God is 1 vs God is 3

[sojourner]

The difference here is that water does not pray to itself and water does not hold a diminutive title. God had a son, a son is not equal to the father. This is different from saying god was incarnated in human form. But Christian theologians will contend each other to the validity of this notion. Part of Jesus would surely be divine since his power came from god but what makes him god? If he is the son of god then he is automatically not god.
The aqua analogy was perfect except that it does not have any coincidence to the nature of family lineage. Nobody recognizes a similitude of any sort between father and son.

neither did the Father pray to the Father. It has continually baffled me how, most every time a Muslim debates the Trinity, (s)he ends up conflating "God" with "Father."

 

[Gram28]

Thanks for your interesting insight on how ideas can become attached to religions that have no basis in the original understanding. Having said this, I'd like to relate a short story about a man I met who was sure that the unpopular fragment of a religion he belonged to must be correct because it hadn't yet itself become further fragmented.

 

[Sha'irullah]

neither did the Father pray to the Father. It has continually baffled me how, most every time a Muslim debates the Trinity, (s)he ends up conflating "God" with "Father."

Well quite a few Christian denominations view it as such. But I was quite clear in the previous post that not all view it that way so even if god is not the father the point is that Jesus was praying to somebody which would still imply another deity. Jesus is used as a medium for prayers often like Sunnis recite Muhammad name at the end of all 5 salah which usually involves invoking Muhammad's name despite the fact he is dead. Same applies for Assalatul-Ibrahimiyah which is recited after Tashahhud in which Ibrahim's name is recited as well and blessing given upon him. Jesus seems to be taken a step further then this and not only used as an intercessor but as a deity himself.

Also I am not as much of a Muslim as you think

 

[InformedIgnorance]

No it isn't. Grace was imparted to humanity by God in the Jesus Event. Humanity was reconciled the moment God became Incarnate. Therefore, salvation is not offered, it is effected. I honestly don't see how you can have a problem with that, unless you're deliberately nit picking language out of context.

I was not deliberately nitpicking, it is just difficult to comprehend how you might consider salvation to not be 'offered' but to be 'given'; but now I understand that you are suggesting the 'Jesus Event' 'accomplished' this (though how it was not offered I don't know, maybe because we were not asked? dunno).

Yet that does not however address my earlier question, why would God need to become human to give salvation? I understand that it is ONE model of salvation, I just do not understand why you would suggest that the only model of salvation is a divine jesus.

 

[Shermana]

Well quite a few Christian denominations view it as such. But I was quite clear in the previous post that not all view it that way so even if god is not the father the point is that Jesus was praying to somebody which would still imply another deity. Jesus is used as a medium for prayers often like Sunnis recite Muhammad name at the end of all 5 salah which usually involves invoking Muhammad's name despite the fact he is dead. Same applies for Assalatul-Ibrahimiyah which is recited after Tashahhud in which Ibrahim's name is recited as well and blessing given upon him. Jesus seems to be taken a step further then this and not only used as an intercessor but as a deity himself.

Also I am not as much of a Muslim as you think

It baffles me that some people don't understand that every single use of the word "God" (in its articulated, non-indefinite sense), including Jesus's use of it, always ever refers to the Father. Some contextual issues at stake like in John 20:28, which was regarded as Thomas making an "Exclamation of astonishment directed towards the Father" as Dark Age Trinitarians explained.

I don't think there's any reason to NOT think that reference to "God" (as opposed to "A god") always ever indicates the Father. The concept of "persons" of "God" is a much later development that likely had no currency among the Gospel writers.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

It is also worth noting that while the phrase the Son of God (differentiated from yet derivative of the OT commonly used phrase sons of God) is frequently used to reference Jesus within the NT, never is he called God the Son

 

[milindlokde]

Hinduism has 33 crore Gods and Buddhism does not need the concept of God for salvation (if that means Nirvana).
God is one and many (as many as you can define) at the same time. God is a word which we try to define in our language which has it's limitation. Also not every one has experienced God or known God personally. So we have to depend on our religious books to understand It/Him/Her/Them/God.
God has no form. So God is One and Many and None at the same time. The qualities we assign to Him are purely human defined.
Son of God or God himself? We are equally capable of becoming God and are infact imperfect Gods, some striving for perfection some not.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

I've been studying the New Testament and it is becoming clear to me that the trinity is not a biblical concept. It actually resembles a pagan Roman concept. You will not find the word "trinity" anywhere in the Bible, nor is it implied. In fact, the New Testament seems to confirm the theme of the old Jewish books. That God is one.

Now, when a scribe asked Jesus what is the FIRST COMMANDMENT, what did Jesus say?

Mark:12:28 And one of the scribes came, and having heard them reasoning together, and perceiving that he had answered them well, asked him, Which is the first commandment of all?

Mark 12:29 And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord:

Now let's analyze this situation. This is a SCRIBE! A scribe is a learned man. Scribes were rare and the highly educated ones in those days. So why is a scribe asking Jesus a question that any 8 year old Jewish boy could have answered a thousand years earlier? Because he wanted to make sure Jesus was not claiming to be God and that he was still teaching the most important Jewish teaching of all. That God is ONE!

And what did Jesus say?
That God is indeed ONE.
Jesus said the very first commandment of all is that God is ONE. But if you ask most modern day Christians what THEIR first commandment is. They will tell you God is THREE!

Worshipping anyone other than God (Jesus included) is breaking the most important commandment of all. I have yet to find any evidence that Jesus asked to be worshipped. In fact, he himself worshipped the creator. So anyone who believes in the trinity and worships Jesus, please explain what verses or teachings you are using to justify this belief.

Like I told someone elsewhere.......read John 1:1....and after you do that, immediately scroll down a few more verses and read John 1:14, compare the two. What do you come up with.

Second, everything that you said above only happened after Jesus lowered his divine position and became a man and subjected himself to the Father (Phil 2:5-9). There was a method to the madness.

 

[Shermana]

Like I told someone elsewhere.......read John 1:1....and after you do that, immediately scroll down a few more verses and read John 1:14, compare the two. What do you come up with.

Second, everything that you said above only happened after Jesus lowered his divine position and became a man and subjected himself to the Father (Phil 2:5-9). There was a method to the madness.

John 1:1c should read "And the word was a god" or "And the word was Divine" (In reference to a divine being). The word 'Divine" applies to Angels and "Divine beings" like the "Sons of God" in Heaven.

Phil 2:6 should read "Form of a god" just like how it says "Form of a slave", not "Form of Slave". What does "Form of God" even mean? Is God a kind of form?

The problem is that Trinitarians like to redefine Grammar rules and ignore the indefinite anarthrous. I'll be happy to go over this again like I've done on hundreds of posts by now if you'd like.

The method to the madness was to rewrite the concept out of the traditional Jewish Logos Theology into some totally bastardized concept of "persons" and "essence" over a hundred years later which the original authors had no idea about, and to distort the grammar to force fit the idea.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

John 1:1c should read "And the word was a god" or "And the word was Divine" (In reference to a divine being). The word 'Divine" applies to Angels and "Divine beings" like the "Sons of God" in Heaven.

Well, which one is it? First you say it should read "a god", which is obviously not of the same caliber as the Father. Then you say it could also mean "was divine", but according to dictionary.com, if you take any of those "divine" definitions and apply them to Jesus, those same definitions applies to the Father. So which one is it?

Phil 2:6 should read "Form of a god" just like how it says "Form of a slave", not "Form of Slave". What does "Form of God" even mean? Is God a kind of form?

Wait a minute, first you say it should read "form of a god", and then you ask me what does "form of God" even mean......well, what does "form of a god" mean, since you said that is what it SHOULD say.

The problem is that Trinitarians like to redefine Grammar rules and ignore the indefinite anarthrous. I'll be happy to go over this again like I've done on hundreds of posts by now if you'd like.

Redefine grammar rules? Not at all. First off, there has been a long debate about whether the indefinite article should be there, and that will depend on how well you know the Greek language. Second, that isn't the only "Trinity" proof text I can throw at you, as there are many more. Now, if you aren't like the Jehovah Witnesses (Pegg ) that like to revise the bible to fit your own theological belief system, then I will be happy to go over any one of those scriptures.

The method to the madness was to rewrite the concept out of the traditional Jewish Logos Theology into some totally bastardized concept of "persons" and "essence" over a hundred years later which the original authors had no idea about, and to distort the grammar to force fit the idea.

Once again, that is just one of many scriptures, and taken together as a whole, there should be little doubt about the divinity of Jesus.

 

[Shermana]

Well, which one is it? First you say it should read "a god", which is obviously not of the same caliber as the Father. Then you say it could also mean "was divine", but according to dictionary.com, if you take any of those "divine" definitions and apply them to Jesus, those same definitions applies to the Father. So which one is it?

It should read as "a god" in my view (And in the view of numerous independent Greek scholars). Or "A divine being". Dictionary.com is not exactly a definitive source on how to translate such things. The word "Divine" does not exclusively apply to God. Otherwise you'll have some problems with the translations that use "Divine being" for the Angels and Sons of god. The reason why I say "Divine" is sufficient because its use is indicating "Divine being" as other translations use.

Wait a minute, first you say it should read "form of a god", and then you ask me what does "form of God" even mean......well, what does "form of a god" mean, since you said that is what it SHOULD say.

Form of a god indicates a type of being. Form of God indicates a specific being in mind, let me know if you need further clarification. And if you disagree that it SHOULD say "Form of a god", why should it read "Form of a slave" and not "Form of slave"?

Redefine grammar rules? Not at all.

Oh yes, very much so.

First off, there has been a long debate about whether the indefinite article should be there, and that will depend on how well you know the Greek language

.

They had to invent an entire grammar rule (not accepted by Top Trinitarian scholars like Wallace) called "Colwell's rule" to cement their twisted definition in the 1930s as more and more independent scholarly versions were coming out that read "a god". It seems that those who know Greek best who aren't church-affiliated side with the Arian view on this. Another invented rule is "Sharp's" where they try to say the word "And" is applying to characteristics of the same being necessarily in cases where they want to use it. And of course, it doesn't consistently apply (even in Colwell's case it has more exceptions than rules even in their own attempts to define it), but only applies as they want it to.

Second, that isn't the only "Trinity" proof text I can throw at you, as there are many more. Now, if you aren't like the Jehovah Witnesses (Pegg ) that like to revise the bible to fit your own theological belief system, then I will be happy to go over any one of those scriptures.

Believe me, I've been over each and every Trinity proof text hundreds of times. The concept of "revising the Bible to fit your own Theological belief system" may very well be true of many, but it most especially applies to the historical Trinitarian church. Who gets to determine who is revising it exactly? Who gets final say in who's context is right? While I most certaingly agree that the JWs and others do in fact revise the text, my claim is that they willfully ignore and dismiss verses and texts that don't support their position. How do you substantiate your position?

Once again, that is just one of many scriptures, and taken together as a whole, there should be little doubt about the divinity of Jesus.

Taken as a whole, it's very clear that Jesus was not God, but was the incarnation of a "Divine being". You have to add Nicene Theology to get the "different person of the same God" concept, read on its own without any post 2nd century non-Jewish theology, you get what's very close to Arianism, in which he was the incarnation of the Jewish-Logos-concept.

 

[Gaura Priya]

I'm actually unitarian and arian in theology - it just makes way more sense. However, I don't necessarily find the Trinity as abhorrent as others may. It's really not that hard to see the Trinity metaphorically!

However, at the forefront, I do essentially believe that God is One... Shema Yisra'el: Yehovah eloheinu, Yehovah echad!

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

It should read as "a god" in my view (And in the view of numerous independent Greek scholars). Or "A divine being". Dictionary.com is not exactly a definitive source on how to translate such things.

I wasn't using Dictionary.com to translate, I was using it to DEFINE the word "divine", which is a word that YOU used. Second, there are numerous independent Greek scholars that share my view that the indefinite article should not be placed in that verse.

The word "Divine" does not exclusively apply to God. Otherwise you'll have some problems with the translations that use "Divine being" for the Angels and Sons of god. The reason why I say "Divine" is sufficient because its use is indicating "Divine being" as other translations use.

Well, going back to the definition, every single way that the word "divine" is defined has the word "god" in it (except the last one). So when you claim someone is divine, you are giving it a "godlike" characteristic, which makes me hesitant to attribute that word to anyone but God. Lets look at the definitions....According to Dictionary.com

DIVINE
1. of or pertaining to a god, especially the Supreme Being.
2.addressed, appropriated, or devoted to God or a god; religious; sacred: divine worship.

3.proceeding from God or a god: divine laws.

4.godlike; characteristic of or befitting a deity: divine magnanimity.

5.heavenly; celestial: the divine kingdom.


Every time the word is used, it is PERTAINING TO A GOD in some way, shape, or form...and no angel or demon fits this tab.

Form of a god indicates a type of being. Form of God indicates a specific being in mind, let me know if you need further clarification. And if you disagree that it SHOULD say "Form of a god", why should it read "Form of a slave" and not "Form of slave"?

Well, if Jesus is not God and was created by God and always did the will of his Father, then why does the scripture say he "lowered himself and took the form of a servant"? If he LOWERED himself, what was he before he lowered himself? If he was always a servant of his Father, then why did he have to lower himself to become something he already was??? If he took the form of a servant, he obviously wasn't one previously, or he wouldn't have to BECOME ONE. The fact that he did lower himself fits perfectly with the scripture stating that at first he was in the form of God, and then lowered himself to take the form of a servant.

They had to invent an entire grammar rule (not accepted by Top Trinitarian scholars like Wallace) called "Colwell's rule" to cement their twisted definition in the 1930s as more and more independent scholarly versions were coming out that read "a god". It seems that those who know Greek best who aren't church-affiliated side with the Arian view on this. Another invented rule is "Sharp's" where they try to say the word "And" is applying to characteristics of the same being necessarily in cases where they want to use it. And of course, it doesn't consistently apply (even in Colwell's case it has more exceptions than rules even in their own attempts to define it), but only applies as they want it to.

Thank you, history was always one of my favorite subjects

Believe me, I've been over each and every Trinity proof text hundreds of times. The concept of "revising the Bible to fit your own Theological belief system" may very well be true of many, but it most especially applies to the historical Trinitarian church.

I am not aware of any historical Trinitarian church that advocated the concept of the Trinity by tampering with the bible. If you have info on this, please provide.

Who gets to determine who is revising it exactly? Who gets final say in who's context is right?

Well, those are good questions. Me personally, I believe when someone is presenting me with something that is fishy about the word of God, the Lord will let me know. I believe he let me know in the past.......for example, one day when JW's spoke to me at the bus stop back in the day....they handed me their literature and as I began to read, sirens went off in my head....something was wrong with what I was reading. I believe the Lord speak to me this way. So no matter who tampers with the bible, the Holy Spirit will speak to the genuine Christian who earnestly seeks the truth.

While I most certaingly agree that the JWs and others do in fact revise the text, my claim is that they willfully ignore and dismiss verses and texts that don't support their position. How do you substantiate your position?

I substantiate my position by letting the bible speak for itself. Now I will be the first to admit that there are some tough scriptures to deal with, but I try to let one scripture of the bible harmonize with the rest, and I do this by critical thinking, and I also ask questions and do research on the matter.

Taken as a whole, it's very clear that Jesus was not God, but was the incarnation of a "Divine being". You have to add Nicene Theology to get the "different person of the same God" concept, read on its own without any post 2nd century non-Jewish theology, you get what's very close to Arianism, in which he was the incarnation of the Jewish-Logos-concept.

Zechariah 12:10..play with that

 

[Shermana]

]I wasn't using Dictionary.com to translate, I was using it to DEFINE the word "divine", which is a word that YOU used. Second, there are numerous independent Greek scholars that share my view that the indefinite article should not be placed in that verse.

The concept is that "Divine" can and is used in such cases, when translated to English as such (The word itself is not really found in the Greek), when its used for the indefinite Theos, thus implies "a divine being", the word "Divine" is not necessarily exclusive at all to THE God even in English.

I don't think there are too many independent Greek scholars that share your view on the indefinite, I think nearly all if not all of them are Church affiliated. With that said, even the top Greek scholar who is affiliated with the Church prefers "Divine" and is opposed to the use of "God" there. Like I said, they even invented Colwell's rule in the 1930s to try to shoehorn the traditional wording.

Well, going back to the definition, every single way that the word "divine" is defined has the word "god" in it (except the last one). So when you claim someone is divine, you are giving it a "godlike" characteristic, which makes me hesitant to attribute that word to anyone but God. Lets look at the definitions....According to Dictionary.com

Angels and "Sons of god" are called gods in the text. End of story.

DIVINE
1. of or pertaining to a god, especially the Supreme Being.
2.addressed, appropriated, or devoted to God or a god; religious; sacred: divine worship.

3.proceeding from God or a god: divine laws.

All those definitions apply to my view as well.

4.godlike; characteristic of or befitting a deity: divine magnanimity.

5.heavenly; celestial: the divine kingdom.

Especially those.

Every time the word is used, it is PERTAINING TO A GOD in some way, shape, or form...and no angel or demon fits this tab.

No angel or demon fits the tab? Says who? Where?

Well, if Jesus is not God and was created by God and always did the will of his Father, then why does the scripture say he "lowered himself and took the form of a servant"? If he LOWERED himself, what was he before he lowered himself?

The second in command of Heaven, the firstborn Created Being, the Memra/Logos.

If he was always a servant of his Father, then why did he have to lower himself to become something he already was???

A servant on Earth fall below being second in command. Do you think God is the only being who is not a servant?

If he took the form of a servant, he obviously wasn't one previously, or he wouldn't have to BECOME ONE. The fact that he did lower himself fits perfectly with the scripture stating that at first he was in the form of God, and then lowered himself to take the form of a servant.

Form of a god would fit perfectly. And that's the point of the grammar issue. There is no such thing as "Form of God", there is "Form of a god".

Thank you, history was always one of my favorite subjects

Definitely one of mine too. I hope you understand the extent of fabricated Grammar rules Trinitarians have had to invent to support their wobbly concepts.

I am not aware of any historical Trinitarian church that advocated the concept of the Trinity by tampering with the bible. If you have info on this, please provide.

Never heard of the issue of 1 John 5:7?

Well, those are good questions. Me personally, I believe when someone is presenting me with something that is fishy about the word of God, the Lord will let me know

How?

.

I believe he let me know in the past.......for example, one day when JW's spoke to me at the bus stop back in the day....they handed me their literature and as I began to read, sirens went off in my head...

What kind of sirens? What makes you think that wasn't your own prejudiced feelings on the matter?

.something was wrong with what I was reading. I believe the Lord speak to me this way. So no matter who tampers with the bible, the Holy Spirit will speak to the genuine Christian who earnestly seeks the truth.

So you associate sirens going off in your head, whatever that means, to be the Holy Spirit speaking to you? I'd be careful of jumping to that conclusion.

I substantiate my position by letting the bible speak for itself.

Everyone believes the Bible is speaking for itself. Unfortunately, the Bible requires a lot of understanding of the language itself, cultural nuances, and translation methodologies to let it "speak for itself".

Now I will be the first to admit that there are some tough scriptures to deal with,

Suddenly there are "tough scriptures" that the Bible doesn't speak for itself for now.

but I try to let one scripture of the bible harmonize with the rest,

You mean harmonize with your particular interpretation.

and I do this by critical thinking, and I also ask questions and do research on the matter.

Everyone considers their view to be done by critical thinking and research. The question is, how do you determine if your critical thinking and research is objective and not the product of pure confirmation bias? I have confirmation bias no doubt, but I do know when certain views are clearly off or deliberately ignoring certain facts.

Zechariah 12:10..play with that

Sure, one of my favorite verses.

As you well know, Jesus quotes the verse as "The one" or "him" who they pierced. The problem is that the pronoun indicator is a bit vague. It's not specifically a "me", but Jesus sure says its not "me".

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

The concept is that "Divine" can and is used in such cases, when translated to English as such (The word itself is not really found in the Greek), when its used for the indefinite Theos, thus implies "a divine being", the word "Divine" is not necessarily exclusive at all to THE God even in English.

You keep mentioning translations, I am talking about DEFINITIONS. Even if the word originally used the indefinite in Greek, the word "divine" could be used in that context, if the definition of "divine" pertains to a god. So my question is, what does "a god" mean in that context? Is Jesus a lesser "god" than the Father? What makes him "a god"? If he is "a god" because he has supernatural power, well, so does Satan, but no one is calling Satan a god in that context. So what is the difference?

I don't think there are too many independent Greek scholars that share your view on the indefinite, I think nearly all if not all of them are Church affiliated.
With that said, even the top Greek scholar who is affiliated with the Church prefers "Divine" and is opposed to the use of "God" there. Like I said, they even invented Colwell's rule in the 1930s to try to shoehorn the traditional wording.

On Biblegateway.com, I just checked the first 10 English translations of John 1:1, and neither one has the indefinite, and I am confident that the rest of the translations doesn't have it either. Now with "divine", as I asked earlier, what do you think the word means in that context?

Angels and "Sons of god" are called gods in the text. End of story.

In what text?

All those definitions apply to my view as well.

So in what way is Jesus a god?

No angel or demon fits the tab? Says who? Where?

Which definition pertains to an angel or demon?

The second in command of Heaven, the firstborn Created Being, the Memra/Logos.

So if he lowered himself to be second in command, what was he before he became second in command? If I am on a flight of stairs and I have to take a step down to get to the second step, I had to previously be on the first step.

A servant on Earth fall below being second in command.

What difference does it make whether he served in heaven or on earth? He was still a servant. The point is not WHERE he served, the point is his position relative to the Father changed when he BECAME a servant.

Do you think God is the only being who is not a servant?

Form of a god would fit perfectly. And that's the point of the grammar issue. There is no such thing as "Form of God", there is "Form of a god".

Show me one translation that includes the indefinite article in Phil 2:5-9.

Definitely one of mine too. I hope you understand the extent of fabricated Grammar rules Trinitarians have had to invent to support their wobbly concepts.

I dont think so. Even when if you think Jesus is "a god", the implications are obvious. Christians don't have to fabricate the word, we can simply let the scriptures speak for itself and once that is done, it becomes obvious.

Never heard of the issue of 1 John 5:7?

:no:

How? What kind of sirens? What makes you think that wasn't your own prejudiced feelings on the matter?

I can ask you the same question regarding the indefinite article. Maybe your own prejudice feelings are causing you to doubt the rendering.

So you associate sirens going off in your head, whatever that means to be the Holy Spirit speaking to you? I'd be careful of jumping to that conclusion.

Why? What if it was?

Everyone believes the Bible is speaking for itself. Unfortunately, the Bible requires a lot of understanding of the language itself, cultural nuances, and translation methodologies to let it "speak for itself".

Granted, but I do believe there is a such thing as over analyzing.

Suddenly there are "tough scriptures" that the Bible doesn't speak for itself for now.

When I said "tough scriptures" I meant there are things that are hard to understand. That has nothing to do with the context of "letting the bible speak for itself".

You mean harmonize with your particular interpretation.

No, that means harmonize in a way to which one scripture doesn't contradict the other. Due to the fact that you me and you have been debating on John 1:1 and whether Jesus was God or "a god", it appears that I am not the only one in this conversation with an interpretation here.

Everyone considers their view to be done by critical thinking and research. The question is, how do you determine if your critical thinking and research is objective and not the product of pure confirmation bias?

Everything is all about interpretation. There is good interpretations, bad interpretations, and over-interpretations. Some things require NO interpretations. I believe that the evidence concerning the divinity of Jesus is overwhelming, so therefore I believe that Jesus is God. If you or anyone else thinks otherwise, show me biblical evidence, and we can discuss it.

As you well know, Jesus quotes the verse as "The one" or "him" who they pierced. The problem is that the pronoun indicator is a bit vague. It's not specifically a "me", but Jesus sure says its not "me".

What do you mean "Jesus quotes the verse"....this is God speaking throughout the chapter and he states "they will look on ME, the one they have pierced...", this is a direct prophecy to the piercing of Jesus during his crucifixion in John 19:37....if God was the one identified as speaking in Zach, and he speaks of himself in John 19:37, then it is obvious that it was Jesus that was speaking in the Zach' scripture.

Thats exactly what I mean. The scripture is clear as day. This is what I mean by LETTING THE BIBLE SPEAK FOR ITSELF. If people let the bible speak for itself, there wont be people like you giving every reason possible for why the scripture shouldn't mean what it means.

 

[Shermana]

You keep mentioning translations, I am talking about DEFINITIONS.

Definitions of a translation pertain to the context especially when there are multiple definitions for a word that is a loose translation of the Greek or Hebrew.

Even if the word originally used the indefinite in Greek, the word "divine" could be used in that context, if the definition of "divine" pertains to a god.

Right, but the word "Divine" would nonetheless apply as it was intended to apply, as in pertaining to what we could call "A divine being", it's still in the indefinite case defining such a being.

So my question is, what does "a god" mean in that context?

An Angel or a Divine being, as I said. The word "Elohim" refers to Angels in the text, like in Psalm 8:5, which the book of Hebrews quotes, rendering "Elohim" as "Angels."

Is Jesus a lesser "god" than the Father?

That is correct.

What makes him "a god"?

His being the Firstborn Created spiritual being, the Logos, the chief of the Sons of god, the Prime Created Divine being.

If he is "a god" because he has supernatural power, well, so does Satan, but no one is calling Satan a god in that context. So what is the difference?

Ummm, Paul does indeed call Satan a god. "The god of this age" in fact.

On Biblegateway.com, I just checked the first 10 English translations of John 1:1, and neither one has the indefinite, and I am confident that the rest of the translations doesn't have it either.

The rest of the traditional Church-related translations don't, that's for sure.

The independent scholarly versions that eschew traditional Church doctrine and mainstream Christian audience preference in favor of grammatical accuracy overwhelmingly do however.

70-John-1-1-Truths

Now with "divine", as I asked earlier, what do you think the word means in that context?

Pertaining to a godlike character or an Angelic nature, like the "Sons of god", a Celestial Being, a Spirit or an Angel. "A divine being".

In what text?

Job, Genesis, Psalms, Hebrews' translation of Psalms,

Hebrew Streams: "Elohim" in Context

So in what way is Jesus a god?

The fact that he's the Firstborn Created being, the Logos, the Memra, the First Primary Spiritual Being stemming from the Father, the highest of the Celestial beings, the Foreman of Creation.

Which definition pertains to an angel or demon?

All 5 of those do, how do they not?

So if he lowered himself to be second in command,

No, he was already second in command and lowered himself from there. Was I not clear?

What difference does it make whether he served in heaven or on earth?

Being on Earth means he is now no longer in charge of Angels for the time being. Even if he can call on legions of Angels, it's not quite the same as being in charge. This is why he needed to return to the Glory He once held with the Father.

He was still a servant. The point is not WHERE he served, the point is his position relative to the Father changed when he BECAME a servant.

Which is kind of what I'm saying, his position relative to the Father changed he came to Earth, he no longer held the Glory he once had.

What don't you understand?

Show me one translation that includes the indefinite article in Phil 2:5-9.

Feel free to explain why it should read not read "Form of Slave" instead of "form of a slave" after you read this.

Examining the Trinity: PHIL 2:6

Ernst Haenchen translates it as "A divine being" which is the same thing. On this issue one must actually examine the Greek grammar itself and not just rely on the majority translations.

Ernst Haenchen uses this interpretation in his commentary on the Gospel of John:

"It was quite possible in Jewish and Christian monotheism to speak of divine beings that existed alongside and under God but were not identical with him. Phil 2:6-10 proves that. In that passage Paul depicts just such a divine being, who later became man in Jesus Christ" - John 1, translated by R. W. Funk, 1984, pp. 109, 110, Fortress Press.

See Acts 12:22 if you have any disagreement.

I dont think so. Even when if you think Jesus is "a god", the implications are obvious. Christians don't have to fabricate the word, we can simply let the scriptures speak for itself and once that is done, it becomes obvious.

Oh yes indeed they do in fact fabricate Grammar rules, if you'd like to debate Colwell's and Sharp's rule, start a new thread. Trust me, I have debated EvERY one of your objections multiple times.

:no:

You're not even familiar with one of the basics like the Comma Johanneum, so I can understand that this may be the first time you've come across these objections to the Trinity.

Comma Johanneum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I can ask you the same question regarding the indefinite article. Maybe your own prejudice feelings are causing you to doubt the rendering.

I am indeed prejudiced, my prejudice is based on a factual knowledge of the controversial grammar issues at stake, not just my Theological confirmation bias. You don't even seem to be familiar with the issues at stake.

Why? What if it was?

Attributing something to the Holy Spirit when it's not may in fact be as blasphemous towards it as attributing something to demons when it's the Spirit. I'm willing to take the risk of saying it was not the Spirit motivating you to have those "Sirens" go off. People all over the world of different religions have "Sirens" go off at various times, is that the Spirit guiding them too? Is a Mormon being motivated by the Spirit when he has Sirens go off when people try to convert him from Mormonism? Do you honestly expect people to believe that every single emotional or psychological issue is related to it?

Granted, but I do believe there is a such thing as over analyzing.

I don't think there's such thing as over-analyzing, I think there's such thing as garnering incorrect analyzing. I think one could write off scholarly arguments that poke holes in their position as "over analyzing" as a way to dodge out of the arguments.

When I said "tough scriptures" I meant there are things that are hard to understand. That has nothing to do with the context of "letting the bible speak for itself".

So apparently the Bible can only speak for itself when you find the translation easy to read? So the Bible was written to speak for itself on some issues and not others? The thing is, the Bible seems to "speak for itself" for everyone depending on how they want to translate it. It's a matter of translating it correctly and getting the right context through a variety of methods of analyzing.

No, that means harmonize in a way to which one scripture doesn't contradict the other. Due to the fact that you me and you have been debating on John 1:1 and whether Jesus was God or "a god", it appears that I am not the only one in this conversation with an interpretation here.

Of course I have an interpretation. However, my interpretation involves, in my interpretation, no contradictions. Yours does. The idea of God being three persons in one being does not add up with Hebrew Theology in my interpretatation. Your view that Jesus cannot be "a god" contradicts what the Bible says about the existence of other beings called "gods" as well as the traditional interpretation of the Logos Theology.

 

[Shermana]

Everything is all about interpretation. There is good interpretations, bad interpretations, and over-interpretations. Some things require NO interpretations. I believe that the evidence concerning the divinity of Jesus is overwhelming, so therefore I believe that Jesus is God. If you or anyone else thinks otherwise, show me biblical evidence, and we can discuss it.

There are numerous Trinity threads, and I have shown on each one how each of the so-called "Trinity Proof texts" is based on bad grammar, bad context, and bad exegesis. Feel free to present what you consider to be such proof texts and I'll go over them again.

What do you mean "Jesus quotes the verse"....this is God speaking throughout the chapter and he states "they will look on ME, the one they have pierced...",

No, he says "The ONE whom they will pierce", numerous translations say "Me whom they pierced" in Zechariah 12:10 but don't seem to mind contradicting themselves when Jesus translated is "The one whom they pierced".

When Jesus renders it in John 19:37, he's quoting it. Let me say it again, the pronoun indicator is not clear. It is not the word "me", it simply a pronoun indicator. It means "Someone" basically. The translations that use "me" are not being very honest, and the only reason the JPS uses it as such is that they're following the King James pattern for the most part. Jesus is directly quoting it, he's not paraphrasing it to indicate "The one" to mean "Me".

Zechariah 12:10 - A Verse Used to Support the Trinity | BiblicalUnitarian.com

Thats exactly what I mean. The scripture is clear as day. This is what I mean by LETTING THE BIBLE SPEAK FOR ITSELF. If people let the bible speak for itself, there wont be people like you giving every reason possible for why the scripture shouldn't mean what it means.

What you mean to say is that you don't understand that there are different interpretations other than the mainstream Church affiliated translations that make the Bible speak for itself in ways that are different than the Trinitarians do. If people read the Bible correctly away from their Trinitarian preferences and were honest enough to acknowledge the controversial grammar issues at stake, there wouldn't be people like YOU who dismiss and hand wave these issues by thinking that the "Bible speaks for itself" as if their translations are the only ones out there to make the scripture mean something other than what it meant originally.

Look at you, you're saying that Jesus wasn't even directly quoting Zechariah 12:10 word for word but was paraphrasing it to talk about himself by saying "The one" which doesn't even make sense, hypocrisy much? See, basically this is just a little run around all the issues at stake, you trying to tell me that I'm not letting the Bible "speak for itself", when you have have evidenced that you have absolutely no idea about the actual grammar considerations or even the basic scriptural issues like the Comma Johanneum.

I hate to break it to you, but your mainstream translations are not necessarily correct. Even hardcore Greek scholars will tell you this. Most Biblical translations distort grammar rules and change the text to suit their Theology in many critical places. If anything, I am saying what I think the Bible DOES say when it speaks for itself, and trying to untangle all the wet knots that the Trinitarian orthodox church has done for its history.

I have seen EVERY SINGLE one of your objections, numerous times, more than I could possibly remember, and like most of those who make such objections, you are for whatever reason inclined to believe that the "Bible speaks for itself" as if every single translation and contextual issue has been sorted out perfectly and unbiasedly by your own particuar church-aligned translators, as if the independent Greek scholars who say what I'm saying shouldn't be regarded whatsoever.

Perhaps it's you who doesn't let the Bible speak for itself, but rather you let biased agenda-driven Church defenders speak for the Bible by rewriting what it says, even if its the mainstream position, since its historically been the official position to do so.

So no, I may not let these particular translations speak for what they say the Bible means, I have no problem admitting that at all as long as you understand that they don't necessarily speak for what the Bible actually says. Now if you want to go over the specific grammar and textual issues at stake and have a "scholar war" on the issues, then you may have some legitimacy and honesty when you make such accusations. But if you basically want to say "You give every reason to not let the Bible mean what it says" without acknowledging the reasons for these claims, that's not really honest debating.

 

[RGA1459]

Everybody seems to be arguing how Jesus can be the son of God and yet still be God, but not be God. It is not a matter of family lineage as much as is it is symbolic language. I'm sure everyone can agree that the Bible contains a lot of symbolism. It requires a bit of imagination, but let's imagine that the "Lord" were not the actual manifest "God", which in this case is Christ, but the name given to a higher level of awareness that is purely mind and all loving and all knowing, penetrating material existence yet transcending it as well. Then the "son" of that state of existence, not being material in nature but being spiritual and emotional, would not be manifest in material form but in spirit. The form is only the representation of the spirit, and the form of "Christ" is not just a material son of flesh birthed by man but by God, which is but a state of awareness that is all-loving and through which Christ was inspired by the Divine Mind. That state of mind is the purest in which one can live, having the Spirit within. It makes sense if you imagine that Christ were "birthed" by the imagination of the Divine Mind through will, and in the same sense Christ's spirit can be born in us, through us.

 

[Shermana]

Everybody seems to be arguing how Jesus can be the son of God and yet still be God, but not be God. It is not a matter of family lineage as much as is it is symbolic language. I'm sure everyone can agree that the Bible contains a lot of symbolism. It requires a bit of imagination, but let's imagine that the "Lord" were not the actual manifest "God", which in this case is Christ, but the name given to a higher level of awareness that is purely mind and all loving and all knowing, penetrating material existence yet transcending it as well. Then the "son" of that state of existence, not being material in nature but being spiritual and emotional, would not be manifest in material form but in spirit. The form is only the representation of the spirit, and the form of "Christ" is not just a material son of flesh birthed by man but by God, which is but a state of awareness that is all-loving and through which Christ was inspired by the Divine Mind. That state of mind is the purest in which one can live, having the Spirit within. It makes sense if you imagine that Christ were "birthed" by the imagination of the Divine Mind through will, and in the same sense Christ's spirit can be born in us, through us.

The concept of the Trinity has never been Symbolic. The exact amount of "Symbolism" and when exactly the Bible is truly being "Symbolic" and not referring to literal events is disputable. Philo said all the events are both real and symbolic (like a meaningful play being acted out). Not even the Early Church Fathers who thought the Bible contained allegorical stories thought that the story of Christ was allegorical however, or their Trinity doctrine.

The world "Lord" (as opposed to its usage as a replacement for the Tetragrammaton) is meant to convey an actual higher rank and authority, like how David was called "Lord", and this plays into the fact that they believed he was the long awaited "Christ"/"Messiah".

The concept of "Christ" is not a "state of awareness", it's an actual literal connotation meaning "he who is anointed (and by extension to rule and be glorified"). It is indeed a literal concept of being a leader, a prophetic idea that was not about being a "State of consciousness" but an actual state of holding a title and rank and position.

The scripture indeed states that one will have Christ's spirit if they are a true believer, but this is a bit of a different context, probably relating to association of him with the Spirit of the Holy Logos, the Memra.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

There are numerous Trinity threads, and I have shown on each one how each of the so-called "Trinity Proof texts" is based on bad grammar, bad context, and bad exegesis. Feel free to present what you consider to be such proof texts and I'll go over them again.

I will be more than happy to go over every one of those those Trinity Proof texts. But before I do, I wanna ask you something about Jesus. According to Christian theology, Jesus was morally perfect. Now my question is, was it possible for Jesus to sin, or was it impossible for Jesus to sin? Please answer this question.

No, he says "The ONE whom they will pierce", numerous translations say "Me whom they pierced" in Zechariah 12:10 but don't seem to mind contradicting themselves when Jesus translated is "The one whom they pierced".

When Jesus renders it in John 19:37, he's quoting it. Let me say it again, the pronoun indicator is not clear. It is not the word "me", it simply a pronoun indicator. It means "Someone" basically. The translations that use "me" are not being very honest, and the only reason the JPS uses it as such is that they're following the King James pattern for the most part. Jesus is directly quoting it, he's not paraphrasing it to indicate "The one" to mean "Me".

Zechariah 12:10 - A Verse Used to Support the Trinity | BiblicalUnitarian.com

Jesus isn't the one rendering it, it is the author of John that lets the readers know that the actions that are taking place in that context was a prophecy from Zechariah. Second, I find it hard to believe that whoever translated John wouldn't have quoted the Zechariah scripture the same way it was rendered in Zechariah 12:10.

What you mean to say is that you don't understand that there are different interpretations other than the mainstream Church affiliated translations that make the Bible speak for itself in ways that are different than the Trinitarians do. If people read the Bible correctly away from their Trinitarian preferences and were honest enough to acknowledge the controversial grammar issues at stake, there wouldn't be people like YOU who dismiss and hand wave these issues by thinking that the "Bible speaks for itself" as if their translations are the only ones out there to make the scripture mean something other than what it meant originally.

First of all, let me say that whoever adds words to or omit words from the bible is WRONG. Flat out wrong. Second, besides the New World's Translation (the JW bible), I am not aware of any translation that renders those Trinity text scriptures the way that they do. And if there are some translations out there, they are few and far between. You can feel free to go on biblegateway.com and look up all the Trinity proof texts and see how many of those translations renders those verses the way that you do. Unless you are saying that every single one of those translations are “Pro-Trinity”, how are you so certain that your view is the correct view and theirs are not, unless you are proficient in the Ancient Greek language.

Look at you, you're saying that Jesus wasn't even directly quoting Zechariah 12:10 word for word but was paraphrasing it to talk about himself by saying "The one" which doesn't even make sense, hypocrisy much? See, basically this is just a little run around all the issues at stake, you trying to tell me that I'm not letting the Bible "speak for itself", when you have have evidenced that you have absolutely no idea about the actual grammar considerations or even the basic scriptural issues like the Comma Johanneum.

Once again I ask, have you studied the Ancient Greek language? You are coming across as if you are a subject matter expert on the language as you keep talking about “grammar” issues. What I am saying is, once again, of ALL the different translations that there are on biblegateway.com, none of them agree with you, but they all agree with me. So either you are in a dream state at which you are stuck in a world where no one really agrees with you, or you should let the bible speak for itself. Just...relax a bit lol.

I hate to break it to you, but your mainstream translations are not necessarily correct. Even hardcore Greek scholars will tell you this.

I take it those “hardcore” Greek scholars are not 10+ bible translators that translate it much differently.

Most Biblical translations distort grammar rules and change the text to suit their Theology in many critical places. If anything, I am saying what I think the Bible DOES say when it speaks for itself, and trying to untangle all the wet knots that the Trinitarian orthodox church has done for its history.

If you are not proficient in Greek how do you know whether grammar is being distorted?

I have seen EVERY SINGLE one of your objections, numerous times, more than I could possibly remember, and like most of those who make such objections, you are for whatever reason inclined to believe that the "Bible speaks for itself" as if every single translation and contextual issue has been sorted out perfectly and unbiasedly by your own particuar church-aligned translators, as if the independent Greek scholars who say what I'm saying shouldn't be regarded whatsoever.

I can't wait to get to the rest of the Trinity Proof texts.