Jesus is not God

[YoursTrue]

Yes, absolutely!

======================================================

Of course our thinking is different but if he had a dual nature, was he equal to God? And...since you believe he had a dual nature what about the other so-called two Godpersons you believe are God? Do they have "dual natures"?

 

[Oeste]

Of course our thinking is different but if he had a dual nature, was he equal to God?

As the Son of Man, he would not be equal to the Father, as he's just a man ("The Father is greater than I" John 14:28). As the Son of God, he has equality with the Father ("Who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped" Phil 2:6).

And...since you believe he had a dual nature what about the other so-called two Godpersons you believe are God? Do they have "dual natures"?

The triune God consists of the Father, Jesus (Son of God), and the Spirit. Only Jesus, has a dual nature (as the Son of Man and Son of God). Prior to his incarnation, Jesus had no dual nature. Neither the Spirit or the Father have dual natures.

 

[YoursTrue]

As the Son of Man, he would not be equal to the Father, as he's just a man ("The Father is greater than I" John 14:28). As the Son of God, he has equality with the Father ("Who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped" Phil 2:6).

The triune God consists of the Father, Jesus (Son of God), and the Spirit. Only Jesus, has a dual nature (as the Son of Man and Son of God). Prior to his incarnation, Jesus had no dual nature. Neither the Spirit or the Father have dual natures.

To say that Jesus is equal as a mangod to the Father and holy spirit (which I do not believe is a person) is not equal. The Father is not a humanmangod and neither is the holy spirit described as godintheflesh...and so for that and more I do not believe that God is a Trinity but that Jesus was given certain capabilities from the Father. Thank you for your comment.

 

[Oeste]

To say that Jesus is equal as a mangod to the Father and holy spirit (which I do not believe is a person) is not equal.

It depends on what you mean by “mangod”. If by “mangod” you mean half-man and half-god, then I totally agree with you. A half god is not fully God, and a half man cannot atone for Adams sins, let alone our own.

Likewise, some use the term man-god to mean someone who is man but has been made a god, like the Pharaohs, corrupt Judges, and Roman emperors. I totally agree with you when the term “man-god” is used in this sense as well.

I know some Trinitarians use the term “God-man”, but always in the sense that Jesus is fully God and fully man. This is scripturally based:

“For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily” (Col 2:9)​

Since the whole, or all of deity dwells in the body of Jesus he is fully God, and since he was borne of Mary, he is fully man. Jesus has a dual but not a hybrid nature. So, Jesus is equal to God because he is full deity, and he is equal to man because he is fully human.

The Father is not a humanmangod and neither is the holy spirit described as godintheflesh

Definitely not! But then we have some on the forum who believe Jesus was a “manifestation” of the Father. They tend to be Oneness Unitarians and should not be confused with Trinitarians.

Under the Oneness model, we can certainly have Jesus praying to himself, or the “Me, me, why have I forsaken me?” that @Blu 2 spoke about earlier. There is no such occurrence under the Trinitarian model.

Trinitarians believe God is one in essence, but three in person. By “essence” I mean whatever and all ever it is that makes God, God just as whatever and all ever it is that makes you, you.

Under the Oneness model, the Father is Jesus who is the Holy Spirit who is the Father. Each person is a manifestation of one or the other at different times.

Under your model, I see two Gods, one true God and the other as another God, which, by definition and standard set forth at John 17:3, must be a false God.

...and so for that and more I do not believe that God is a Trinity but that Jesus was given certain capabilities from the Father.

Understood @YoursTrue, but what you just described as objectionable is not the Trinity for the reasons given above.

From my standpoint, I was able to harmonize scripture in a much more orderly and logical manner under the Trinity model than I ever could under a Unitarian one. Unitarian Christology generally left me with conflicting or unanswerable scriptures.

Thank you for your comment.

Thank you for yours and the conversation @YourTrue! You can politely disagree, a proficiency in short supply during these last days and times.

Have a great evening and week.

 

[YoursTrue]

It depends on what you mean by “mangod”. If by “mangod” you mean half-man and half-god, then I totally agree with you. A half god is not fully God, and a half man cannot atone for Adams sins, let alone our own.

Likewise, some use the term man-god to mean someone who is man but has been made a god, like the Pharaohs, corrupt Judges, and Roman emperors. I totally agree with you when the term “man-god” is used in this sense as well.

I know some Trinitarians use the term “God-man”, but always in the sense that Jesus is fully God and fully man. This is scripturally based:

“For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily” (Col 2:9)​

Since the whole, or all of deity dwells in the body of Jesus he is fully God, and since he was borne of Mary, he is fully man. Jesus has a dual but not a hybrid nature. So, Jesus is equal to God because he is full deity, and he is equal to man because he is fully human.



Definitely not! But then we have some on the forum who believe Jesus was a “manifestation” of the Father. They tend to be Oneness Unitarians and should not be confused with Trinitarians.

Under the Oneness model, we can certainly have Jesus praying to himself, or the “Me, me, why have I forsaken me?” that @Blu 2 spoke about earlier. There is no such occurrence under the Trinitarian model.

Trinitarians believe God is one in essence, but three in person. By “essence” I mean whatever and all ever it is that makes God, God just as whatever and all ever it is that makes you, you.

Thank you for your kind reply. When I say 'mangod,' I meant that Jesus is considered by some to be God and man in the same body. The way I figure that does not make him equal to the other two persons said to be God. I do not believe the holy spirit is God, however, or one of the three godpersons. That can be discussed more fully perhaps another time as to why.

 

[JerryMyers]

That is certainly an aberrant reading of John 1:1!

This appears to be you own, personal reading not shared by any Christian church on the forum.


Jesus is the Word, so this verse is in reference to Jesus.



First, you incorrectly claim Jesus was created, and then you incorrectly claim God created mankind WITH the interaction of a man and woman. How and why would God need a man and woman to create mankind if mankind is still awaiting its creation??

That's a new one @JerryMyers! Can you support your claim with evidence? A few scriptures perhaps??



Why would God need to create God? There is but one God, not two.


Ah! You do not hold the Old Testament as credible, let alone the New Testament as inspired and/or authentic. That goes a long way toward explaining your prior posts, especially your claims that we should throw Paul and other disciples under the bus.

But here's the rub:

If you don't believe the Old or NT, or if you cannot even hold, for the sake of argument, to their authenticity, then there is little point in debating Christian scripture with you because you would consider any scripture quoted as inherently bogus.

In any event, I appreciate the conversation and the fact you took time to share your perspectives with fellow readers on the forum.

Oeste said:
That is certainly an aberrant reading of John 1:1!

No, it's not an aberrant reading, it's what Psalm 33.9 said that God creates by just uttering a word on whatever or whoever He wants to create into existence, so yes, the Word of God becomes a man, the Word of God becomes light too (“let there be light and there was light”).

You, however, deny Psalm 33.9 and God Almighty's Greatness to create by just uttering a word.

Oeste said:
Jesus is the Word, so this verse is in reference to Jesus.

Nope, it’s NOT!
In the English-translated Bibles today, ‘W/word’ is translated from the Greek word ‘logos’.
The word “logos”, Strong’s G3056 outlined ‘logos’ as, among others: of speech, as a word uttered by a living voice, the sayings of God and its use as respect to the MIND alone - reason, the mental faculty of thinking, meditating, reasoning, calculating.
Simply put, the term ‘Word of God’ means the word was spoken by God, only the Trinitarians twisted it and preached ‘Word of God’ is Jesus, which is ridiculous as the term ‘Word of God’ can be found in many other passages, which if you understand ‘Word of God’ as Jesus, made those passages sounded ridiculous!

For example, in Matthew 15:6, we read “you nullify the W/word (logos) of God for the sake of your tradition” which means you nullify the Command of God for the sake of your tradition, NOT that ‘you nullify Jesus, and in Hebrew 13:7 “leaders who spoke the W/word (logos) of God” which means leaders who spoke what God had spoken, NOT that the leaders who spoke Jesus!!


Do you think ‘Logos’ is only found in John 1??? Saying the ‘Word’ (Logos) in John 1:1 is exclusively a reference to Jesus reflects your inability to understand the Greek’s ‘logos’ as it was translated in your Bible.


Oeste said:
First, you incorrectly claim Jesus was created,

First, you incorrectly claim Jesus was NOT created so, back to the question which I asked you before – “Do you think God is incapable of creating Jesus just by commanding it to be??”.

Oeste said:
and then you incorrectly claim God created mankind WITH the interaction of a man and woman. How and why would God need a man and woman to create mankind if mankind is still awaiting its creation??
That's a new one @JerryMyers! Can you support your claim with evidence? A few scriptures perhaps??

Incorrectly claim God created mankind??

“So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them, male and female he created them.” – Genesis 1:27 NIV

You sure you have read your Bible??

Oeste said:
Why would God need to create God? There is but one God, not two.


Well, that’s something we can agree!! Yes, indeed, why would THE God need another God???

But wait!! Trinitarians say Jesus is not another God, he IS THE God, so, it’s still one God, not two – you know, like Clark Kent/Superman thing - one, the mild-mannered reporter and the other a powerful superhero, but they are not two, they are one and the same person – is that what ‘Jesus/God or man-God/God-man’ is to the Trinitarians? Well, hate to tell you this - Clark Kent/Superman came straight out from the imagination of a man’s mind, and so is the trinity.

Have you ever ask why Jesus (and all the prophets) NEVER preach such a doctrine??

That’s because Jesus only speaks what he was commanded (by God) to speak, and Jesus NEVER hear the trinity doctrine from God – “For I did not speak on my own, but the Father who sent me commanded me to say all that I have spoken. I know that his command leads to eternal life. So whatever I say is just what the Father has told me to say.” – John 12:49-50.

NOW YOU KNOW!

Oeste said:
Ah! You do not hold the Old Testament as credible, let alone the New Testament as inspired and/or authentic. That goes a long way toward explaining your prior posts, especially your claims that we should throw Paul and other disciples under the bus.

But here's the rub:
If you don't believe the Old or NT, or if you cannot even hold, for the sake of argument, to their authenticity, then there is little point in debating Christian scripture with you because you would consider any scripture quoted as inherently bogus.

Now, hold on, why would you say that when I have said the Bible you have today is a mixture of truth and lies.

A ‘mixture of truth and lies’ would mean certain parts of the Bible are still reliable and certain parts have been mishandled by the scribes – that’s not what I said, that’s what God Himself said - “‘How can you say, “We are wise, for we have the law of the LORD,” when actually the lying pen of the scribes has handled it falsely?”.


Oeste said:
In any event, I appreciate the conversation and the fact you took time to share your perspectives with fellow readers on the forum.

Appreciate your time too, as I understand you have other commitments too (don’t we all?), but don’t tell me you are bailing out too?

Don’t you want to know the TRUTH? I guess not, as the truth is NOT what God Almighty or His prophet Jesus said, but it’s what the Trinitarians said, and Trinitarians have often try to demonstrate that they know God Almighty better than God Almighty knows Himself, and of course, they know Jesus better than Jesus knows himself too.

Anyway, take care.

 

[JerryMyers]

I really don't understand the argument. If I ask 5 different people about @blü 2, am I going to get the same stories and recollections from each of them?

Way, way back in the day, when I read Marvel Comics, we got the SAME story as there was only one writer, Stan Lee. When we read scripture, we get different stories and perspectives, as the works of Jesus affected each apostle differently.

This ADDS to the authenticity of the biblical narrative. It does nothing to subtract from it. The apostles wrote about their experiences, they weren't reciting it from a document named Q. You make the same mistake of Ehrman: the accounts are not contradictory, they are complimentary.



My goodness, you appear to raise questions without bothering to read any answers!

I believe the Trinity doctrine states, quite explicitly, that Jesus is man. So tell us why, as the Son of Man, would it be uncommon for Jesus to pray to his Father???



This has already been answered on this thread, yet you ask the same question, over and over. The Son of Man died on the cross. The Son of God did not as he cannot die. He doesn't lie either. So when he says he is the truth, the way and the life, he is literally speaking the truth.


Why wouldn't he pray to the Father*? We've explained this to you before. Telling or showing that Jesus is a Son of Man does NOTHING to show he was not also God.



And this meant he wasn't God to you?

Well you may be shocked to learn, but it's true:

Nowhere does Jesus say, "I am Man".
Tell readers if this means "Jesus is not man" to you.

Nowhere does Jesus say, "I am a prophet".
Let us know if this means "Jesus is not a prophet" to you.

Nowhere does Jesus say, "I am Lord".
Tell us if this means "Jesus is not Lord" to you.

Your argument is inconsistent Blu. If you really believed Jesus is not God because Jesus never said he was God, then you should believe Jesus was not man, prophet or Lord for the exact same reason. You certainly wouldn't be showing us scriptures where Jesus is man, because Jesus never said "I am Man!"

Jesus is all these things: God, Man, Prophet and Lord and "NO", he doesn't have to say "I am God" when the Father has already told us Jesus is God:

But about the Son he says,

“Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever;​

a scepter of justice will be the scepter of your kingdom.​

9 You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness;​

therefore God, your God, has set you above your companions​

by anointing you with the oil of joy.” (Hebrews 1:8-9)​

Since the Father Himself says the Son is God, why would anyone think differently?

*Edit: added "pray to the Father", above.

Oeste said:
when the Father has already told us Jesus is God:
But about the Son he says,
“Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever;
a scepter of justice will be the scepter of your kingdom.
9 You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness;
therefore God, your God, has set you above your companions
by anointing you with the oil of joy.” (Hebrews 1:8-9)

Since the Father Himself says the Son is God, why would anyone think differently?

First of all, God Almighty NEVER says Jesus is God nor did God say the son is God! That’s just the Trinitarians assumption.

The fact that the next verse states “therefore God, your God, has set you……” tells us the “O God” in verse 8 is not a reference to God, but to a human.

Here’s the thing – Hebrews 1:8-9 is a direct quotation from Psalm 45:6-7 which reads, “Your throne, O God,[c] will last for ever and ever; a scepter of justice will be the scepter of your kingdom. You love righteousness and hate wickedness; therefore God, your God, has set you above your companions by anointing you with the oil of joy. 7 You love righteousness and hate wickedness; therefore God, your God, has set you above your companions by anointing you with the oil of joy”. – Psalm 45:6-7 NIV.

Interestingly, you will notice there is a footer note (c) beside ‘O God’ and it reads - ‘Psalm 45:6 Here the king is addressed as God’s representative’. So, if you want to assume Hebrews 1:6-7 is about Jesus, then Jesus is NOT God, but a God’s representative…. which is about right.

 

[cataway]

Don’t you want to know the TRUTH? I guess not, as the truth is NOT what God Almighty or His prophet Jesus said, but it’s what the Trinitarians said, and Trinitarians have often try to demonstrate that they know God Almighty better than God Almighty knows Himself, and of course, they know Jesus better than Jesus knows himself too.

like, like, like .love it

 

[Muffled]

Jesus was next to God in heavens before being a human (John 1:1,2).
Jesus had a God when he was a Jew, and that God was the Father (John 4:21-24).
Jesus talked about his God to his disciples after his resurrection and before ascending to his God (John 20:17).
Jesus in heavens now, has a God (Rev. 3:12).

Where is the God-Jesus in Jesus teachings?
Do you believe in Jesus' God or in any other "god"?

I believe that is a false interpretation of John 1. God can't be seprated from Himself.

I believe the Gof of God is God. No othe god would do.

 

[Muffled]

Why is the OP subject even being discussed? Jesus is God. That is what the Bible clearly says and what billions of people accept as the truth.

I believe it is due to false interpretations of the scripture that some believe He isn't God in the flesh.

 

[Muffled]

clearly says ? the guys pushing the Trinity are the ones mudding up the clear water when understanding the bible

I believe that is false.

 

[Oeste]

Oeste said:
That is certainly an aberrant reading of John 1:1!

No, it's not an aberrant reading,

Of course it's an aberrant reading.

John 1:14, just 13 verses after our reading of John 1:1, tells us exactly who the Word is:

"The Word became flesh and dwelt among us".​

But then, you also believe our scriptures became corrupt during the time of Jeremiah or before:

‘All scripture is inspired..’ is directed to the ORIGINAL scripture, NOT to the Bible you have today. The Bible you have today is a copy of a copy, of a copy, of a copy …….. of a translated copy of a translated copy ….of the original scripture. By today, the Bible you have is already a mixture of truth and lies. The corruption of the scripture even happened in Jeremiah’s time and this is evidenced when God told Jeremiah to tell his people “‘How can you say, “We are wise, for we have the law of the Lord,” when actually the lying pen of the scribes has handled it falsely?” – Jeremiah 8:8

Now, why would God has said that if the scribes (inspired??) have NOT mishandled the scripture??

You claim the nonsense of a corrupt scripture even though scripture tells us differently:

"All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness..." (2 Tim 3:16)

This is exactly why we are told not to engage in needless, endless chatter with non-believers who quarrel over words:

14 Keep reminding God’s people of these things. Warn them before God against quarreling about words; it is of no value, and only ruins those who listen. 15 Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth. 16 Avoid godless chatter, because those who indulge in it will become more and more ungodly.​

Look, I have no problem discussing the word of God with non-believers, but I see no point in discussing the meaning of biblical verses with a person who doesn't believe in biblical verses. That makes no sense to me. Why cite verses you believe have no validity? You've already stated your belief that our canon is "..a mixture of truth and lies" whose "corruption" began back in the times of Jeremiah!

So why do you claim to believe "the Word" means this or that, when you don't believe the authors at all?

it's what Psalm 33.9 said that God creates by just uttering a word on whatever or whoever He wants to create into existence, so yes, the Word of God becomes a man, the Word of God becomes light too (“let there be light and there was light”).

I'm sorry, but you're very difficult to follow. The Word became flesh, so yes, the word is Jesus, unless you believe Jesus did not become flesh. Also, I should not have to remind you that Adam did not just pop into existence on an idle word from God:

"Then the LORD God formed man from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and the man became a living being" (Gen 2:7-9)​

Lastly, while I appreciate the fact that you are willing to share your personal beliefs, they are just that...your personal beliefs., shared by no major Christian church, vetted by no one, but perhaps shared by atheists, non-Christians, and agnostics. For them, the Word at John 1:1 means a software program that John or his scribe used to write letters.

First of all, God Almighty NEVER says Jesus is God nor did God say the son is God! That’s just the Trinitarians assumption.

No, it's simply what a plain reading of the text tells us.

But about the Son he says,...​

Who is the Son??

The Son here is JESUS. The person speaking is the FATHER.

“Your throne,... ​

This is the same throne promised to the line of David.

​

​

O God, will last for ever and ever;​

Is "O God" just some idle human, as you claim??

No, because we have already been told this is about the SON in verse 8!

He's not "called" God, he IS GOD, and his throne will last forever, just as promised to David. Read it again:

But about the Son he says,
“Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever;
a scepter of justice will be the scepter of your kingdom.
9 You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness;
therefore God, your God, has set you above your companions
by anointing you with the oil of joy.” (Hebrews 1:8-9)

Let's continue:

The fact that the next verse states “therefore God, your God, has set you……” tells us the “O God” in verse 8 is not a reference to God, but to a human.

So now you tell us 'O God' in verse is a reference to a human, but that human is not Jesus???!!!

Even though the verse IMMEDIATELY PRIOR tells us the Father is speaking about the Son???!!!

Let's repeat that 'O God" verse again:

But about the Son he says,​

“Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever;​

Just what human that is not Jesus did you have in mind?

Do you think ‘Logos’ is only found in John 1???

Why would I think that?

NOW YOU KNOW!

If I knew as you know I would be misinformed. Besides, you're not asking readers to believe that you actually believe any of the scripture you've quoted, are you? It's all been corrupted, remember? You told us this, so it must be true, at least for you.

Oeste said:
First, you incorrectly claim Jesus was created,

First, you incorrectly claim Jesus was NOT created so, back to the question which I asked you before – “Do you think God is incapable of creating Jesus just by commanding it to be??”.

Back to my answer: Why on earth would God need to create Himself?

Let's wrap this up:

Now, hold on, why would you say that when I have said the Bible you have today is a mixture of truth and lies.

A ‘mixture of truth and lies’ would mean certain parts of the Bible are still reliable and certain parts have been mishandled by the scribes – that’s not what I said, that’s what God Himself said - “‘How can you say, “We are wise, for we have the law of the LORD,” when actually the lying pen of the scribes has handled it falsely?”.

No, that's something you, say, but never something God says.

All this verse tells us is that certain scribes had handled the word of God incorrectly. It doesn't tell us that some lying words made their way into the Torah, to always persist and never be expunged. Besides, if you believe the Torah to be riddled with lies, then how did you determine this verse was truth?

The fact is, unlike you, Jesus told us "scripture cannot be broken" and that false prophets would arise. You may also want to read Luke 24:45 again:

"Then he opened their minds to understand the Scriptures,..."​

I'm sure if there was some "hanky-panky" going on with Tanakh it would have been pointed out to the apostles then.

In conclusion, your attacks against scripture show you no better handle the word of God then "the lying pen of the scribes" which you claim, with zero evidence, had somehow worked its way into scripture.

Lastly, scripture has a warning for those who question or seeks to take away huge swaths of scripture:

"If anyone takes away from the words: God will take away that person's share in the tree of life and the holy city" (Rev 22:19)​

And with that, I think our conversation on this particular matter is ended.

 

[stvdv]

Philippians 2:5. Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus: 6 Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, 7 but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness.

This one passage is clear enough for me. Jesus is God incarnate, and that is right from the scriptures.

"in very nature" is the key here

It has been said:
"I Am, the Father"
"All are children of God"

In that context "Jesus is God"
In that context "Scuba Pete is God"
In that context "Muhammad is God"
In that context "Krishna, Rama, Shiva are God"
In that context "Buddha is God"
In that context "Bahaullah is God"
In that context "xxx is God"

But to say "God is Jesus" is false
As it boxes, belittles God

 

[JerryMyers]

Oeste said:
Of course it's an aberrant reading.
John 1:14, just 13 verses after our reading of John 1:1, tells us exactly who the Word is:
"The Word became flesh and dwelt among us".

It’s only an aberrant reading to the Trinitarians because they simply cannot accept the fact that God Creates by just commanding anything or anyone to existence, so they deny Psalm 39:3. What a shame!
“The Word (of God) became flesh….” is nothing to get excited about if you understand God’s Creates by just commanding (that is, a Word from God) it to existence. Likewise, the Word (of God) became Light when God Commanded ‘Let there be Light and there was Light’. Do you deny that too?

Oeste said:
But then, you also believe our scriptures became corrupt during the time of Jeremiah or before;

You mean you also deny Jeremiah 8:8?? OK, I got it... I forgot you know God better than God Knows Himself..

Oeste said:
You claim the nonsense of a corrupt scripture even though scripture tells us differently:
"All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness..." (2 Tim 3:16)

Yes, all original Scripture is God-inspired, but then again, 2 Timothy was written by Paul from a Roman cell in 67AD – that’s 67 years AFTER Jesus is gone. Don’t you think it’s about time you take the words of God and His prophet Jesus more seriously than the words of other people?

Oeste said:
This is exactly why we are told not to engage in needless, endless chatter with non-believers who quarrel over words:
14 Keep reminding God’s people of these things. Warn them before God against quarreling about words; it is of no value, and only ruins those who listen. 15 Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth. 16 Avoid godless chatter, because those who indulge in it will become more and more ungodly.

Well, who do think are the ‘God’s people’ in 2 Tim 2:14 here? Those who believe Jesus is God?? Highly unlikely, as if it is, Paul would have written “Keep reminding Lord Jesus’ people ..”, now should not he? But he did not, so, it’s a reminder to God’s people to avoid engaging in godless chatters with folks like the Trinitarians as that will make God’s people more ungodly…. Thanks for quoting that verse!

Oeste said:
Look, I have no problem discussing the word of God with non-believers, but I see no point in discussing the meaning of biblical verses with a person who doesn't believe in biblical verses. That makes no sense to me. Why cite verses you believe have no validity? You've already stated your belief that our canon is "..a mixture of truth and lies" whose "corruption" began back in the times of Jeremiah!

Again, you deny God’s Words in Jeremiah 8:8… that’s sad …

Oeste said:
So why do you claim to believe "the Word" means this or that, when you don't believe the authors at all?

You seem to have a problem understanding the phrase ‘a mixture of truth and lies’. It means passages that do not contradict the Words of God and/or His prophet Jesus, are passages that can be considered as true, and those passages that contradict the Words of God and/or His prophet Jesus, are passages that are either misinterpreted, misunderstood, mistranslated or simply fabricated. For example, the Trinitarian understanding of John 1:14 that Jesus is God, not created is a misinterpretation and misunderstanding of that verse because they deny Psalm 39:3.

So, why can’t I comment on what had been misinterpreted and/or misunderstood by the Trinitarians like you and/or the authors/scribes of the New Testament??

Oeste said:
I'm sorry, but you're very difficult to follow. The Word became flesh, so yes, the word is Jesus, unless you believe Jesus did not become flesh.

Well, not really that difficult to follow my logic – you just have to believe in Psalm 39:3, and presto! John 1:14 is easily understood.

No, Jesus did not become flesh, but rather, the Command/Word of God becomes a man (Jesus)… and of course, a man will have flesh and bones. Surely, you don’t believe that Jesus is all flesh without bones as no bone was mentioned in John 1:14, do you?

Oeste said:
Also, I should not have to remind you that Adam did not just pop into existence on an idle word from God:
"Then the LORD God formed man from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and the man became a living being" (Gen 2:7-9)

Well, in a way, Adam did just pop into existence by God's Will.

You seem to judge God’s Ways by human standards when God is beyond the understanding of mankind. Psalm 39:3 clearly describes how God Creates – that’s all you need to know as far as God’s Creations are concerned. The "Then the LORD God formed man from the dust of the ground, and breathed….” is just the way how the author/scribe, inspired or not, describes the creation process.

Oeste said:
Lastly, while I appreciate the fact that you are willing to share your personal beliefs, they are just that...your personal beliefs., shared by no major Christian church, vetted by no one, but perhaps shared by atheists, non-Christians, and agnostics. For them, the Word at John 1:1 means a software program that John or his scribe used to write letters.

Noooo, where did you get the idea that the Word in John 1:1 means a software program?? That never even crossed my mind, but it sure did cross your mind!! LOL!

Oeste said:
No, it's simply what a plain reading of the text tells us.
But about the Son he says,...
Who is the Son??
The Son here is JESUS. The person speaking is the FATHER.

Maybe that’s your main problem – plain reading of the text! Any reading of any scripture will require more than just ‘plain reading’ to fully understand it.
And…. what makes you think the passage was speaking about Jesus? Because it mentioned ‘son’?? Do you know how many ‘sons’ God has in the Bible??

Oeste said:
“Your throne,...
This is the same throne promised to the line of David.
O God, will last for ever and ever;
Is "O God" just some idle human, as you claim??
No, because we have already been told this is about the SON in verse 8!

You have been told by who?? As I have said before – you follow the words of other people more than you follow the words of God Almighty and/or His prophet Jesus.

Oeste said:
He's not "called" God, he IS GOD, and his throne will last forever, just as promised to David. Read it again:

So said those who believe they know God Almighty better than God Almighty knows Himself, and they know Jesus better than Jesus knows himself!!

 

[JerryMyers]

Oeste said:
So now you tell us 'O God' in verse is a reference to a human, but that human is not Jesus???!!!
Even though the verse IMMEDIATELY PRIOR tells us the Father is speaking about the Son???!!!
Let's repeat that 'O God" verse again:
But about the Son he says,
“Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever;
Just what human that is not Jesus did you have in mind?

Sure, but don’t forget verse 9 too – “…..therefore God, YOUR God, has set you….”. That tells me God is talking to someone who is NOT God, but someone inferior to God. If I say to someone, “..therefore the Chairman, your Chairman ….”, in this context, do you think I am talking to the Chairman himself?? THINK!!
And let me tell you again –
Hebrews 1:8 IS a quotation from Psalm 45:6-7 and Psalm 45 refers to a royal figure with a wife! Go and check with your preachers who understand the OT. So, it cannot be Jesus!

This is what the authors/scribes of the New Testament normally do, they will quote verses from the Old Testament and then use those OT verses to present Jesus as a divine figure in the NT. As I have said before, Jesus himself has DENIED he’s God. So, to think Hebrew 1:8 is saying Jesus is God is like telling Jesus you know him better than he knows himself!

Oeste said:
Why would I think that?

Have you quoted ‘Logos/word of God’ in passages other than in John 1?? If not, then I will repeat the question - Do you think ‘Logos’ is only found in John 1???

Oeste said:
If I knew as you know I would be misinformed. Besides, you're not asking readers to believe that you actually believe any of the scripture you've quoted, are you? It's all been corrupted, remember? You told us this, so it must be true, at least for you.

You DO have a problem in understanding the phrase “a mixture of truth and lies”!!!

Oeste said:
Back to my answer: Why on earth would God need to create Himself?

Is that your answer?? That’s a question, not an answer!
And I have already answered that. Please read again my previous response to you.

Back to my question - Do you think God is incapable of creating Jesus just by commanding it to be??

Oeste said:
Let's wrap this up:
No, that's something you, say, but never something God says.

Again, you deny God’s Words in Jeremiah 8:8! Or do you think you know God better than God knows Himself????

Oeste said:
All this verse tells us is that certain scribes had handled the word of God incorrectly. It doesn't tell us that some lying words made their way into the Torah, to always persist and never be expunged. Besides, if you believe the Torah to be riddled with lies, then how did you determine this verse was truth?

Certain scribes had handled the word of God incorrectly’ is good enough evidence that the scripture has been mishandled and thus, the Bible you have today is a mixture of truth and lies.
Understand what God has declared of Himself, understand His Words and the words of His prophet Jesus, then, you will know how to determine what is the truth and what are lies in the scripture.

Oeste said:
The fact is, unlike you, Jesus told us "scripture cannot be broken" and that false prophets would arise. You may also want to read Luke 24:45 again:
"Then he opened their minds to understand the Scriptures,..."

You think Jesus was referring to the New Testament here?? Heck NO! He NEVER know the NT!

Oeste said:
I'm sure if there was some "hanky-panky" going on with Tanakh it would have been pointed out to the apostles then.

You never follow the Tanakh anyway, you follow the NT! So, what are you talking about here??!

Oeste said:
In conclusion, your attacks against scripture show you no better handle the word of God then "the lying pen of the scribes" which you claim, with zero evidence, had somehow worked its way into scripture.

Well, if you think God’s Words in Jeremiah 8:8 is zero evidence that the scripture has been mishandled, I guess that tells us a lot on whose words you heavily rely on to justify your belief.

Oeste said:
Lastly, scripture has a warning for those who question or seeks to take away huge swaths of scripture:
"If anyone takes away from the words: God will take away that person's share in the tree of life and the holy city" (Rev 22:19)

That’s a very good warning that you should take seriously.

Oeste said:
And with that, I think our conversation on this particular matter is ended.

Sorry, mate. Class is not over yet!! Don’t you want to know the TRUTH and find out how you have been misled to believe Jesus is God??

 

[Oeste]

It’s only an aberrant reading to the Trinitarians...

No, your rendering of John 1:1 is an aberrant reading to virtually every major Christian denomination one can think of, which is unsurprising since you believe scripture is "corrupted" and a "mixture of truth and lies".

It's simply your personal opinion, unsupported and not collaborated.

“The Word (of God) became flesh….” is nothing to get excited about..."

I think you just blew by the whole point of the New Testament.

Can you give us another Christian church and if not, perhaps a scholar or two, who believes the Word of God becoming flesh was "nothing to get excited about"?

Likewise, the Word (of God) became Light when God Commanded ‘Let there be Light and there was Light’. Do you deny that too?

Why would He have to become light, when God is light?

This is easily settled:

Again Jesus spoke to them, saying, “I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will not walk in darkness, but will have the light of life.”​

Jesus is the light and he is the Word. Jesus does not have to become light when he IS the light.

You mean you also deny Jeremiah 8:8??

When did I say that?

You do realize this is a debate forum, right? Also, you must be aware that at no time have I claimed, as you have, that scripture is corrupted or has lies.

OK, I got it... I forgot you know God better than God Knows Himself..

This is a personal attack, or ad-hominem. I don't appreciate them and I will report them if they continue. Either cite, explicitly, where I claimed I know God better than God knows Himself, or desist. These type of attacks do not enhance, but take away from any point you were trying to make.

Now let's get back to Jeremiah 8:8.

“How can you say, ‘We are wise,​

and the law of the Lord is with us’?​

But behold, the lying pen of the scribes​

has made it into a lie.​

This tells us the Lord was well aware of "the lying pen of the scribes".

It does not tell us that the word of God became corrupted. That is something you told us, but it's not an assertion found in scripture.

Fantastic claims require even more fantastic evidence @JerryMyers, and yours is a fantastic claim.

Well, not really that difficult to follow my logic – you just have to believe in Psalm 39:3, and presto! John 1:14 is easily understood.

What you've demonstrated here is called Knight Jump exegesis. Anthony Hoekema discusses it in his book, "The Four Major Cults".

Practitioners "jump from one part of the Bible to another, with utter disregard of context, to 'prove' their points".​

"Like a knight in a game of chess that jumps over other pieces, making abrupt turns to the right and then the left, these biblical interpreters often string together disparate passages of different genres, different historical contexts, and wildly different meanings by connecting them around shared keywords and little more."​

As stated previously, John reveals who the Word is when he tells us "and the Word became flesh and dwelt among us". He does not tell us the Word "became light", as you have, because Jesus tells IS the light.

You seem to have a problem understanding the phrase ‘a mixture of truth and lies’.

Nah, I think I and our readers understood perfectly what you meant from this phrase.

So, why can’t I comment on what had been misinterpreted and/or misunderstood by the Trinitarians like you and/or the authors/scribes of the New Testament??

Of course you can comment! I encourage you to do so. But you've already told us our scriptures are corrupted due to the work of scribes, or that it's been copied a bit too many times, or that the time of actual writing was delayed and not immediate. So when you quote scripture, you are quoting something you don't believe is true as if it is. Why not simply be truthful, and tell us you don't believe the quoted text anymore than any text one might use to refute it?

Yes, all original Scripture is God-inspired,

Well, we might be progressing here.

but then again, 2 Timothy was written by Paul from a Roman cell in 67AD – that’s 67 years AFTER Jesus is gone.

I'm not understanding your point here. I read a book on Alexander the Great, written at least 2300 years after his death. Would you consider the book suspect?

Don’t you think it’s about time you take the words of God and His prophet Jesus more seriously than the words of other people?

Make up your mind!

You just told us scripture is corrupted, a mixture of truth and lies.

Again, you deny God’s Words in Jeremiah 8:8!

No, you did that when you told us scripture was truth and lies.

So you don't believe Jeremiah 8:8 is true, or if it is true, it is corrupted.

Now, if you do believe Jeremiah 8:8 is true for some reason, then you need to tell our readers what that reason is. What method or process did you use to determine this verse was true and others false?

 

[Oeste]

Let's repeat that 'O God" verse again:

But about the Son he says,“Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever;

The Father is speaking in the first person here. He says the Son is God.

It is important to remember there is only ONE true God, so who is this other God that the Father calls God?
It is the Son, as He has only one begotten Son.

Sure, but don’t forget verse 9 too – “…..therefore God, YOUR God, has set you….”. That tells me God is talking to someone who is NOT God, but someone inferior to God.

Yes, as explained before, the Father is talking to the Son. The Son is not only His only begotten son, he is the Son of Man.

therefore God: the Son of God.
YOUR God: The Father, the God of the Son of Man.

If I say to someone, “..therefore the Chairman, your Chairman ….”, in this context, do you think I am talking to the Chairman himself?? THINK!!

I'm glad you've decided to THINK!! about this but I don't want you to do this by yourself. This is a good verse for everyone to think about.

Hebrews 1:8 IS a quotation from Psalm 45:6-7 and Psalm 45 refers to a royal figure with a wife!

Woo-hoo! Right as rain!
Just one small discrepancy: Psalm 45 refers to a royal figure with a bride, not a wife.

Go and check with your preachers who understand the OT. So, it cannot be Jesus!

No need to @JerryMyers, you've done all the heavy lifting here. You've demonstrated, quite eloquently, that this is Jesus.
Why?

Because our Savior, Jesus Christ, has a bride!

I love when things just come together like this.

So what have you demonstrated to our readers?

1. Jesus has a DUAL nature. He is Son of Man as well as Son of God.
2. The Father addresses the Son as God, because Jesus is his only begotten Son, and those begotten are never different from their Begetter. Cows do not beget crows. If you disagree with this, please give examples.
3. The Father has already addressed Jesus as "O God". He continues to speak to his Son by saying "Therefore God, your God has set you...". "Your God has set..." means the Father is addressing someone inferior. That would be the Son of Man.
4. The Father is addressing both natures of Jesus: Jesus as Son of Man, and Jesus as Son of God.
5. This verse refers to a royal ruler, as it parallels Psalm 45.
6. This royal ruler has a bride.
7. Jesus also has a bride. It's the same bride.

Go and check with your preachers who understand the OT. So, it cannot be Jesus!

If you need assistance on determining who the royal ruler for Christians is, or who the bride of Jesus is, you can ask any of the Christians here on the forum. No need to go to the preachers.

Trinitarians have often try to demonstrate that they know God Almighty better than God Almighty knows Himself, and of course, they know Jesus better than Jesus knows himself too.

like, like, like .love it

I'm not sure where you or @cataway got this bizarre notion that Trinitarians know better than God and Jesus. I'm sure one of you can quote a reliable source with your next post. However it's not necessary to ask a Trinitarian. Any Unitarian, even @cataway, can tell you who our royal ruler is and if he has a bride.

I'm confident of it.

 

[JerryMyers]

Oeste said:
No, your rendering of John 1:1 is an aberrant reading to virtually every major Christian denomination one can think of, which is unsurprising since you believe scripture is "corrupted" and a "mixture of truth and lies".
It's simply your personal opinion, unsupported and not collaborated.

Of course, if you are talking about every Trinitarian Christian group, but then, if I bring my case of John 1:1 to every Unitarian Christian group, I am very sure, they will understand my rendering of John 1:1. So, it's a question of who you talking to.

Oeste said:
I think you just blew by the whole point of the New Testament.
Can you give us another Christian church and if not, perhaps a scholar or two, who believes the Word of God becoming flesh was "nothing to get excited about"?

Well, you are missing the context here – it’s like this, if you truly believe in the Greatness of God Almighty and believe God Almighty makes things happen just by commanding and willing it to happen, then “The Word of God became flesh…” is nothing to get excited about because we are talking about God Almighty here who is making this happened. however, if it’s “The word of JerryMyers became flesh…”, now, that would be something to get excited about and probably nobody will believe it!!

Oeste said:
Why would He have to become light, when God is light?

Right, then why did God say “Let there be Light” when God is Light?? Maybe God is saying “Let there be God”???!

Oeste said:
This is easily settled:
Again Jesus spoke to them, saying, “I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will not walk in darkness, but will have the light of life.”Jesus is the light and he is the Word. Jesus does not have to become light when he IS the light.

This is the problem with people who just ‘plain read’ the texts, they just take everything they read or hear literally. I bet if someone told you it’s raining ‘cats and dogs’ outside, you probably think cats and dogs are falling from above, right??

Oeste said:
When did I say that?
You do realize this is a debate forum, right? Also, you must be aware that at no time have I claimed, as you have, that scripture is corrupted or has lies.


Sometimes, your silence speaks louder than your words.

Oeste said: This is a personal attack, or ad-hominem. I don't appreciate them and I will report them if they continue. Either cite, explicitly, where I claimed I know God better than God knows Himself, or desist. These type of attacks do not enhance, but take away from any point you were trying to make.

Oh, don’t be too sensitive. It’s not intended to be a personal attack. It’s a personal attack only if you take it as a ‘personal attack’. I think I’ve received worse ‘personal attacks’ with one even bringing in my mom (who has long passed away) into the picture… I don’t make threats to report it, I just ignore and don’t respond to such comments. I rather leave it to the moderators to decide, I think that is what the moderators are for.

By the way, I don’t appreciate threats either, so, don’t threaten me, if you want to report me, that’s your prerogative.

If you can’t handle the heat, you should get out of the ‘Scriptural Debates’ and maybe go to other sections, which are less ‘heaty’ instead.

Oeste said: Now let's get back to Jeremiah 8:8.
“How can you say, ‘We are wise, and the law of the Lord is with us’? But behold, the lying pen of the scribes has made it into a lie. This tells us the Lord was well aware of "the lying pen of the scribes".
It does not tell us that the word of God became corrupted. That is something you told us, but it's not an assertion found in scripture.

Do you know what a scribe is?? A scribe is a person who serves as copyist, especially one who made copies of the manuscripts before the invention of printing.

So, when God says “How can you say, ‘We are wise, and the law of the Lord is with us’?But behold, the lying pen of the scribes has made it into a lie’.. - It tells us the scribes were making copies of the original manuscript (which we can understand is the law of God), but while making these copies, they made subtle changes in the copies.
So, that passage did tell us, the Words/Law of God (the original manuscript) became corrupted (in the copies) and that’s why God said what He said in Jeremiah 8:8. The copies are the ones that were introduced to the masses, not the original, and by today, the Bible has become a book of truth and lies.

Oeste said:
Fantastic claims require even more fantastic evidence @JerryMyers, and yours is a fantastic claim.

Yes, claiming Jesus is God is a fantastic claim, especially when Jesus himself has denied it and God Almighty NEVER even says or implies it, but I have to admit, you do have provided fantastic evidence, based NOT from God or His prophet Jesus but, based from what you have been told by other people – that’s fantastic!!

Oeste said:
What you've demonstrated here is called Knight Jump exegesis. Anthony Hoekema discusses it in his book, "The Four Major Cults".
Practitioners "jump from one part of the Bible to another, with utter disregard of context, to 'prove' their points". "Like a knight in a game of chess that jumps over other pieces, making abrupt turns to the right and then the left, these biblical interpreters often string together disparate passages of different genres, different historical contexts, and wildly different meanings by connecting them around shared keywords and little more."

Isn’t that what the Trinitarians/scribes have been doing? Jumping from OT to NT like quoting verses from the OT, then, the OT verses are presented (with subtle changes) in the NT as ‘evidence’ to the ‘Jesus is God’?

Oeste said:
Nah, I think I and our readers understood perfectly what you meant from this phrase.
Right, but your responses proved otherwise.

Oeste said:
Of course you can comment! I encourage you to do so. But you've already told us our scriptures are corrupted due to the work of scribes, or that it's been copied a bit too many times, or that the time of actual writing was delayed and not immediate. So when you quote scripture, you are quoting something you don't believe is true as if it is. Why not simply be truthful, and tell us you don't believe the quoted text anymore than any text one might use to refute it?

Case in point – you still have a problem understanding the phrase ‘a mixture of truth and lies’.

Oeste said: I'm not understanding your point here. I read a book on Alexander the Great, written at least 2300 years after his death. Would you consider the book suspect?

Did the book Alexander the Great mention anything about ‘Jesus is God’ too? Of course not. So, why should I care whether the book is suspected or not??

Oeste said:
Make up your mind!
You just told us scripture is corrupted, a mixture of truth and lies.
Have I ever said the Words of God and the words of His prophet Jesus in the scripture were lies??
You still cannot understand the phrase ‘a mixture of truth and lies!!!

Oeste said: No, you did that when you told us scripture was truth and lies.
So you don't believe Jeremiah 8:8 is true, or if it is true, it is corrupted.

When did I ever say Jeremiah 8:8 is corrupted??
You still cannot understand the phrase ‘a mixture of truth and lies!!! Let me help you, which part of that phrase you cannot understand??

Oeste said: Now, if you do believe Jeremiah 8:8 is true for some reason, then you need to tell our readers what that reason is. What method or process did you use to determine this verse was true and others false?

Well, it’s God Almighty (not just any other people) talking in Jeremiah 8:8, so why shouldn’t I believe it?? Are you implying to me you don’t believe Jeremiah 8:8??

 

[JerryMyers]

Oeste said:
The Father is speaking in the first person here. He says the Son is God.

No, He did Not. It’s the Trinitarians’ misinterpretation of that passage, which we know, taken from the OT (Psalm 45) in which no such thing as ‘and to the son..’ was mentioned.

Oeste said:
It is important to remember there is only ONE true God, so who is this other God that the Father calls God?
It is the Son, as He has only one begotten Son.

Jesus as God the Son is just a FANTASTIC claim which is yet to be UNEQUIVICALLY proven, but we are presented with FANTASTIC ‘evidence’ by other people who are most likely Trinitarian themselves.

Oeste said:
Yes, as explained before, the Father is talking to the Son. The Son is not only His only begotten son, he is the Son of Man. therefore God: the Son of God.YOUR God: The Father, the God of the Son of Man.

It amused me to see how Trinitarians bend themselves into pretzels just to tailor-fit their man-made doctrine into the scripture!! LOL!

Oeste sais:
I'm glad you've decided to THINK!! about this but I don't want you to do this by yourself. This is a good verse for everyone to think about.

Yes, of course, I always think logically and rationally when reading the scripture, but obviously, you have decided NOT to THINK at all and just stick to just ‘plain read’ the texts.

Oeste said:
Woo-hoo! Right as rain!
Just one small discrepancy: Psalm 45 refers to a royal figure with a bride, not a wife.

Woo-hoo! Right as rain!
The bride DID eventually become the queen which means she became the wife of the king.
“….Kings' daughters were among thy honourable women: upon thy right hand did stand the queen in gold of Ophir.” – Psalm 45:9 KJV

Oeste said:
Because our Savior, Jesus Christ, has a bride!
I love when things just come together like this.

You obviously cannot understand ‘figure of speech' language, can you?

Yeah, and I love when you make a mockery of yourself!
What?? You are going to take that as a personal attack, cry, and report me?? I’m sure you love to see me banned, right?

Oeste said:
So what have you demonstrated to our readers?
1. Jesus has a DUAL nature. He is Son of Man as well as Son of God.
2. The Father addresses the Son as God, because Jesus is his only begotten Son, and those begotten are never different from their Begetter. Cows do not beget crows. If you disagree with this, please give examples.
3. The Father has already addressed Jesus as "O God". He continues to speak to his Son by saying "Therefore God, your God has set you...". "Your God has set..." means the Father is addressing someone inferior. That would be the Son of Man.
4. The Father is addressing both natures of Jesus: Jesus as Son of Man, and Jesus as Son of God.
5. This verse refers to a royal ruler, as it parallels Psalm 45.
6. This royal ruler has a bride.
7. Jesus also has a bride. It's the same bride.

Right, so what have you demonstrated to our readers?

THAT…
1. You have BEEN TOLD (your admission) that Jesus has a DUAL nature. He is Son of Man as well as Son of God

2. You have BEEN TOLD that “The Father addresses the Son as God, because Jesus is his only begotten Son”,

and those begotten are never different from their Begetter. Cows do not beget crows. If you disagree with this, please give examples.

God Almighty DOES NOT beget, humans and animals do! Again, as I said before – you are comparing GOD Almighty to human standards when God Almighty IS ABOVE all His Creations and HE IS BEYOND the understanding of the human mind!

3. You HAVE BEEN TOLD Jesus is God, so you concluded your understanding of the passage as -
The Father has already addressed Jesus as "O God". He continues to speak to his Son by saying "Therefore God, your God has set you...". "Your God has set..." means the Father is addressing someone inferior. That would be the Son of Man.
4. The Father is addressing both natures of Jesus: Jesus as Son of Man, and Jesus as Son of God.
5. This verse refers to a royal ruler, as it parallels Psalm 45.
6. This royal ruler has a bride.
7. Jesus also has a bride. It's the same bride.

Oeste said:
If you need assistance on determining who the royal ruler for Christians is, or who the bride of Jesus is, you can ask any of the Christians here on the forum. No need to go to the preachers.

If you need assistance in determining which is literal and which is 'figure of speech' language, go and enroll yourself in an English class that specializes in 'figure of speech' language like hyperbole, idioms, metaphors, and such. Yeah, no need to go to the preachers for this.

Oeste said:
I'm not sure where you or @cataway got this bizarre notion that Trinitarians know better than God and Jesus. I'm sure one of you can quote a reliable source with your next post.

That’s simple to explain -
We understand God Almighty by what He said of Himself, and likewise, we understand Jesus by what he said about himself and his actions, responses, and reactions when faced with certain situations. Other people may have their takes of God Almighty and His prophet Jesus, BUT, their takes MUST NOT CONTRADICT what God Almighty has declared of Himself and what Jesus has said of himself.

If God Almighty has declared Himself, on number of times, that HE IS the ONLY God and Savior, besides Him there’s no God, and Jesus, on many occasions, has distinctly distinguished himself from God, and even told Satan to worship ONLY God, so, when the Trinitarians make the fantastic claim that Jesus is God himself, full God and full man, one has to wonder whether the Trinitarians know something more that even God Almighty Himself and His prophet Jesus are not aware of such thing, simply put, in that context, the Trinitarians seem to know better than God Almighty and His prophet Jesus know themselves.

Oeste said:
However it's not necessary to ask a Trinitarian. Any Unitarian, even @cataway, can tell you who our royal ruler is and if he has a bride.
I'm confident of it.

I am sure you cannot understand a 'figure of speech' language when you see one.
I’m confident of it.

 

[Oeste]

Oeste said:
The Father is speaking in the first person here. He says the Son is God.

No, He did Not. It’s the Trinitarians’ misinterpretation of that passage, which we know, taken from the OT (Psalm 45) in which no such thing as ‘and to the son..’ was mentioned.

Then we are right back to where we started, concerning the veracity of Scripture, and whether Hebrews and other books should be ripped from the canon.

"And to the Son..." is located in Hebrews 1:8. It shows the Father addressing someone else besides Himself as God. This God is the Son, and he does not come under condemnation or judgement, so he, the Son, is in fact God.

Both Hebrews and Psalm are inspired scripture @JerryMyers. The vast majority of Unitarians have the same belief in scripture as do Trinitarians. We cite from the canon using the same books. I have no need to convince Christians on this forum that Paul was an apostle. It's only the skeptics, agnostics, atheists, and non-Christian believers that need convincing and such convincing requires, as a basic prerequisite, faith, a free gift that is not mine to give.

In any event, the book of John tells us Jesus is the only begotten Son of the Father. He is the only begotten Son of God, and the begotten is always the same as the begetter. It's the pattern made by our Creator, Jesus Christ:

And God said, “Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: the livestock, the creatures that move along the ground, and the wild animals, each according to its kind.” And it was so. (Genesis 1:26)​

This pattern follows the pattern of the our eternally begotten Son. In short, cats do not give birth to dogs which may open up another avenue of discussion.

Since you do not believe Paul, at the very least you may have come to accept and believe in the pattern set by Christ. So I will ask you the same question I asked our Unitarian friends earlier. Perhaps you will have an answer that does not involve a hefty dose of circular logic:

The only begotten Son of Frog is Frog.
The only begotten Son of Dog is Dog.
The only begotten Son of Man is Man.
The only begotten Son of God is ______?

If you can answer this question in a logically consistent manner, without the use of circular logic, or denial that God has a begotten Son, we can proceed with our discussion of whether Jesus is God.

Of course, since we are discussing scripture, readers would only expect your answer to be supported by same.

I don't want you to think I am ignoring what you've posted, so I will give some brief answers:

Well, you are missing the context here – it’s like this, if you truly believe in the Greatness of God Almighty and believe God Almighty makes things happen just by commanding and willing it to happen, then “The Word of God became flesh…” is nothing to get excited about because we are talking about God Almighty here who is making this happened

You’re missing the point here…God making this happen is a lot to get excited about! Without His willingness, we and creation would be nothing. At that point there’ nothing to be excited about because we’re not there.

if I bring my case of John 1:1 to every Unitarian Christian group, I am very sure, they will understand my rendering of John 1:1. So, it's a question of who you talking to.

C'mon @JerryMyers, let's give our Unitarian friends a bit more credit than that.

Take a walk into any Kingdom Hall or invite a JW to a "bible" study. They may smile and say your view is "interesting", but I don't think they'll run it up the chain of command with a suggestion it be implemented by their Governing Board. Ditto for any other Unitarian Church. And while you will be free to bring up your own personal beliefs at study, they'll expect any such belief to be over and done with by the time you get baptized.

Failing that, a warning rather than an endorsement will be given to the Congregation.

I'm not picking on them. This will be true for virtually any Christian church you come into.

- God created mankind WITH the interaction of a man and a woman

This has yet to be explained by you. Can you elaborate?

‘All scripture is inspired..’ is directed to the ORIGINAL scripture, NOT to the Bible you have today.

Here you claim that nothing in scripture can be trusted because we don't have the "ORIGINAL" or autographs. This tosses out both Old and New Testaments.

Do you understand why scripture needed to be copied and recopied? Are you aware of the mechanics in place to assure it was copied correctly?

I see no point in discussing actual scripture if you don't believe in the veracity of the scriptures you quote.

However, even though you don't believe scripture itself, you may want to tell us the process you used to identify certain scriptural verses as "true" and others lies.

The Bible you have today is a copy of a copy, of a copy, of a copy …….. of a translated copy of a translated copy ….of the original scripture. By today, the Bible you have is already a mixture of truth and lies. The corruption of the scripture even happened in Jeremiah’s time and this is evidenced when God told Jeremiah to tell his people “‘How can you say, “We are wise, for we have the law of the Lord,” when actually the lying pen of the scribes has handled it falsely?”

Here's a good example. Please explain, if our bible cannot be trusted, and since this is a copy, of a copy, of a copy, the process you used to determine this was a "true" verse from our bible, and not a "false" verse by some scribe playing a prank?

Don't worry about what I think about this verse. I happen to think it's true. What I don't think is our bible is corrupted. A corrupted bible is something YOU believe in. The odds that our scriptures have been corrupted by scribes since the time of Jeremiah are about nil. So, since you believe our bible corrupted, tell us how you were able to ascertain this particular verse from Jeremiah was a "true" verse and not one of the lying verses you've warned us about? I'm sure you've researched the matter.

A ‘mixture of truth and lies’ would mean certain parts of the Bible are still reliable and certain parts have been mishandled by the scribes – that’s not what I said, that’s what God Himself said - “‘How can you say, “We are wise, for we have the law of the LORD,” when actually the lying pen of the scribes has handled it falsely?”.

Read what the biblical text says more closely. This is a great example of eisegesis, where you insert your own meaning into the text.

Do you know what a scribe is?? A scribe is a person who serves as copyist, especially one who made copies of the manuscripts before the invention of printing.

Very good @JerryMyers. Now tell us, was this the scribes only role, or did they perform other services as well?

I think once you understand the role of the scribes, you will understand why Jesus railed against them. You'll also understand why it was necessary for Jesus to confirm that scripture was not and cannot be broken.

Well, it’s God Almighty (not just any other people) talking in Jeremiah 8:8, so why shouldn’t I believe it?? Are you implying to me you don’t believe Jeremiah 8:8??

I've already told you I believe Jeremiah 8:8. I just don't believe anything you've told us about it.

Again, show us where in Jeremiah 8:8 does it tell us our bible is corrupt and cannot be trusted. I think you've somehow conflated the "lying pen of the scribes" with "the Word of God" or the inspired text, which is nonsense.

Lying pen of the scribes = Word of God is simply not found in scripture. True, we find it in your commentary, but nowhere do we find where these lying pens were ever mixed or comingled into scripture. That is simply another fantastic claim I suspect is heavily endorsed by non-believers.

No, it's not an aberrant reading, it's what Psalm 33.9 said that God creates by just uttering a word on whatever or whoever He wants to create into existence, so yes, the Word of God becomes a man, the Word of God becomes light too (“let there be light and there was light”)

Your rendering of John 1:1 is still aberrant. The Word does not have to "become" anything to create anything. The Word of God predates creation, so the Word does not need to become a man to create man into existence. Neither does it have to become light in order for light to exist. Ditto for squirrels and gnats. The Word does not become these things to create these things.

Oeste said:
Why would He have to become light, when God is light?

Right, then why did God say “Let there be Light” when God is Light??

"LET" not "CREATE". God did not have to create light because He IS the light.

Maybe God is saying “Let there be God”???!

Not at all.

Case in point – you still have a problem understanding the phrase ‘a mixture of truth and lies’.

Well, simply show us where God or Jesus states scripture is a mixture of truth and lies. You keep pointing to Jeremiah, forgetting that Jesus had already affirmed scripture cannot be broken, and this long after Jeremiah was written.

Also, you may want to quote exactly where in scripture God says Jesus is the only prophet to be believed.