lord, there is one special angel who is distinct and unique from all the other angels, he is

www.blueletterbible.org

 

[JudgeRightly]

I will reply to this post when I can.

You said above "For ANY created being to utter those things in the same contexts of the verses they are found in, it would be blasphemy", says who, you? If the one God, namely the Father, ordained that all things are to go through his Son Jesus, then it is hardly blasphemy as it was God himself who ordained it; for it to be blasphemy, Jesus would've had to have said all those things without recognizing the Father when doing so, we see the exact opposite of this. Jesus said things such as:

"The things I say to you I do not speak of my own originality, but the Father who remains in union with me is doing his works." (John 14:12)
"For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me." (John 6:38)
"I do exactly as the Father commanded Me." John 14:31

So when Jesus says all the things you made mention of, he says them as the Father told him to say such things and ordained such things to be done to him. Jesus himself said, "No one comes to the Father except through me" (John 14:6), so many of the actions done in Jesus name are not for his own namesake but rather to draw ourselves closer to the Father and bring him glory, we can see this in action in Phil 2:9-11 that states "For this very reason, God exalted him to a superior position...so that in the name of Jesus every knee should bend...and every tongue should openly acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father". Notice, how the Father appoints Jesus above every single thing so that every knee has to bend to his Son, but to whose glory is it? It's to the glory of "God the Father"! Bending the knee is not for Jesus' glory but for the glory of the Father, who Paul categorizes as the "one God". Jesus is

You said "I'm literally giving you the verses. Are you that blind?", you're giving me verses yes, but which of those verses teach 'God is one being who is three persons who are co-equal and co-eternal'? None! Remember you claimed the scriptures "teaches", I do not deny the segments of the trinity doctrine can be conceived by piecing various scriptures together, but to claim the scriptures "teach it" is a claim it's explicitly taught and is clear, which it is not.

Regarding your points:
1) this imply Gods, not God, the trinity doctrine teaches there is one God, not Gods, so I don't understand how it proves the doctrine over contradicting it.
2) No translation translates it this way, it's an argument from technicality. There is no reason to understand the text over the general meaning of "one" in English. Also, such an argument assumes the Holy Spirit and Jesus are ever directly called YHWH, they never are.
3) I don't believe you made that argument, if you did I missed it.
4) It's your claim it's blasphemous. Nothing Jesus said could be considered blasphemy if he gives all glory to God (Phil 2:11).
5) It depends on how you understand the term "God" there; is John 1:1c definite, indefinite or qualitative?
6) You merely asserted Hebrews 1 teach Jesus the Son is God, nowhere did you show this. I do not deny Jesus can be called God, I deny he's the "one God".
7) This has yet to be fully shown other than your comments where you assume the term "God" is applied to him.
8) I agree.

(Acts 5:1-42) "However, a man named An·a·niʹas, together with his wife Sap·phiʹra, sold some property. 2 But he secretly held back some of the price, with his wife’s knowledge, and he brought just a part of it and deposited it at the feet of the apostles. 3 But Peter said: “An·a·niʹas, why has Satan emboldened you to lie to the holy spirit and secretly hold back some of the price of the field? 4 As long as it remained with you, did it not remain yours? And after it was sold, was it not in your control? Why have you thought up such a deed as this in your heart? You have lied, not to men, but to God.”

Notice where it states "deposited it at the feet of the apostles" that no doubt included Peter. Lies do not have to be verbal but can be done by actions, this is common sense; Ananias pretended to deposit the full price of his property but rather only deposited some of the price "at the feet of the apostles", this amounted to lying. Again, the lie could be said attributed to the Holy Spirit as it was the Holy Spirit that was empowering the apostles, whose feet the money was deposited at, the lie was ultimately towards God as the Holy Spirit belongs and comes from God; nothing I've said is inconsistent with what the bible teaches.


This is a poor deduction. Romans 9:17 states "For Scripture says to Pharaoh: "I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth", 1 Cor 15:26 "The last enemy to be destroyed is death", Isaiah 24:23 "Then the moon shall be confounded, and the sun ashamed; for Yahweh of Armies will reign on Mount Zion.

How can scripture speak to Pharoah, only something that is human can speak, should we conclude the scriptures are a person, or death is a person as it is an enemy, or that the sun and moon are persons as they can become confounded and ashamed? Such deductions are poor. It seems you ignored the verses that clearly express an action toward someone actings on a person or God's behalf is an action to them themselves. Again, Ananias and his wife lied to God as it was God who empowered Peter by means of Jesus to read people's hearts and retains someone's sin, there is nothing inconsistent with this, and nothing you've stated demands that the HS is God according to Acts.

You said the above in relation to my comment of "(2. Does the Bible refer to each of these persons as God?) No, it refers to the Father as the 'one God'.

(1 Corinthians 8:4-6) "..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..."

As shown, the Father is the only person placed in the category of the "one God", Jesus and the HS are left out as they were not considered as being the "one God".

No, I mean God. Isaiah 9:6 Jesus is called 'GOD', in John 20:28 Jesus is called 'GOD', Hebrews 1:8 Jesus is called 'GOD'. What you are mistaking is because JW's understand John 1:1c as calling Jesus "a god", that we do not understand him as ever being called 'God', this is not true. Whatsmore, the Bible in its original form made no such distinction when it came to capitalization, so it really does not matter if I say I believe Jesus to be 'God' over 'god', or 'a god' over 'a God'. All the original books would've been writing in upper case with no distinction between lower case as we have in english.

See the above comments, there would have been no such distinction in the original writings, they would've been written in all capital letters. Again, Moses was called ELOHIM, as were angels, and men. Satan and men are called THEOS and HO THEOS, GOD and THE GOD in John 10:34 and 2 Cor 4:4, there was no such thing as a lower case g GOD in the minds of the OT or NT writers, so my point still stands.

Lol, the writing you posted literally agree's with me "Thus, the LXX rendering of Exodus 7:1 is also easily interpreted as referring to Moses as “God” metaphorically. In light of Exodus 4:16, that is exactly how we should take it.3 This means that we should translate elohim and theos in Exodus 7:1 “[as] God” rather than “a god.”"

The fact of the matter is both the Greek and Hebrew literally call Moses Elohim (theos), and this was the only point I was making. It doesn't matter why Moses was called God, whether he was God literally (which we both would deny) or if the application was metaphorical as the article states and I agree, the fact is he was called ELOHIM. Other beings who are not the "one God" can be referred to as God without it demanding they are the one God. Again, look up Exo 7:1, 2 Cor 4:4, Ps 8:5, John 10:34, all those verses have beings who are not the "one God" labelled as GOD (remember, you claiming they are called gods over Gods in our 'English translations' changes nothing).

Lol, and who is identified as being the "one God" in 1 Cor 8:6? It's the Father! Jesus is not spoken of being the one God if that's what you're suggesting, no translation reads that way. The verse is very clear, there is one God, who is the Father, and one Lord, who is Jesus Christ.


In other words, yes, the Bible teaches there is only one God, big 'G,' which is what I asked.
"God" is not a name, it's a title, this is very basic; YHWH (Yahweh/Jehovah) is God's name. Again, I'll let Paul define it for me as he does so perfectly, "there is no God but one. For even though there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth, just as there are many “gods” and many “lords,”  there is actually to us one God, the Father.

Notice again what Paul states above and what I believe, there are "many gods" (see Exo 7:1, Ps 8:5, John 10:34, 2 Cor 4:4) as Paul expresses, but for me and him ("to us") there is "one God the Father".

I cut the verse of early as my point was in regards to who the "one God" is; the latter part of the verse does not identify Jesus as the "one God" but rather, the "one Lord", therefore it was not relevant to my point.

You said "Last I checked, God is through whom are all things, and through whom we live. That makes Jesus God", that is not necessarily correct, the scriptures clearly highlight that the Father, who is the only person identified as the "one God", created the world through Jesus. Hebrews 1:1 states in reference to the Father (Hebrews 1:5), "God...in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son...through whom also he created the world." Notice what the verse expresses, the Father created the world through Jesus, 1 Cor 8:6 is simply reiterating what we know, that the Father, who is the source of all things, made the world through Jesus; 1 Cor 8:6 does not suggest Jesus is God since firstly, he isn't categorised as the "one God" in the verse, and secondly, it clearly expresses all things are "from" the Father but simply "through" him ("the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things" - 1 Cor 8:6).

 

[JudgeRightly]

If I were to ask you who is "THE GOD" mentioned in John 1:1b, according to your ridiculous principle of "not importing ideas and other text", you'll be forced to admit it's the Word according to what is said in John 1:1c. The text does not identify who "THE GOD" is in v1b and only expresses in v1c that "THE WORD WAS THE GOD". You cannot claim it's the Father in v1b, since that would be "importing ideas" into the text, so your left with Jesus being the trinity itself!

"In beginning was the Word and the Word was with the God and God was the Word"

Granville-Sharp applies in Greek just as it does in English.

1. The father and husband went home.
2. The father and the husband went home.

"1" is referring to one person who is a father and a husband, while "2" is referring to two individuals, a father, and a husband

How does this apply to John 1:1?

the Word and God:
- was with the God
- was God

 

[oatmeal]

Matt 19:16-26

16 And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?

17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.

18 He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness,

19 Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

20 The young man saith unto him, All these things have I kept from my youth up: what lack I yet?

21 Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me.

22 But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions.

23 Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven.

24 And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.

25 When his disciples heard it, they were exceedingly amazed, saying, Who then can be saved?

26 But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.


This passage actually is teaching the Truth that Jesus is God ! Notice vs 17 As the young man had addressed Jesus as good, and Jesus responded accordingly, why callest thou me good, for none is good but ONE, that One Being God

Now , notice Jesus did not say, none is good but One and that is my Father, but He said that One, Being God !

Now if Jesus by this is not insinuating that He is God, then the alternative is that He was not good, seeing He just said only ONE, not Two, but ONLY ONE is good.

Now, if Jesus was not good, being that He was not the Only One Good God, then His commanding him, the young ruler, in order to be perfect, that he must go sell all his possessions, then give to the poor, and follow Him; Such an commandment exposed that the young man loved his possessions above God, which was a violation of the very first commandment, now if Jesus was not God, then the young mans refusal to obey and follow Jesus, could not be a proper standard to gauge his Love to God !

For there could not have been nothing amiss about not making such a great sacrifice as that Jesus told him, and then following Him if the One speaking was not the One God, who Only was good !

Oh, please. He is not referring to himself as the one that is good, He is referring to God as the only one who is good. God alone is the source of all good.

James 1:17

Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Oh, please. He is not referring to himself as the one that is good, He is referring to God as the only one who is good. God alone is the source of all good.

Was Jesus good? (agathos)

 

[NWL]

My brother NWL has asked me to write a message on this board on his behalf to any members who may be awaiting his response. Last week NWL broke his arm in three places while he was at work. This has left him unable to respond to any messages or queries directed to him.

He gives the reassurance that his inactivity on the forum is not due to an inability to respond to any questions or discussions that are currently being debated and gives his assurance that he will be back in due time after his arm is properly healed and he is again able to resume normal activities.

 

[Lon]

Apart from bringing in John 10:30, almost nothing you said in your reply was a scriptural reply but rather personal opinions and comments about trivial matters. Let's bring things back down to basic, let's try and speak only about the scriptural and theological arguments (I have added this paragraph in after posting this post).

It only matters if it is pertinent to the thread. You aren't the one that gets to make that assessment. Part of the NEEDED discussion is what you actually can bring to the table.

What a way for someone to say they refuse to answer a question!

:sigh: ...attacking the windmills of your own machinations....

Again, if you believe you've given the answers to the question or responded to the points all you have to do is tell me the post number, quote the post, or link it in response.

No, I don't have to do anything. I've no idea where you grew up, but this expectation is wrong. I've told you, repeatedly, you DON'T read for comprehension. This is YOUR academic problem. Stop throwing YOUR inability at other's feet.

I'm not claiming you've nowhere spoken about the points, I'm suggesting you haven't made mention of them adequately in light of my most recent replies and counterpoints.

Please show me where you've confirmed or denied the statement, "In 2020 Bob built a Town. All things were made by him, and without him was not anything made that was made", implies all things both inside the and outside the town were made by Bob, or only the things in the town were made by him.

It doesn't matter. It was a strawman you created and then attempted (unsuccessfully) to knock down. You probably don't get this either.

Please show me where you've demonstrated why it is good to disregard my understanding that the words "the beginning" to be in reference to Genesis 1:1, in light of scriptures such as 1 John 1:1, 1 John 3:8 among others, or why it's not correct to apply the context to John 1:3. Is you claiming "we shouldn't import scripture" all you have to express in this regard?

I have. I'm fairly done because of your inability. You probably shouldn't be on triune websites when these discussions are beyond you UNLESS you start reading instead of trying to debate. As I said prior, your ability isn't on par.

Please show me where you answered whether or not the angels are subjected to man according to Hebrews 2:7,8, in light of my recent comments?

Pay attention: IT DOESN'T MATTER. This was your strawman, nothing anybody else was really interested in. It was a windmill in your mind that you tried to knock down and failed. BECAUSE you failed with your example and your attempt, it is forgotten by the rest of us. It doesn't matter if you think nobody answered your set-up to your satisfaction. You failed according to ours. It is out of sight, out of mind specifically because you didn't deliver. I anticipated and rejected your presumption, remember? It is as if you never brought it up in the first place. It didn't go anywhere.

No listen: It doesn't matter if you 'feel' you didn't get an answer. It is inconsequential to any discussion on this thread because of your inability.
Quit crying about it. Its a horrible debate tactic and means nothing to the thread.

Again you make an appeal to the masses, no matter how many times you suggest the masses will never define truth. It's utterly absurd that you keep suggesting such a thing.

It doesn't matter what you 'think.' It matters what is true. It doesn't matter what you find absurd or ridiculous, there is no demonstration that you think clearly and accurately to even worry what you 'think.' You make a lot of assertions with no back-up. You are the one that makes these thread go round and round away from scriptures. Look at your posts.

No scholar does exegesis without the use of other scripture to interpret scripture;

You don't know what you are talking about.

interpreting scripture with scripture is the standard.

I know JW's make this assumption. It is the clear mark of the difference and IS the only thing that needs presentation in this thread. It overshadows your desire to violently rip scriptures from their contexts AND the stark problem demonstrated in thread in clarity. It really is all I ever need bring to light in these threads. You've literally no presenting your 'everybody interprets scripture how they want to, instead of how context intends.' It is the difference between Arians/Unitarians and the rest of us.

You've suggested the principle of not "Importing ideas" (interpreting scripture with scripture) into scripture is the correct way to understand the scripture, but, I would argue such an idea only relates to importing 'un-scriptural' ideologies or personal opinions that aren't suggested in the scripture themselves. As stated, we see the scholarly community, and the understanding of the trinity doctrine itself develop based on interpreting scripture with scripture, hence why it is so silly for you, a trinitarian, to suggest such an idea, as it causes more issues for you than it fixes.

I realize you think this way. It is why I make it the focal point of discussion. It NEEDS to be the focal point. Reading Comprehension IS the need!

Of course it doesn't matter what I think, all that matters is what the scriptures state.

We mean two different things, lest I agree.

You allude to John 10:30, which states 'Jesus and the Father are One', but aren't we missing something? The Trinity doctrine expresses three persons are one, not two persons, as John 10:30 states. Such an expression "I and the Father are one" when viewed without "importing scripture" and ideas (lol) suggest that only Jesus and the Father are one being and not the Father/Son/HS, so how is this evidence to what you suggest, at best Jesus and the Father are a duality, not a trinity.

It doesn't. Just state they are a 'duality' at that point. I'm fine with 'correct' assessment. Such a concession already naturally leads to 'two being one,' thus 'three being one' isn't a stretch after that. Go ahead and admit you are a dualatarian and we can move one. No? Then your objection doesn't stand. See?

Whatsmore, a simple reading of the text, whilst also allowing other scripture to help us interpret and better understand John 10:30, allows us to understand the oneness spoken of in John 10:30 has nothing to do with oneness in 'being', but rather, oneness in purpose.

Er, no. Context is the ONLY appropriate interpreter.

Let's do a quick review of the context. John 10:30 Jesus makes the claim "I and the Father are One",

Yes.

the Jews then try to seize him to kill him,

Jesus says in his own defense, "do you say of him whom the Father sanctified and SENT INTO THE WORLD, ‘You blaspheme,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God?’ 37 If I don’t do the works of my Father, don’t believe me. 38 But if I do them, though you don’t believe me, believe the works, that you may know and believe that THE FATHER IS IN ME, AND I IN THE FATHER", notice how Jesus used the fact the 'father sanctified him and sent him into the world' along with expressing the works he was doing in v38 as evidence the 'Father was in him and he in the Father'.

Now notice the following context in John 17:20-23, "that they [my followers] may all be one; even as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be one in us; that the world may believe THAT YOU SENT ME. 22 The glory which you have given me, I have given to them; that they may be one, even as we are one; 23 I in them, and you in me, that they may be perfected into one; THAT THE WORLD MAY KNOW THAT YOU SENT ME".

No, that is skipping scripture and 'ripping' contexts. It is why you aren't supposed to do it. Why not go to John 14:5-14 instead? Is it merely convenience for any respective theology? :nono: That's not how any contextual reading is supposed to be done. Rule: If you cannot get the idea from the immediate context, don't import.

Firstly using the same raw reading techniques you use, does Jesus asking the Father for his followers to be 'one' and "in" them 'just' as he and the Father are 'one' and "in" each other, is it proof that God is multiple persons? If the answer is no, then Jesus being "one" with the Father must follow the same line of reasoning as to remain consistent, plainly, the "onesness" Jesus and the Father share has nothing to do with Godship or else it implies followers of christ are also God.

This is simply proof-texting, NWL. It is trying to take an idea from one scripture and, unable to argue the idea from one context, "attempting" to rationalize it from another. It is a violence to scripture in most cases.

Before you make another 'importing' argument, you would first need to deny Jesus is YHWH according to John 8:58 and explain why the same language in John 10:30 expresses the trinity, yet identical language in John 17:20-23 does not. You will no doubt be silent on this matter.

No I don't. YOU are making that assumption. In the context of John 8 you have John 8:32. You and I are free ONLY to draw conclusions from the text. You don't run off to other scriptures to make inferences.

Your answer here is not an appeal to the scripture and in no way a scriptural argument. Again, Jesus states "the Father is greater than I", following your principle of not importing scripture or ideas to understand the scripture, 'the Father is greater than Jesus', period. We are not allowed to understand the text other than how it reads according to you, therefore, it's impossible for Jesus to be part of a trinity and be co-equal with the Father and HS as the Father is greater. Your reasoning here is worse than a layperson (not an insult, but an observation).

I didn't import. As I've repeatedly told you, half the time, we agree with Arians/Unitarians. No Trinitarian will argue that the Son is not subordinate to the Father. Find me that person and I'll correct them. There is no Trinitarian that can argue that. We are consistent with not importing ideas from other texts.

Again you being pedantic. It doesn't matter if I am talking about translation or understanding the text according to the original languages, determining what is being expressed according to what was written remains the same. Was John trying to be qualitative or definite according to his words in John 1:1c, you suggest he was being definite by his words (the Word was THE GOD in identity, not God by nature),

Assumption....

so what I said still stands; it is a contradiction to believe John was being definite by his words, only a qualitative sense makes sense. You cannot explain the definite sense of John 1:1c without "importing" ideas, so you're stuck.

Incorrect. It is pedantic and contextually clear.

Language classes haven't helped you in showing a consistent view of God from the scriptures with me, so I'm not convinced they'd be of much use as most of the leg work has already been done by actual scholars in regards to the various ways texts individual texts can be translated and why.

Because you aren't capable at this point....

Lol, I'm not trying to be reasonable as you suggest, I'm merely applying your own method to you!

Incorrectly making the attempt. No you are not.

If you don't like to work with your own method then you shouldn't have mentioned it. You are incorrect I import ideas, I do admit I import scripture to aid in understanding another text but this is common practice, turn to any scholarly commentary and you'll see this with almost every scriptural exegesis.

It is your misapprehension of them. I know you don't see it, but it is you.

Again, you will not show your consistency by denying John 8:58 expresses Jesus as YHWH as you know this rule you have dug up is a twisted principle that only applies to importing one's own personal ideas of the scripture and does not relate to using scripture to interpret scripture.

Then why can't you confirm you are consistent by denying that Jesus was making a claim to be YHWH by his words in John 8:58 according to you your understanding? Please demonstrate your consistency in this matter!

Your response here was a little vague, what exactly was lying about and how exactly did you demonstrate it? You must realize, JW's only count the number of people who have an active part in preaching work as their total numbers, so the 8.6 million members alludes to people who preach on a monthly basis. The number does not include unbaptized persons who regularly attend out meetings, children, people who are studying to become JW's, among other regular attendees; altogether, the total number adds up to approximately 20 million. The 2 billion Christians in the world however include people who are Christian by name only, who know nothing about Jesus, who are the vast majority of the number. For example, out of the thirty people I work with who have been born and raised in Christian England, about 10 of them identify as Christian; only one of those people know anything about Christianity and the rest of them call themselves Christian because "their parents were Christian". These are the type of people who tick 'Christian' in statistic boxes despite knowing nothing about the faith and not believing in Christianity in the slightest.

In 2011 the Office for National Statistics in Britain placed the number of 'Christians' in the UK at 33 million, yet a study done carried out in an attempt to map churchgoing and religious practice a few years later determined only 6% of British adults were practicing Christians; practicing adults were defined as "people who read or listen to the Bible at least once a week, pray at least once a week and attend a church service at least once a month", this makes the number go from 33 million supposed Christians to 3.9 million actual Christians. If we were to assume the same value is correct worldwide then it makes the Christian population go from 2 billion to 120 million practicing Christians, however, this is much more speculative to suggest. If the speculation of 120 million is roughly correct then it would mean approximately 17% of 'practicing Christians' are unitarian. Let's hear and see your mocks, scoff, and astonishment at me saying all this.


When someone starts making arguments such as "who cares" in an argument it means they've lost. There are numerous examples in history where the 'majority rules' or there is a 'majority belief' and yet the belief and practice has been totally wrong. No amount of waffle is ever going to convince anyone, or prove to anyone that the 'majority' is correct when it comes to the trinity, in fact, Jesus speaks out against majority rule, so such an idea is not Christlike:

(Matthew 7:13-14, 22-23)  “Go in through the narrow gate, because broad is the gate and spacious is the road leading off into destruction, and many are going in through it; 14 whereas narrow is the gate and cramped the road leading off into life, and few are finding it...Not everyone saying to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter into the Kingdom of the heavens, but only the one doing the will of my Father who is in the heavens will. Many will say to me in that day: ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and expel demons in your name, and perform many powerful works in your name?’ 23 And then I will declare to them: ‘I never knew you!

I'm glad you agree! It is absurd to claim something is true based on an extreme number, it's what I've been saying all along! Well done.

You must have a bad sense of humor as this was not banter. You previously stated "Er, you just accused me of being 'extremely vague.' Your sentence above is random", you seemed to conflate the words 'vague' and 'random' in your comment here; I was merely highlighting the words "random" is not the same as "vague". Instead of finding something to say about everything, sometimes it's simply better not to reply instead of making yourself look more foolish.

Again, rather than making yourself look more foolish, sometimes it is better to simply not reply to a comment. I merely was explaining myself once again as you claimed "No, your reading comprehension is this bad" in relation to my defense that I knew what I was talking about when I said the word 'Greek OT' in relation to the LXX. I don't understand how you think this was 'posturing', perhaps you are easily impressed. Stop being pedantic and maybe I won't need to defend trivial matters so much.

What was the context I missed, you could end all this and simply show me what context I missed but you won't, why, because we both know you were vague and most probably quoted the wrong segment of JR text. All you do is accuse me of things you are unable to demonstrate, for example:

• You bring up John 1:1 claiming Jesus is God according to it yet won't explain how he is identified as THE GOD (definite understanding) despite THE GOD being the Father/Son/HS according to the trinity doctrine.
• Claim you're consistent with John 8:58 and not importing scriptures yet won't comment on whether or not Jesus is YHWH according to your understanding of it.
• Claim Hebrews 2:7,8 context doesn't include all things yet won't comment on whether or not Angels were subject to man according to the verse
• You suggest I'm importing ideas into John 1:1 yet you won't confirm or deny whether or not you believe 'the beginning' in John 1:1 is in relation to Gen 1:1 and also will not comment on other texts that suggest 'the beginning' is John alluding to Genesis (see 1 John 1:1, 1 John 3:8)
• Claim I am bad at reading context but will refuse to evidence what I missed when we have chain history of information.

As I have already said, stop being pedantic and accusing me of trivial things. Keep your personal opinions about me in your head and let's just talk about theology.

It is pertinent, as demonstrated, to the thread and our discussion. It is YOUR misapprehension that is culprit for most of our dialogue.

 

[The Question]

So you DENY Jesus, who said~

 

[Hilltrot]

So you DENY Jesus, who said~View attachment 283

I don't think this is helpful.

A trinitarian will simply say that Jesus was referring to the Triune God of which he is a part. For a trinitarian, the trinity does not need to make sense. It is part of the mystery of the Triune God. So, you basically pointed out something that a trinitarian defender would already know. The paper trinitarians won't care because you haven't really given a reason for them to change their mind and suffer the penalties for doing so.

 

[JudgeRightly]

So you DENY Jesus, who said~View attachment 283

The Father is the Only true God, as the Scriptures say.

But that does not exclude the Son from also being the only true God, nor does it exclude the Holy Spirit from also being the only true God.

Three WHOs.
One WHAT.

Father, Son, Holy Spirit.
God.

Three Persons, One Godhead.

 

[Lon]

I don't think this is helpful.

A trinitarian will simply say that Jesus was referring to the Triune God of which he is a part. For a trinitarian, the trinity does not need to make sense. It is part of the mystery of the Triune God. So, you basically pointed out something that a trinitarian defender would already know. The paper trinitarians won't care because you haven't really given a reason for them to change their mind and suffer the penalties for doing so.

True, not to mention the first wasn't a 'prayer.' The second, John 17:3? You are correct, "Kia" ('and') is a connector grammatically. This is 'why' (scripture givens) we are Trinit-arian (both/somehow one). Scripture says it.

 

[oatmeal]

The Father is the Only true God, as the Scriptures say.

But that does not exclude the Son from also being the only true God, nor does it exclude the Holy Spirit from also being the only true God.

Three WHOs.
One WHAT.

Father, Son, Holy Spirit.
God.

Three Persons, One Godhead.

Actually it does exclude the son from being God.

Only means only

 

[JudgeRightly]

Actually it does exclude the son from being God.

Only means only

If the "only" in that verse was in front of "the Father", and not in front of "true God," you would have a point.

But it's not.

Thus, it does not, by the rules of grammar, exclude the Son from being God, because "the Father is the only true God", just as the Son is the only true God, and the Holy Spirit is the only true God.

 

[oatmeal]

If the "only" in that verse was in front of "the Father", and not in front of "true God," you would have a point.

But it's not.

Thus, it does not, by the rules of grammar, exclude the Son from being God, because "the Father is the only true God", just as the Son is the only true God, and the Holy Spirit is the only true God.

Well that certainly is amusing.

If if there is more than one true God then there's not one true God

 

[JudgeRightly]

If if there is more than one true God then there's not one true God

Where have I ever said there was more than one true God?

Or have you already forgotten that Trinitarians are MONO-theists?

 

[OZOS]

Who Is God?

"Is it not I, the LORD? And there is no other God besides Me, A righteous God and a Savior; There is none except Me. "Turn to Me, and be saved, all the ends of the earth; For I am God, and there is no other. "I have sworn by Myself, The word has gone forth from My mouth in righteousness and will not turn back, that to Me every knee will bow, every tongue will swear allegiance." - Isa 45:21-23

“Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. Therefore also God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those who are in heaven, and on earth, and under the earth, and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.” - Philippians 2:5-11

"And there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men, by which we must be saved” - Acts 4:12

"Before me there was no God formed and there will be none after Me. I, even I, am the LORD; and there is no Savior besides Me” - Isaiah 43:10 -11

What do we learn from these verses?

• There always has been and always will be only one true God.
• There is no Savior of the world except for this one true God.
• Therefore, the Savior of the world must be the one true God.

"And we have beheld and bear witness that the Father has sent the Son to be the Savior of the world" - 1 John 4:14

"...looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great
God and Savior, Christ Jesus" - Titus 2:13

"Simon Peter, a bond-servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, to those who have received a faith of the same kind as ours, by the righteousness of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ" - 2 Peter 1:1

"And He who sits on the throne said, "Behold, I am making all things new." And He said, "Write, for these words are faithful and true." And He said to me, "It is done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give to the one who thirsts from the spring of the water of life without cost. "He who overcomes shall inherit these things, and I will be his God and he will be My son" - Rev 21:5-7

"Behold, I am coming quickly, and My reward is with Me, to render to every man according to what he has done. "I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end." Blessed are those who wash their robes, that they may have the right to the tree of life, and may enter by the gates into the city. Outside are the dogs and the sorcerers and the immoral persons and the murderers and the idolaters, and everyone who loves and practices lying. "I, Jesus, have sent My angel to testify to you these things for the churches" - Rev 22:12-16

"I am the Alpha and the Omega," says the Lord God, "who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty....

..And when I saw Him, I fell at His feet as a dead man. And He laid His right hand upon me, saying, "Do not be afraid; I am the first and the last, and the living One; and I was dead, and behold, I am alive forevermore" - Rev 1:8 & 17

"Thus saith the Lord the King of Israel, and his redeemer the Lord of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God." - Isa 44:6

GOD -

• ALPHA and OMEGA
• FIRST and LAST
• BEGINNING and END
• Worship ONLY
• ONLY Savior and Lord

JESUS -

• ALPHA and OMEGA
• FIRST and LAST
• BEGINNING and END
• RECEIVES Worship
• SAVIOR and LORD

“I and the Father are One”

"And those in the boat worshiped him, saying, “Truly you are the Son of God.”

"And going into the house, they saw the child with Mary his mother, and they fell down and worshiped him. Then, opening their treasures, they offered him gifts, gold and frankincense and myrrh."

“The Jews took up stones again to stone Him. Jesus answered them, "I showed you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you stoning Me?" The Jews answered Him, "For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy; and because You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God." -John 10:30-33

The Jews heard Jesus claim to be God...

"Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and shall bear a Son, and they shall call His name Immanuel," which translated means, "God with us." - Matthew 1:23

“And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.”- 1 Timothy 3:16

“But He answered them, ‘My Father is working until now, and I Myself am working.’ For this cause therefore the Jews were seeking all the more to kill Him, because He not only was breaking the Sabbath, but also was calling God His own Father, making Himself equal with God.” - John 5:17-18

“For in Him all the fulness of Deity dwells in bodily form” - Colossians 2:9
“God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself” - 2 Corinthians 5:19
“In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” - Genesis 1:1

“And He is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of all creation. For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities-- all things have been created by Him and for Him. And He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.” - Colossians 1:15-17

“God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world.” - Hebrews 1:1

“Then He said to Thomas, "Reach here your finger, and see My hands; and reach here your hand, and put it into My side; and be not unbelieving, but believing." Thomas answered and said to Him, "My Lord and my God!" Jesus said to him, "Because you have seen Me, have you believed? Blessed are they who did not see, and yet believed." - John 20:27-29

"I am the LORD, and there is no other; Besides Me there is no God.” - Isa 45:5

Jesus is God and anyone who claims He is not, does not know Jesus from Adam.

 

[Leatherneck]

i disagree. Jesus and Christ died

Likewise it is good to call the Virgin Mary "Mother of God" as she gave birth to God in the flesh.

I disagree again, she is the mother of Jesus



The key words are "express image", that is a creation.
Christ is a copy of the father, a god, and he can die.

Peace

Jesus existed before Mary (John 8:58) therefore, Mary is the mother of His Flesh only she is NOT the mother of God.

 

[Lon]

Jesus existed before Mary (John 8:58) therefore, Mary is the mother of His Flesh only she is NOT the mother of God.

Just read this in my devotions yesterday:
Luke 11:27,28
27 As Jesus was saying these things, a woman in the crowd called out, “Blessed is the mother who gave you birth and nursed you.”

28 He replied, “Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and obey it.”

Also:
Matthew 12:46-50
46 While Jesus was still talking to the crowd, his mother and brothers stood outside, wanting to speak to him. 47 Someone told him, “Your mother and brothers are standing outside, wanting to speak to you.”

48 He replied to him, “Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?” 49 Pointing to his disciples, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers. 50 For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.”

At the very least, it seems to me Mariology is misdirected and overstretched. At worst, it is ignorant/against scripture givens. It can be shown that Unitarians trample other scripture truth with their theories, but this is also a stark example of the same. We simply cannot ignore or trample scripture truth upon our own fancy or whims. This same one you are speaking with charged another, in 'antitrinitarian threads' with 'man-made' doctrines, ironically. Black doesn't realize it is a dark kettle

 

[Hilltrot]

Just read this in my devotions yesterday:
Luke 11:27,28
27 As Jesus was saying these things, a woman in the crowd called out, “Blessed is the mother who gave you birth and nursed you.”

28 He replied, “Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and obey it.”

Also:
Matthew 12:46-50
46 While Jesus was still talking to the crowd, his mother and brothers stood outside, wanting to speak to him. 47 Someone told him, “Your mother and brothers are standing outside, wanting to speak to you.”

48 He replied to him, “Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?” 49 Pointing to his disciples, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers. 50 For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.”

At the very least, it seems to me Mariology is misdirected and overstretched. At worst, it is ignorant/against scripture givens. It can be shown that Unitarians trample other scripture truth with their theories, but this is also a stark example of the same. We simply cannot ignore or trample scripture truth upon our own fancy or whims. This same one you are speaking with charged another, in 'antitrinitarian threads' with 'man-made' doctrines, ironically. Black doesn't realize it is a dark kettle

Well, if you believe that then you have to toss the hypostatic union . . .

The development of Theotokos is cemented in 431 at the council of Ephesus. The hypostatic union doesn't happen until 451 (Chalcedon). Then you have the Third Council of Constantinople in 680-1, and on, and on.

Once one starts out with "Jesus is God", they will go through a world of hurt trying to make it work.