The Trinity

[icebuddy]

No, as I explained to you last time, it says Yah IS our righteousness. Otherwise, you'll have some explaining to do with names like "Obadiyah" and Yoshua". Why do those names have the "is" but that one doesn't? Now the NIV may try to pull a fast one here, but even the NLT is too cautious to step on that landmine.

What ever you believe, the bible is full of verses pointing out Jesus as YHWH. Is 44:6-8, Is 46:9, Is 9:6, is 40:3 and more

Jesus is "God with Us" and he teaches as he is on earth. he went around to all the synogogues teaching "His Word". Now Read John 6:45

Rev 1:17 you mean? First and last is not an exclusive title, it applies to Jesus being the FIRSTBORN of creation and from the Dead, and the LAST Adam.

Talk about interpitation... First and Last is not a exclusive title? (I disagree 100%)

Isa 44:6 This is what the LORD says--Israel's King and Redeemer, the LORD of Heaven's Armies: "I am the First and the Last; there is no other God.

Isa 48:12 "Listen to me, O family of Jacob, Israel my chosen one! I alone am God, the First and the Last.

With your interpitation, everyone could say they are the First and the Last, as long as they insert something unique towards them self. I am the First and Last exactly like my self... This is diluting scripture in my opinion.

Jesus is exactly like God? Then how come God knows things Jesus doesn't know? Why did Jesus ask God to "take this cup away from me if you will", he obviously didn't want to endure what he had to endure.

Because he didnt want to be separated from the Father in death. For Jesus took on our sins and became sin so that Gods payment would be complete. God doesnt want any one of us to end up in the devils hands, but he wont get his will either. What exactly is your question? That Jesus cannot be God because the Father is greater in the Hierarchy of the Godhead? Thats like saying your wife isnt human because she doesnt know what you knew or that she didnt want to do the laundry...

John 1:1 says that Jesus is a god, not God. We see that there are indeed other "gods", but they are not the "god of the gods" (Psalm 136:2), they are inferior gods.

It is our belief that other gods only exist in the mind of the weak for they are not gods and Jehovah said he didnt create or assign any gods before him or after him. Is 43:10 but yes there are so-called many gods, but to those who do not know any better create them in their own minds. So if Jehovah said he didnt create any gods we must assume that men created them in their minds.

I had a thought of "craziness" to help me understand your thinking. In Isaiah 43:10 Jehovah says "Before me no god was formed"... Does that mean God didnt always exist? just using your own thoughts toward Jesus and applying the same rules to Jehovah...

This verse merely implies that Christ in Spirit Form was leading them and serving as God's vessel. If they "drank from a SPiritual rock", what does that mean? Where does it say the Israelites themselves called God the Rock? David used that term for a different reason, and its in relation to Moses giving water from the Rock. The idea here is that Christ's soul (Wisdom) was the one performing God's will.

If you ask any Jew who their "Spiritual Rock" was that followed the Jews day and night by a cloud they will answer you that it was the God of Abraham, Isac, and Jacob. You dont believe that so you have an answer that satisfies your belief.

The word "Godhead" simply means "godlike quality", the concept of "The Godhead" representing the totality of the Trinity simply never existed until recently. It's a qualitative noun, not a straight nominative. It was probably devised to help make Trinity talk more convenient.

When i say Godhead, i mean that which makes God God in divine nature. There are lots of words that didnt always exist, but in light of what we have today, we use words to express our beliefs. For example Dinosaur wasnt a word for a long time, but that dosent mean Dinosaurs didnt exist because the word is newer than terrible lizard.

Apparently even after the ressurection, Jesus is not the same being as the Father and still doesn't know things that God knows, and refers to God as "his god". So God has a god?

You might say that since Jesus calls the Father "My God" that Jesus himself cannot be God. the problem with this thinking is that one is focused upon Jesus as only a man who was made like us in every way.(Heb 2:17) Forgetting that Jesus is also the root of David not just the offspring, he is both God and Man. (the best mediator between us and the Father) Before Jesus became a man he didnt have a God like he does now, for he was the God and with God in the form of the Eternal Word of Everlasting life. As the offspring of David he then could call the Father "His God" for this didnt start until in the womb of Mary. Ps 22:10 explains that Jesus didnt have a God until his earthly birth as Gods Firstborn Son. This will be the case until Jesus mediatorial role is over as the man who mediates for us (1 tim 2:5) When Jesus's role is over as mediator then he will hand everything back to the Father and God will be all in all as it was before the world began. (1 cor 15:28 and 1John 1:1-5)

Why can't the same be said for Trinitarians?

im sure we will not have everything 100%, but you will never find me going around saying that the Image of God is not God nor worthy of my worship. i would much rather be guilty of over lifting Jesus up, which is impossible, rather than tearing him down to "a god" like moses or Judges. I will always look to jesus as "MY LORD AND MY GOD" to the glory of the Father and the sealing of the Holy Spirit.

in love,
tom

 

[Shermana]

What ever you believe, the bible is full of verses pointing out Jesus as YHWH. Is 44:6-8, Is 46:9, Is 9:6, is 40:3 and more

In other threads, I have shown that even Trinitarian scholars recognize that Isaiah 9:6 does not say Jesus was God, I should make a whole thread on how "Mighty god" is translated as "Mighty hero" or other terms.

Jesus is "God with Us" and he teaches as he is on earth. he went around to all the synogogues teaching "His Word". Now Read John 6:45

More like "God is with us". Omitting the "is" is a common Trinitarian tactic.

Talk about interpitation... First and Last is not a exclusive title? (I disagree 100%)

Yes, it's an interpretation, and so is yours.

I

sa 44:6 This is what the LORD says--Israel's King and Redeemer, the LORD of Heaven's Armies: "I am the First and the Last; there is no other God.

There is no other god over heaven's armies than the "god of the gods". Feel free to ignore Psalm 136:2.

Isa 48:12 "Listen to me, O family of Jacob, Israel my chosen one! I alone am God, the First and the Last.

The Israelites are to have no other god as THEIR god. Even Jesus had a god who was THE god.

With your interpitation, everyone could say they are the First and the Last, as long as they insert something unique towards them self. I am the First and Last exactly like my self... This is diluting scripture in my opinion.

Except mine involves direct specifics.

Because he didnt want to be separated from the Father in death. For Jesus took on our sins and became sin so that Gods payment would be complete. God doesnt want any one of us to end up in the devils hands, but he wont get his will either. What exactly is your question? That Jesus cannot be God because the Father is greater in the Hierarchy of the Godhead? Thats like saying your wife isnt human because she doesnt know what you knew or that she didnt want to do the laundry...

I have no idea how that comparison works whatsoever. And again, there is no "The godhead", the word "godhead" simply means "godliness" or "state of having the qualities of being a deity", it's a qualitative noun.

It is our belief that other gods only exist in the mind of the weak for they are not gods and Jehovah said he didnt create or assign any gods before him or after him.

That's a nice belief.

Is 43:10 but yes there are so-called many gods, but to those who do not know any better create them in their own minds. So if Jehovah said he didnt create any gods we must assume that men created them in their minds.

The words "So-called" does not exist in 1 Corinthians 8.

I had a thought of "craziness" to help me understand your thinking. In Isaiah 43:10 Jehovah says "Before me no god was formed"... Does that mean God didnt always exist? just using your own thoughts toward Jesus and applying the same rules to Jehovah...

I think I was clear that "before me" means "more important than me" like "Thou shalt have no gods before me". IT wouldn't imply God had a time before he existed though.

If you ask any Jew who their "Spiritual Rock" was that followed the Jews day and night by a cloud they will answer you that it was the God of Abraham, Isac, and Jacob. You dont believe that so you have an answer that satisfies your belief.

Why don't you take that question to the Judaism DIR and ask them. It's simply not scripturally based.

When i say Godhead, i mean that which makes God God in divine nature. There are lots of words that didnt always exist, but in light of what we have today, we use words to express our beliefs. For example Dinosaur wasnt a word for a long time, but that dosent mean Dinosaurs didnt exist because the word is newer than terrible lizard.

Okay, but when discussing the Bible we shouldn't use words that don't apply to the text.

You might say that since Jesus calls the Father "My God" that Jesus himself cannot be God. the problem with this thinking is that one is focused upon Jesus as only a man who was made like us in every way.(Heb 2:17)

I fail to see how that's a problem.

Forgetting that Jesus is also the root of David not just the offspring, he is both God and Man.

A god and man.

(the best mediator between us and the Father) Before Jesus became a man he didnt have a God like he does now,

Doesn't say he didn't. But it sure says he had one even after he died and returned to Heaven.

for he was the God and with God in the form of the Eternal Word of Everlasting life.

A god. Not THE god.

As the offspring of David he then could call the Father "His God" for this didnt start until in the womb of Mary. Ps 22:10 explains that Jesus didnt have a God until his earthly birth as Gods Firstborn Son.

Ummm, Psalm 22:10 doesn't say that at all.

This will be the case until Jesus mediatorial role is over as the man who mediates for us (1 tim 2:5) When Jesus's role is over as mediator then he will hand everything back to the Father and God will be all in all as it was before the world began. (1 cor 15:28 and 1John 1:1-5)

I fail to see how those verses remotely describe that.

im sure we will not have everything 100%, but you will never find me going around saying that the Image of God is not God nor worthy of my worship. i would much rather be guilty of over lifting Jesus up, which is impossible, rather than tearing him down to "a god" like moses or Judges. I will always look to jesus as "MY LORD AND MY GOD" to the glory of the Father and the sealing of the Holy Spirit.

Besides John 20:28 most likely not existing in the first draft of John (at least according to Bernard Muller), I see no reason why Thomas wasn't just saying OMG at the sight of the ressurected Jesus, it's not really a sin to say OMG.

One could interpret "Antichrist" in 1 John to mean those who think Jesus was someone other than he claimed to be who came in the flesh, not just those who deny he came in the flesh altogether.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

'antichrist' in 1st John and 2nd John is not written with a capital letter 'A'. 'antichrist' is Not a specific person but anyone who is against Christ.

Like the clergy [ not as a person but as a class ] who sit themselves in the 'temple' [Houses of Worship] as if they are God when in reality they are anti-God.- 2nd Thessalsonians 2 v 4.

 

[sojourner]

i would much rather be guilty of over lifting Jesus up

I don't think that's possible, since Jesus is fully God.

 

[cataway]

no not at all . what he is ,is an agent of God

 

[sojourner]

no not at all . what he is ,is an agent of God

We're all "agents" of God who do God's will.
You'll have to do better than that.
Yes, Jesus is an agent of God, in that he is God Incarnate, yet also fully human.

 

[icebuddy]

I don't think that's possible, since Jesus is fully God.

I Agree. What i see is that People either equate Jesus to God or Angels and Godly men. The Bible equates Jesus more to God than anything. (Heb 2) It also takes quotes of YHWH and applies them directly to Jesus. Many will say Jesus is a god like moses or judges, but in reality they say this because they cannot believe Jesus is God. Heres something I would say to these people.

Anyone that looks to Jesus and says "NOT GOD", just looked at the brightness of Jehovah and denied him and his son. To look at Gods Image and say "NOT GOD" is very dangerous. Even if you think he is just reflecting or representing, you must look to the Angel of the LORD in the OT. Without knowing you have Jesus even lower than this angel called The Angel of the LORD. For he is called Jehovah(YHWH), God, and treated exactly like God Almighty with no exceptions. Yet Jesus, who is either better than this angel or is this angel you have treated with way less majesty all because Jesus became a man and died for you. This is not a weakness but his power of Love. God is Love and even when we read there is no greater love then laying down ones life for another. Jesus laid down his life for you! God is Love! Jesus is God!

In Love,
Tom

 

[sojourner]

Any language that we can employ about God is non-specific, because we are not capable of fully understanding God. We do not define God; we describe God. Non Trinitarians are caught up in being very specific about definitions; Trinitarians not so much. What does "angel of the Lord" mean? Specifically? Do we know? Who was Jesus? Specifically? Do we know? I don't think we do, and so we assign these very loosely-held descriptions to him. We understand that Divinity is embodied in some way in him. Since we believe there is one God, then Divinity is Divinity, and Jesus, somehow, is God Incarnate, separate in identity, but one in essence.

 

[icebuddy]

In other threads, I have shown that even Trinitarian scholars recognize that Isaiah 9:6 does not say Jesus was God, I should make a whole thread on how "Mighty god" is translated as "Mighty hero" or other terms.

So how do you view Is 10:21? Everything the Father is, Jesus is also!

More like "God is with us". Omitting the "is" is a common Trinitarian tactic.

It really doesnt matter because you would just say "a god was with us" anyways... i dont know why you down play Jesus, but you will have to answer for your own thoughts...

There is no other god over heaven's armies than the "god of the gods". Feel free to ignore Psalm 136:2.

God use to let people be ignorant about other gods, but today we know that other gods dont actualy exist. Looking back, God says he didnt create them, so who did? ignorant men that believe in them....

The Israelites are to have no other god as THEIR god. Even Jesus had a god who was THE god.

Jesus is not a different God. What we believe is that God Almighty Existed in Father, Eternal Word, and Holy Spirit. That the Word became man like you and me and in a unique way had a God because of this. But he is not different, he is the Image of that invissible God, he is the Brightness and Exactly expressing Gods being by his very existance. Seeing Jesus as a different God would be like seeing the Angel of the LORD as a different God. You need to see that you are not giving Jesus his Majesty.

Except mine involves direct specifics.

Your belief in "First and Last" is bizzare to me. In your belief you could have Millions of Firsts and millions of Lasts? I believe there is only ONE First and Last, One Beginning and END, One! In your belief, I am also qualified to be a First and Last. For i could say I am the First and Last one to be exactly like me. I am the First and Last to finish off my bag of Doritos....

I have no idea how that comparison works whatsoever. And again, there is no "The godhead", the word "godhead" simply means "godliness" or "state of having the qualities of being a deity", it's a qualitative noun.

Ok, Within the being that we call Jehovah exists the Father, the Son(Word), and the Holy Spirit. Do you understand that?

That's a nice belief.

ill ask the question again. If God says he didnt create other gods, yet they exist, who created them?

I think I was clear that "before me" means "more important than me" like "Thou shalt have no gods before me". IT wouldn't imply God had a time before he existed though.

You should apply this same type of thinking towards Jesus! God simply says he didnt create any other gods period! You should ask regular people not in your Church what they think that passage means...

Why don't you take that question to the Judaism DIR and ask them. It's simply not scripturally based.

The Whole reason the Jews of Jesus's time wanted to stone him is because "THEY THOUGHT" he was claiming equality to God or that he himself was God. Here we see Paul explaining to the Jews that the one who you called you Rock was Jesus, the one who protected you was the rock Jesus...

Okay, but when discussing the Bible we shouldn't use words that don't apply to the text.

the last time I checked, the word Godhead means the "Act of being God", and thats exactly what I believe. That Father, Son, and Holy Spirit Act in being God.

A god and man.

So You are ignoring all the OT passages that say God didnt create and gods and that there are no gods beside Jesus? BTW, do you look to Jesus for salvation? If so, you just looked to another god... I dont see how one can see Jesus as a god and then violate the 1 commandment by having other gods besides the Father... In my belief they are the same and Im not in violation of the 1st commandment...

Doesn't say he didn't. But it sure says he had one even after he died and returned to Heaven.

Yes, And I believe this too. Jesus is a man ressurected and until his medatorial roll is over, he will be a man that mediates for us and the man the Judges the world. only when he returns it all back to the Father will God be all in all as it was before the worlds began.

Ummm, Psalm 22:10 doesn't say that at all.

Psa 22:10 Upon You I was cast from birth; You have been my God from my mother's womb.

When did it say the Father became "his God"? Jesus who was God, emptied himself to become man, as a man, he had a God, but not until he was in Marys womb. The same exact time he became God and Marys Firstborn as well. For "Birth" is something exclusive to earth, so anytime you see "Firstborn" applied to Jesus, know that it didnt happen in heaven and could only happen on Earth.

I fail to see how those verses remotely describe that.

i know you do, or you would worship Jesus day and night as I do.

Besides John 20:28 most likely not existing in the first draft of John (at least according to Bernard Muller), I see no reason why Thomas wasn't just saying OMG at the sight of the ressurected Jesus, it's not really a sin to say OMG.

OMG isnt a term used by Jews or in that Time period. You need to think that one out...

Anyways, you have giving me some new things to look at when talking to others. i know you Love Jesus, although its hard for me to see with all the lowering of him going on. i would continue to pray about all things concerning Jesus! He will not fail you! As for your OMG comment, what name does everyone use as a swear word across Nations and all religions? Jesus Christ

 

[icebuddy]

Any language that we can employ about God is non-specific, because we are not capable of fully understanding God. We do not define God; we describe God. Non Trinitarians are caught up in being very specific about definitions; Trinitarians not so much. What does "angel of the Lord" mean? Specifically? Do we know? Who was Jesus? Specifically? Do we know? I don't think we do, and so we assign these very loosely-held descriptions to him. We understand that Divinity is embodied in some way in him. Since we believe there is one God, then Divinity is Divinity, and Jesus, somehow, is God Incarnate, separate in identity, but one in essence.

Very Well Put

 

[Shermana]

So how do you view Is 10:21? Everything the Father is, Jesus is also!

There's a difference between El Gibbor by itself and "El GIbbor" as the middle of a long compound name, which could also mean 'God is mighty". Would you like some quotes from prominent Trinitarians about Isaiah 9:6 and their warnings of how to not apply it?

It really doesnt matter because you would just say "a god was with us" anyways... i dont know why you down play Jesus, but you will have to answer for your own thoughts...

And you will have to answer for yours. Why do I 'downplay" Jesus? Because I actually want to uplift him by putting him in his proper context. Maybe also because I value scholarship, even prominent Trinitarians agree with me on this one. And actually, the name can be read as "God is with us", like how I showed you that many Trinitarian translations render the name "Yah is our righteousness". You simply can't deny the "Is" factor when it comes to names. The translations that do so are just being dishonest, and should at least put an asterisk saying the different possibility.

God use to let people be ignorant about other gods, but today we know that other gods dont actualy exist. Looking back, God says he didnt create them, so who did? ignorant men that believe in them....

Today we know they don't exist? Oh really? When did this knowledge come about? Even Paul says there are many gods and many lords. Even Josephus says there are lesser gods. You're confusing "What I believe" with "What we know". And where does God say He didn't create them? You will have to answer for making up things about the text.

Jesus is not a different God.

Yes he is.

What we believe is that God Almighty Existed in Father, Eternal Word, and Holy Spirit. That the Word became man like you and me and in a unique way had a God because of this. But he is not different, he is the Image of that invissible God, he is the Brightness and Exactly expressing Gods being by his very existance. Seeing Jesus as a different God would be like seeing the Angel of the LORD as a different God. You need to see that you are not giving Jesus his Majesty.

You need to see that I am giving Jesus plenty of Majesty, as a Prince instead of a King, and you need to see that your little comments like this and "You are going to have to answer" are not really debating.

Your belief in "First and Last" is bizzare to me.

Most Trinitarian beliefs are very bizarre to me. So what?

In your belief you could have Millions of Firsts and millions of Lasts?

I thought I was clear it specifically applies only to specifics.

I believe there is only ONE First and Last, One Beginning and END, One! In your belief, I am also qualified to be a First and Last. For i could say I am the First and Last one to be exactly like me. I am the First and Last to finish off my bag of Doritos....

Firstborn of Creation, Last Adam, First and Last. Very specific.

Ok, Within the being that we call Jehovah exists the Father, the Son(Word), and the Holy Spirit. Do you understand that?

I think I understand virtually aspect and angle of every Trinitarian concept.

ill ask the question again. If God says he didnt create other gods, yet they exist, who created them?

I'll ask the question again, what verse says this?

You should apply this same type of thinking towards Jesus! God simply says he didnt create any other gods period! You should ask regular people not in your Church what they think that passage means...

Maybe you should consider asking people outside YOUR Church (I don't have a church), are you under the idea that only I could be possibly be wrong here? Now, you seem to insist 3x in a row on a verse that doesn't exist. Why?

The Whole reason the Jews of Jesus's time wanted to stone him is because "THEY THOUGHT" he was claiming equality to God or that he himself was God.

No, for claiming to be "a god" and to be the "Son of god", the text is quite clear that Jesus himself acknowledges his charge to be claiming to be the "Son of god".

Here we see Paul explaining to the Jews that the one who you called you Rock was Jesus, the one who protected you was the rock Jesus...

Not necessarily, as I said, it refers to Jesus's Spirit being the vehicle for things like Moses being able to procure water from the rock.

the last time I checked, the word Godhead means the "Act of being God", and thats exactly what I believe. That Father, Son, and Holy Spirit Act in being God.

Perhaps try looking up definitions that aren't in a Trinitarian-produced grammar book?

So You are ignoring all the OT passages that say God didnt create and gods and that there are no gods beside Jesus?

So, you are making up Bible verses that don't exist and saying I'm ignoring them?

BTW, do you look to Jesus for salvation?

Absolutely, but not the same way you do. I look to the Father who sent him to work the Salvation that Jesus procures due to repentance, like any other sacrifice.

If so, you just looked to another god...

When THE God sent saviors in Obadiah 1:21, were they other gods? Just because Jesus is the saving god sent by the Father doesn't mean that I look towards another god.

I dont see how one can see Jesus as a god and then violate the 1 commandment by having other gods besides the Father...

The commandment is not to have them as gods ABOVE the Father.

In my belief they are the same and Im not in violation of the 1st commandment...

In my belief there is no violation of the 1st commandment as long as you don't put another god BEFORE THE god.

Yes, And I believe this too. Jesus is a man ressurected and until his medatorial roll is over, he will be a man that mediates for us and the man the Judges the world. only when he returns it all back to the Father will God be all in all as it was before the worlds began.

And what verses do you use to derive this?

Psa 22:10 Upon You I was cast from birth; You have been my God from my mother's womb.

Great Psalm. Doesn''t have anything to do with your point.

When did it say the Father became "his God"?

Maybe when Jesus calls the Father "my god" perhaps?

Jesus who was God, emptied himself to become man, as a man, he had a God, but not until he was in Marys womb.

But he calls him "my god" even after returning to Heaven as a Mighty Spiritual being. And I believe Jesus did come back to help destroy Jerusalem in Revelation. So we'll just have to agree to disagree on intepretation there.

The same exact time he became God and Marys Firstborn as well. For "Birth" is something exclusive to earth, so anytime you see "Firstborn" applied to Jesus, know that it didnt happen in heaven and could only happen on Earth.

That has absolutely no scriptural basis but you're welcome to your unscriptural opinion.

i know you do, or you would worship Jesus day and night as I do.

I can still worship Jesus as long as I don't put him before god. Likewise, Moses worshiped Angels, even King David was worshiped. When John went to worship the Angel, he was only stopped because they're of the same rank, prophets. Otherwise, why would John even worship the Angel? Did he have a total lapse?

OMG isnt a term used by Jews or in that Time period. You need to think that one out...

Prove that the concept of OMG (Lord of me and god of me) wasn't in use at the time or retract.

Anyways, you have giving me some new things to look at when talking to others. i know you Love Jesus, although its hard for me to see with all the lowering of him going on. i would continue to pray about all things concerning Jesus! He will not fail you! As for your OMG comment, what name does everyone use as a swear word across Nations and all religions? Jesus Christ

Out of curiosity, would you possibly consider praying and asking to see if I'm right? I'm well aware that OMG could equate to Jesus to most people since they are....(drum roll) Trinitarians!

 

[sojourner]

Many naysayers try to pin evidence of the invalidity of the Trinity on scriptural silence. There are a few problems with taking this tack:

first of all, it is at least abundantly implicit in the texts that Jesus was seen as somehow Divine, from Luke's treatment of his birth, to the whole John 1 thing (which I don't believe is as cryptic as some would have us believe), from Thomas' declaration, to the resurrection and post-resurrection accounts.

Additionally, they're making a mistake in assuming that there's only one authoritative source for revelation and for the formulation of doctrine: The bible. That was not true for at least the first 1500 years of the church's existence -- and is not true for a majority of Xtians today. Doctrine has always been -- and is currently -- formulated upon both scripture and Tradition.

A literal approach to metaphorical theological constructs is usually a big mistake. A construct is just that -- and any theologian worth his/her salt knows that any one construct is not "the last word on God."

 

[icebuddy]

There's a difference between El Gibbor by itself and "El GIbbor" as the middle of a long compound name, which could also mean 'God is mighty". Would you like some quotes from prominent Trinitarians about Isaiah 9:6 and their warnings of how to not apply it?

You didnt answer my Question. What does the bible say? how do you view Is 10:21?

And you will have to answer for yours. Why do I 'downplay" Jesus? Because I actually want to uplift him by putting him in his proper context. Maybe also because I value scholarship, even prominent Trinitarians agree with me on this one.

No one Trinitarian agrees on John 1:1 being translated "a god" nor does the Greek grammer rules. i am sorry, but for every 1 guy you find that supports views like this, there are 100's that disagree.

Today we know they don't exist? Oh really? When did this knowledge come about? Even Paul says there are many gods and many lords. Even Josephus says there are lesser gods. You're confusing "What I believe" with "What we know". And where does God say He didn't create them? You will have to answer for making up things about the text.

Gods word says He didnt create any other gods period. However, they do exist because people created them in their own minds. Thats why they exist. Are you saying that God Almighty created other gods?

Yes he is.

God Almighty said he didnt create other gods and Im suppose to believe you that he did? Not only that, but that he created a god just like himself and shares his glory with another god that he say that will never happen?

You need to see that I am giving Jesus plenty of Majesty, as a Prince instead of a King, and you need to see that your little comments like this and "You are going to have to answer" are not really debating.

I cant believe someone would say Jesus isnt a King? As for debate purposes, how can i debate with someone that says in one sentence that you are all about scholorship then come up with OMG and then tell me that i must prove OMG wasnt used by Jews. Your out of wack, the burden is on you. There is no OMG in any writings anywhere by anyone around that time. You need to prove things, not just say them and then tell me to prove it wrong...?

Most Trinitarian beliefs are very bizarre to me. So what?

i have a way of making it simple. However, you are entitled to your own thoughts

I thought I was clear it specifically applies only to specifics.

your Specifics...? I was pointing out that in your belief you can have more than 1 or 2 First and lasts. You are watering down the bible. The holy Spirit helped to write the bible and you dont see what he has done because you cant believe that Jesus is God with the Father. Yet you believe in multiple 1st and Lasts...

Firstborn of Creation, Last Adam, First and Last. Very specific.

Jesus became "FirstBORN" on his earthly birth only. Again you say your into Scholorship, yet everyone knows that "Birthing" and "Born" are Earthly events that never happen in Heaven. They are "Timebound" events that happen on earth only. Jesus cannot be Born or Birthed in heaven before the creation of the world. Therefore this event is earthly when Mare bore Jesus as her Firstborn. Luke 2:7

I think I understand virtually aspect and angle of every Trinitarian concept.

The Trinity you have learned may not be accurate. Just as my view of people like JW's might not be accurate. im not sure what you are, but you are close to JW belief.

I'll ask the question again, what verse says this?

Is 43:10 - God didnt make any gods, so who did?

(I don't have a church)

Who do you study, worship, and meet with?

Jesus himself acknowledges his charge to be claiming to be the "Son of god".

how come the Jews knew what that meant but you do not? (They spoke and knew the language) John 5:18 BTW, Jesus is also the "Son of Man", so does that mean he is not man by your same thinking?

Perhaps try looking up definitions that aren't in a Trinitarian-produced grammar book?

Why dont you look up the Greek word for Godhead at Col 2:9 or theotēs in your desired book and tell me what it says.

So, you are making up Bible verses that don't exist and saying I'm ignoring them?

Is 43:10

Absolutely, but not the same way you do. I look to the Father who sent him to work the Salvation that Jesus procures due to repentance, like any other sacrifice.

maybe I didnt follow you correctly, but how is that different than the love/Belief in Jesus is a gift from God only to be accepted...

When THE God sent saviors in Obadiah 1:21, were they other gods?

If there are other gods, God Almighty didnt create them.

Just because Jesus is the saving god sent by the Father doesn't mean that I look towards another god.
The commandment is not to have them as gods ABOVE the Father.

Read Duet 32:39 - there is no god beside YHWH, yet you believe Jesus is a god beside (right hand) of YHWH when he says otherwise?

In my belief there is no violation of the 1st commandment as long as you don't put another god BEFORE THE god.

Thank you for clearing that up, but i dont believe that to be true. Ex 34:14 says not to worship other gods, yet you said you worship Jesus, in whom you believe is another god?

Ex 20:3 says you shall have no other gods before me. The word "before" means in addition to, together with, ext... So you believe that you can believe in Zues, just as long as you keep Jehovah on top?

And what verses do you use to derive this?
Great Psalm. Doesn''t have anything to do with your point.

Ps 22:10 says exactly when God became Jesus's God. in the Womb of Mary. Why do you think otherwise?

Maybe when Jesus calls the Father "my god" perhaps?

So you dont believe Jesus had a god until 30 years old or after? im going to stick with being in Marys Womb like the bible says at Ps 22:10

But he calls him "my god" even after returning to Heaven as a Mighty Spiritual being. And I believe Jesus did come back to help destroy Jerusalem in Revelation. So we'll just have to agree to disagree on intepretation there.

i thought you knew trinitarian belief? it is clear you do not. We believe Jesus is still man, a resurected man who has been glorified by the Father. once the Father became his God, he cannot go back on that. he must now wait until the He and the Father and the Holy Spirit complete their word, then God will be all in all as it was before the beginning.

That has absolutely no scriptural basis but you're welcome to your unscriptural opinion.

Show me otherwise? Rom 8:29, Lk 2:7, Heb 1:6, Phil 2:5-10, Mat 28:18, Col 1:16-18, Ps 89:26-27, hebrews 1:5

look at Hebrews 1:5 for example. Angels where already present when the Father said to Jesus, you are my son. The word, "Today" indicates the earth and days where already present as well. Jesus became Gods firstborn son 2000 years ago, not before creation.

I can still worship Jesus as long as I don't put him before god.

See Above, you cannot worship other gods says god Almighty.

Out of Time....

 

[Shermana]

You didnt answer my Question. What does the bible say? how do you view Is 10:21?

I did answer your question, you obviously didn't understand what I said in this case.

No one Trinitarian agrees on John 1:1 being translated "a god" nor does the Greek grammer rules.

I was talking about Isaiah 9:6. I'm well aware Trinitarians are usually dishonest about the grammatical situation with John 1:1. A few like Dr. Goodspeed and Dr. Moffatt are more honest though.

i am sorry, but for every 1 guy you find that supports views like this, there are 100's that disagree.

I'm well aware that the grand majority of Christians are Trinitarian. However what you won't find is too many non-Trinitarian scholars who agree with the Trinitarians. And I'm aware that appeal to majority does not = truth.

Gods word says He didnt create any other gods period. However, they do exist because people created them in their own minds. Thats why they exist. Are you saying that God Almighty created other gods?

Not only am I saying He did in fact create lesser gods, I'm also saying you're completely misunderstanding the scripture saying He didn't, it says He made no gods "after" Him in the sense of "Like". Just like how "before" doesn't mean "ahead of time" in "Thou shalt have no gods before me", it means "likewise", like if I said "I made them after this fashion".

God Almighty said he didnt create other gods and Im suppose to believe you that he did? Not only that, but that he created a god just like himself and shares his glory with another god that he say that will never happen?

He will not share his level of glory with any other lesser god. Do you even know what "god" means? Did you ignore what I said about Psalm 136:2? He's the god of the gods. That means no god is as glorious as Him. Again, it says no god was formed BEFORE him, as in "No gods BEFORE me". Before = more important or greater here.

I cant believe someone would say Jesus isnt a King?

Yeah, I can't believe I said that either, probably because I didn't say it.

As for debate purposes, how can i debate with someone that says in one sentence that you are all about scholorship then come up with OMG and then tell me that i must prove OMG wasnt used by Jews.

You said yourself that it was never used by Jews. Then I ask you to prove it and you refuse. I think what you mean to say is "How can I debate someone who disagrees with me and provides counter-arguments I can't answer to". However, I will prove to you at least that this is not exactly a position unique to Anti-Trinitarians.

"an early Christian theologian, the most eminent representative of the so-called school of Antioch. .... he was held in great respect, and took part in several synods, with a reputation for orthodoxy that was never questioned." This respected Bishop of Mopsuestia was a very early trinitarian and a friend of John Chrysostom and of Cyril of Alexandria. - Encyclopedia Britannica, 14th ed., Vol. 22, p. 58.
This very early trinitarian wrote (probably in the late 300's A. D.) that Thomas' statement at John 20:28 was

"an exclamation of astonishment directed to God." - p. 535, Vol. 3, Meyer's Commentary on the New Testament (John), 1983, Hendrickson Publ.

http://defendingthenwt.blogspot.com/2010/11/john-2028-my-lord-and-my-god.html

"Directed at God" in this context means "Not directed at Jesus".

And if you have a problem with the site here just because it's JW instead of going over what it says, I'll apply the same to any Trinitarian sites.

Your out of wack, the burden is on you.

No, YOU are out of whack.

There is no OMG in any writings anywhere by anyone around that time. You need to prove things, not just say them and then tell me to prove it wrong...?

You're the one who said it was NEVER used.

i have a way of making it simple. However, you are entitled to your own thoughts

Same.

your Specifics...? I was pointing out that in your belief you can have more than 1 or 2 First and lasts. You are watering down the bible. The holy Spirit helped to write the bible and you dont see what he has done because you cant believe that Jesus is God with the Father. Yet you believe in multiple 1st and Lasts...

You're ignoring the specifics I use and accusing me of watering down the Bible. No deal.

Jesus became "FirstBORN" on his earthly birth only. Again you say your into Scholorship, yet everyone knows that "Birthing" and "Born" are Earthly events that never happen in Heaven. They are "Timebound" events that happen on earth only. Jesus cannot be Born or Birthed in heaven before the creation of the world. Therefore this event is earthly when Mare bore Jesus as her Firstborn. Luke 2:7

That's some nice personal opinion there.

The Trinity you have learned may not be accurate. Just as my view of people like JW's might not be accurate. im not sure what you are, but you are close to JW belief.

I am very close to JW belief in this regard indeed.

Is 43:10 - God didnt make any gods, so who did?

I already went over this, "Before me, no God came to be" means "More important than. You can't just ignore my counter argument and insist on yours. The word "after me" means "In like fashion". We'll just have to agree to disagree.

Who do you study, worship, and meet with?

Whoever I talk to that's willing to discuss.

how come the Jews knew what that meant but you do not? (They spoke and knew the language) John 5:18 BTW, Jesus is also the "Son of Man", so does that mean he is not man by your same thinking?

Who are you to say that I don't know what he meant? Yet another person who confuses "Different opinion" with "Don't understand".

Why dont you look up the Greek word for Godhead at Col 2:9 or theotēs in your desired book and tell me what it says.

Do you not understand the concept? Theotes is a qualitative noun. Not a nominative.

Is 43:10

Same thing.

maybe I didnt follow you correctly, but how is that different than the love/Belief in Jesus is a gift from God only to be accepted...

I don't understand the question.

If there are other gods, God Almighty didnt create them.

Sure he did. Just not any "before him" or "Like" (after).

Read Duet 32:39 - there is no god beside YHWH, yet you believe Jesus is a god beside (right hand) of YHWH when he says otherwise?

Why do you ignore the verses I post? Psalm 136:2 is clear that He is the "god of the gods". Do you get what "god of the gods" means? There's a difference between THE god and a god. As well, there's a difference between "a god" and "Their god" (posessive). There is no other god than THE god who rules the Israelites. But there are still other gods. Even Paul is clear that "indeed there are other gods". Even JOSEPHUS (Ant 1:5) says there are other lesser gods. Angels are called gods. The sons of God are called gods.

Thank you for clearing that up, but i dont believe that to be true. Ex 34:14 says not to worship other gods, yet you said you worship Jesus, in whom you believe is another god?

Exodus 34:14, when read in context and not cherry picked, is talking about the gods of the Canaanites who are to be crushed and their altars smashed and their people put into bondage and their women forbidden from marrying into the tribe.

Ex 20:3 says you shall have no other gods before me. The word "before" means in addition to, together with, ext... So you believe that you can believe in Zues, just as long as you keep Jehovah on top?

Believe in the existence of, yes. As long as you understand that THE god can crush him like a bug.

Ps 22:10 says exactly when God became Jesus's God. in the Womb of Mary. Why do you think otherwise?

Psalm 22:10 says no such thing, how do you possibly derive that? Do you have a link or commentary that says this or is this your own idea?

So you dont believe Jesus had a god until 30 years old or after? im going to stick with being in Marys Womb like the bible says at Ps 22:10

I'm going to stick that Psalm 22:10 doesn't remotely say what you think it says.

i thought you knew trinitarian belief? it is clear you do not. We believe Jesus is still man, a resurected man who has been glorified by the Father. once the Father became his God, he cannot go back on that. he must now wait until the He and the Father and the Holy Spirit complete their word, then God will be all in all as it was before the beginning.

How do you possibly derive from what I said that I don't understand Trintarian belief?

Show me otherwise? Rom 8:29, Lk 2:7, Heb 1:6, Phil 2:5-10, Mat 28:18, Col 1:16-18, Ps 89:26-27, hebrews 1:5

None of those verses remotely prove your case, Col 1:16-18 only backs what I said that the Logos was the primary force which all things were made THROUGH, again see Proverbs 8 and Wisdom of Solomon 7-9. Basic Philo's Logos Theology.

l

ook at Hebrews 1:5 for example. Angels where already present when the Father said to Jesus, you are my son. The word, "Today" indicates the earth and days where already present as well. Jesus became Gods firstborn son 2000 years ago, not before creation.

He's the highest of the Angels and the firstborn heir of Heaven of Earth, created before and higher than the angels, that's why.

See Above, you cannot worship other gods says god Almighty.

Of pagan cultures who aren't in the Divine chain of command. Notice that John worships the Angel, and the Angel only stops him because...they are the same rank, prophets. Why would John even bother? Did no one teach him basic rule #1?

 

[sojourner]

I cant believe someone would say Jesus isnt a King?

isn't that biblically explicit? Luke 19:38, as I recall.

 

[icebuddy]

I did answer your question, you obviously didn't understand what I said in this case.

I went back and looked, but I didnt see your direct answer on who is the "Mighty God" at Is 10:21. i say this because Isaiah wrote Is 9:6 and used the same words for Jehovah at Is 10:21. Heres my whole point: The Jews were so afraid to use the word YHWH or GOD (G_D) that they didnt want to use it in vein. Yet when we see Titles of Jehovah being applied to Jesus one shouldnt over look them as no big deal...

I was talking about Isaiah 9:6. I'm well aware Trinitarians are usually dishonest about the grammatical situation with John 1:1. A few like Dr. Goodspeed and Dr. Moffatt are more honest though.

I just took a class on John 1:1 and i am sorry but one man translations are not to be used for doctorine. Phil 2:6 agrees with John 1:1 showing the Word as God. The word was in the form of God and became the form of man. Besides, there is a Greek grammer rule called Colewells Rule that applies at John 1:1 making the translation "God was the Word" or the "Word was God". Goodspeed and moffat used divine and Divine to them meant God for God is Divine and all the fullness of Divineness is within Jesus.

I'm well aware that the grand majority of Christians are Trinitarian. However what you won't find is too many non-Trinitarian scholars who agree with the Trinitarians. And I'm aware that appeal to majority does not = truth.

The grand majority? Wrong, maybe a hand full at best. Have you ever looked at this before? BTW, many that translate Divine will go on and say God is Divine and in Jesus is found full deity.(Fully Divine like God) Col 2:9

Not only am I saying He did in fact create lesser gods, I'm also saying you're completely misunderstanding the scripture saying He didn't, it says He made no gods "after" Him in the sense of "Like". Just like how "before" doesn't mean "ahead of time" in "Thou shalt have no gods before me", it means "likewise", like if I said "I made them after this fashion".

We totally disagree here. I dont know anyone that agrees with you either, but this is a question i havent asked my JW buddies... To say that passage is saying that God did create lesser gods goes against english grammer too. Also, every bible study book i have ever picked up is clear on this passage saying there are no other God or Jr Gods. There are false gods such as the devil or the idols of the nations. But there are no true Gods apart from the Lord.

Should I even take you seriously after you consistently repeat a fabricated piece of scripture while dodging the question of what verse you are referring to?

Seriously, not one Study Bible says that the passage at hand can mean that God created other gods. If you know of one, please direct me so i can understand your belief system.

He will not share his level of glory with any other lesser god. Do you even know what "god" means? Did you ignore what I said about Psalm 136:2? He's the god of the gods. That means no god is as glorious as Him.

Well then you have a problem, because Jesus is the highest brightness of his glory expressing his glory fully and completely.

Yeah, I can't believe I said that either, probably because I didn't say it.

You said, "You need to see that I am giving Jesus plenty of Majesty, as a Prince instead of a King". Whats that mean? An Almost King? A Prince that will never be King? I dont follow. Talk about Trinitarians being confusing...

You said yourself that it was never used by Jews. Then I ask you to prove it and you refuse.

Look, you said Thomas said OMG and never has any Jewish writing EVER in that time period or a while after used the terms OMG as you say. The Burden is all on you to prove it. However, My Lord and My God as I believe is.

I think what you mean to say is "How can I debate someone who disagrees with me and provides counter-arguments I can't answer to". However, I will prove to you at least that this is not exactly a position unique to Anti-Trinitarians.

You make wild Ideas up like OMG and then say I need to prove it, thats exactly what i mean. Again, the burden is on you to prove it. (there is zero of evidence on this one)

"Directed at God" in this context means "Not directed at Jesus".

i read this site and it is a bunch of thoughts but no real proof. For example, it says that if Jesus was God then we would see worshipping of Jesus, which we do, but the twisted version on this is that obesence was given, not worship. However, John who lived with jesus and knew jesus created all things (Angels directly), would have never tried to worship an angel in revelation if he never worshipped Jesus who created the angels and John knew this. What I saying is that JW's and alike will say Jesus was never worshipped by the disiples(John). Yet in revelation we see John worshipping an angel that John knew Jesus Created? Hence, John did worship Jesus and extended worship to this angel and was corrected.

Another thing is that you(website) say the "MY GOD" part wasnt directed at Jesus. Well it looks to me that even if Jesus was called God, Mighty God, Alpha and Omega, First and last, MY GOD, quotes of Jehovah applied to him, Our Rock, and many more, that you would find an alternate solution to your belief that says, Jesus is NOT GOD. Something I am here warning you not to say to the one who Expresses the Fathers very being by his mere existence and is the Image of God.

And if you have a problem with the site here just because it's JW instead of going over what it says, I'll apply the same to any Trinitarian sites.

Ive never sent you to a Trinitarian site?

No, YOU are out of whack.

BTW, that site didnt say anything about OMG and its use in any other area of any text anywhere written around that time period.

 

[icebuddy]

You're the one who said it was NEVER used.

Yes, because it isnt. Your claim that OMG is bogus and cannot be backed up and you know this so you put it upon me to prove something that simply is never used anywhere in any writings. Also, for the Holy Spirit to inspire John to put this in writing is also showing Jesus as God and not slang for OMG. John puts it as simple as possible at John 5:18 that Jesus claimed equality to God.

That's some nice personal opinion there.

What? Show me anywhere in the bible that being Born(Birth) happening anywhere but on earth. Luke 2:7 makes it clear when Jesus is Firstborn. You need to think this out... Also Hebrews 1:5 shows that at the time the Father said, "You are my son", that angels were already present and that "days" where already in existant. (Today, you are my Son) Again, think... (I am not pointing these things out for my mere pleasure)

I am very close to JW belief in this regard indeed.

Agreed

I already went over this, "Before me, no God came to be" means "More important than. You can't just ignore my counter argument and insist on yours. The word "after me" means "In like fashion". We'll just have to agree to disagree.

bizzare thinking... It seems to me that you can make any passage say what you need it to say in order to fit doctorine... You belief in Jr gods for example. I wonder if the LDS give that same answer on that passage? (They also believe in many gods)

Whoever I talk to that's willing to discuss.

the Bible says we should gather together, you do not do this with others in worship?

Who are you to say that I don't know what he meant? Yet another person who confuses "Different opinion" with "Don't understand".

Ok, then answer this: Is Jesus the "Son of Man" and also Man?

Do you not understand the concept? Theotes is a qualitative noun. Not a nominative.

I believe what you are trying to say is that Jesus isnt God by class, but is God in quality... What JW's say, "godlike" but not God. Their whole breakdown is that they believe "The God" (YHWH) is only of their deffinition of singularity. Where the bible shows "THE God" as Plurality (Like one cluster of Grapes) or like man who is in his image(Body, Soul, And Spirit - 3 in 1)

Why do you ignore the verses I post? Psalm 136:2 is clear that He is the "god of the gods".

It is our belief that many gods do exist in the minds of the weak. (They dont really exist). God is even the God of those fake gods you have created in your mind. (Thats how I see it, understand?)

But there are still other gods.

I dont believe any gods as real but Jehovah God.

Exodus 34:14, when read in context and not cherry picked, is talking about the gods of the Canaanites who are to be crushed and their altars smashed and their people put into bondage and their women forbidden from marrying into the tribe.

They only exist in the mind of the weak who believe they do exist. (Rev 9:20)

Psalm 22:10 says no such thing, how do you possibly derive that? Do you have a link or commentary that says this or is this your own idea?

Ps 22:10 says as plainly as one can read that "You have been my God from my mother's womb." Use the Holy Spirit to help you understand. Pray!

How do you possibly derive from what I said that I don't understand Trintarian belief?

otherwise you would know we believe Jesus is a ressurected man, and that calling his Father "His God" today is not a problem for us.

None of those verses remotely prove your case, Col 1:16-18 only backs what I said that the Logos was the primary force which all things were made THROUGH, again see Proverbs 8 and Wisdom of Solomon 7-9. Basic Philo's Logos Theology.

look at Hebrews 1:5 for example. Angels where already present when the Father said to Jesus, you are my son. The word, "Today" indicates the earth and days where already present as well. Jesus became Gods firstborn son 2000 years ago, not before creation. (Pray! Ask the Holy Spirit for guidence)

He's the highest of the Angels and the firstborn heir of Heaven of Earth, created before and higher than the angels, that's why.

Not Created, not even mentioned as created. Jehovah says there are no Jr gods by his side, where exactly do you believe Jesus is and who he is? It doesnt match up.

Of pagan cultures who aren't in the Divine chain of command. Notice that John worships the Angel, and the Angel only stops him because...they are the same rank, prophets. Why would John even bother? Did no one teach him basic rule #1?

this is proof that John worshipped Jesus BTW

In Love,
Tom

 

[Shermana]

I went back and looked, but I didnt see your direct answer on who is the "Mighty God" at Is 10:21. i say this because Isaiah wrote Is 9:6 and used the same words for Jehovah at Is 10:21. Heres my whole point: The Jews were so afraid to use the word YHWH or GOD (G_D) that they didnt want to use it in vein. Yet when we see Titles of Jehovah being applied to Jesus one shouldnt over look them as no big deal...

The El Gibbor in Isaiah 9:6 is part of a long compound name. Do you know how Hebrew Names work?
Examining the Trinity: Isa. 9:6 "Mighty God, Eternal Father"

Personal names in the ancient Hebrew and Greek are often somewhat cryptic to us today. The English Bible translator must fill in the missing minor words (especially in names composed of two or more Hebrew words) such as "my," "is," "of," etc. in whatever way he thinks best in order to make sense for us today in English.

I've gone over this on other threads. It's much different than its use as a standalone. Justin Martyr translated it as thus:

The very early (ca. 160 A.D.) Christian Justin Martyr quoted Is. 9:6 also as "The Angel of mighty counsel" - "Dialogue With Trypho," ch. LXXVI.

So, just as "Lord" was applied to anyone in authority: angels, masters over servants, husbands, etc., so, too, could "god" be applied to anyone (good or bad) who was considered a "mighty person." Of course only one person could be called the "Most High God," or the "Only True God," or the "Almighty God"! [See the sidebar: "God and gods"]

Angel of Mighty Council. (god = angels).

But other Trinitarians are also careful to avoid this abused verse. It relates very much to the abuse of Jeremiah 23:6.

Also, An American Translation (by trinitarians Smith and Goodspeed) says:



"Wonderful counselor is God almighty, Father forever, Prince of peace."

For instance, two of the best Bible concordances (Young's and Strong's) and a popular trinitarian Bible dictionary (Today's Dictionary of the Bible) differ greatly on the exact meaning of many Biblical personal names because of those "minor" words which must be added to bring out the intended meaning.

Strong's Exhaustive Concordance, for example, says the name "Elimelech" (which is literally just "God King") means "God of (the) King." Young's Analytical Concordance says it means "God is King." Today's Dictionary of the Biblesays it means " God his king" - p. 206, Bethany House Publ., 1982.

Those missing minor words that the translator must supply at his own discretion can often make a vital difference! - For example, the footnote for Gen. 17:5 in The NIV Study Bible: The name `Abram' "means `Exalted Father,' probably in reference to God (i.e., `[God is] Exalted Father')."- Brackets in original.

This is why another name the Messiah is to be called by at Jer. 23:6 is rendered, `The LORD [YHWH] is Our Righteousness' in the following Bibles: RSV; NRSV; NEB; NJB; JPS (Margolis, ed.); Tanakh; Byington; AT; and ASV (footnote). Of course other translations render it more literally by calling the Messiah "The LORD [YHWH] Our Righteousness" to help support a `Jesus is God' doctrine. Some of these (such as the NASB) actually render the very same name at Jer. 33:16 as "The LORD [or Jehovah] is Our Righteousness"! - [bracketed information is mine].

(Unfortunately for "Jesus is Jehovah" advocates, the very same name given to the Messiah at Jer. 23:16 is given to a city at Jer. 33:16.)

I just took a class on John 1:1 and i am sorry but one man translations are not to be used for doctorine.

So you mean if they disagree with what your class says, it's wrong? And what do you mean one man? Did your class deliberately not teach that there NUMEROUS scholarly non-church-aligned versions that use "a god"?

Phil 2:6 agrees with John 1:1 showing the Word as God

No, Phil 2:6 does not say "Being in nature God"". Likewise, there is no concept of being "Form of God", it is clearly "Form of a god", Form of God makes no sense, does God have a form?

Examining the Trinity: PHIL 2:6

At every Palm Sunday Mass, Phil. 2:5-11 is read. The 1959 lectionary for France's Catholic Church read: "Being of divine status, Christ did not greedily hold on to [harpagmos] the rank that made him equal to God."

We also have morphe and isa as parallels in the "exalted pre-existent" (Phil. 2:6) first part of this passage. And we have morphe, homoiomati, and schemati as parallels in the humble "fleshly existent" follow-up (Phil. 2:7-8). Furthermore, the latter humbled "fleshly" part of this passage ("himself emptied taking morphe of a slave, becoming in homoiomati of men and having been found in the schemati of a man") is the antithetic parallel of the first "exalted" part ("morphe of God").



In other words, there is a common meaning in all these parallel terms. They are used nearly synonymously. For example, even hyper-trinitarian W. E. Vine admits:



"`It is universally admitted that the two phrases ["morphe of God" and "morphe of a slave"] are directly antithetical, and that `form' [morphe] must therefore have the same sense in both.'" - extreme trinitarian Vine is quoting from extreme trinitarian Gifford's "The Incarnation." - An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, p. 454.

.

The word was in the form of God and became the form of man. Besides, there is a Greek grammer rule called Colewells Rule that applies at John 1:1 making the translation "God was the Word" or the "Word was God". Goodspeed and moffat used divine and Divine to them meant God for God is Divine and all the fullness of Divineness is within Jesus.

I've gone over and debunked "Colwell's rule" on multiple threads, it's simply fabricated and didn't exist until the 1930s when many translations were starting to challenge the "Word was God" translation, and its arbitrary and is disproven by many verses. The word "Divine" does not necessarily equate to "Being God". Many translations call Angels "Divine beings".

Examining the Trinity: Colwell's JBL Article - a Definite Rule for John 1:1c

The grand majority? Wrong, maybe a hand full at best. Have you ever looked at this before? BTW, many that translate Divine will go on and say God is Divine and in Jesus is found full deity.(Fully Divine like God) Col 2:9

Did you just say the grand majority of Christians are NOT Trinitarians and only a small handful are? FOR REAL????? "Full deity" does not mean "Being God himself" since Angels clearly have deity. What do you mean have I looked at this before? What Grand Majority did you think I was referring to. Again, "Divine" does not equate to "Being GOd himself", but "being a god" or "being an Angel".

We totally disagree here. I dont know anyone that agrees with you either, but this is a question i havent asked my JW buddies... To say that passage is saying that God did create lesser gods goes against english grammer too. Also, every bible study book i have ever picked up is clear on this passage saying there are no other God or Jr Gods. There are false gods such as the devil or the idols of the nations. But there are no true Gods apart from the Lord.

Ah, so it's about English grammar now? How does it even go against it? Even Paul says there are real gods. He says Satan is the god of this world. Never says he's a false god.

Seriously, not one Study Bible says that the passage at hand can mean that God created other gods. If you know of one, please direct me so i can understand your belief system.

I'm well aware that most Trinitarian Study Bibles (are they any other kind?) will disagree with what I'm saying.

Well then you have a problem, because Jesus is the highest brightness of his glory expressing his glory fully and completely.

Why would I have a problem here?

 

[Shermana]

You said, "You need to see that I am giving Jesus plenty of Majesty, as a Prince instead of a King". Whats that mean? An Almost King? A Prince that will never be King? I dont follow. Talk about Trinitarians being confusing...

He's the King of kings, but GOd is the "king of king of kings" (Sirach). He'll never be the King of Heaven, but he'll be King on Earth.

Look, you said Thomas said OMG and never has any Jewish writing EVER in that time period or a while after used the terms OMG as you say. The Burden is all on you to prove it. However, My Lord and My God as I believe is.

I showed you quite clearly that they had this understanding even in the dark ages.

You make wild Ideas up like OMG and then say I need to prove it, thats exactly what i mean. Again, the burden is on you to prove it. (there is zero of evidence on this one)

Apparently this "wild idea" existed since before even the orthodox church was formalized. I proved it just fine.

i read this site and it is a bunch of thoughts but no real proof

Ah, so you can just write off my clear proof as "No real proof". How convenient.

.

For example, it says that if Jesus was God then we would see worshipping of Jesus, which we do, but the twisted version on this is that obesence was given, not worship.

Do you not understand what worship means? It simply means to bow down to and pay obesence. What do you think worship means? David was worshiped. Angels were worshiped. The commandment is to worship God AND SERVE HIM ONLY. We don't serve the Angels if they're not directly sent from God. We serve Jesus only because he's sent by God.

However, John who lived with jesus and knew jesus created all things (Angels directly), would have never tried to worship an angel in revelation if he never worshipped Jesus who created the angels and John knew this

Excuse me? Are you not aware that he did in fact worship the Angel before he was stopped merely because they're both prophets (i.e. the same rank?)

.

What I saying is that JW's and alike will say Jesus was never worshipped by the disiples(John). Yet in revelation we see John worshipping an angel that John knew Jesus Created? Hence, John did worship Jesus and extended worship to this angel and was corrected.

JWs say that Jesus wasn't worshiped? Prove it. John was corrected, but why did Jesus worship in the first place? And what did the Angel say when he corrected him? "We are both prophets". That means they were of equal rank, thus no need to submit in worship.

Another thing is that you(website) say the "MY GOD" part wasnt directed at Jesus. Well it looks to me that even if Jesus was called God, Mighty God, Alpha and Omega, First and last, MY GOD, quotes of Jehovah applied to him, Our Rock, and many more, that you would find an alternate solution to your belief that says, Jesus is NOT GOD. Something I am here warning you not to say to the one who Expresses the Fathers very being by his mere existence and is the Image of God.

Jesus was not called Alpha and Omega, he was called First and Last, which I already demonstrated doesn't mean what you think. This is called the "Speaker Confusion issue".

Examining the Trinity: AO - Speaker Confusion

Warn me all you want, why don't you try actually praying and asking which of us is wrong instead. I bet you won't. Am I right when I say I bet you won't?

Ive never sent you to a Trinitarian site?

It was a warning to not dismiss the link just because its by a JW, but to actually read what it says. But by your previous reply, you just dismissed it as "It has no real proof", as if you can just dismiss the claims like that.

BTW, that site didnt say anything about OMG and its use in any other area of any text anywhere written around that time period.

What part about "Statement of exclamation" didn't you think I meant by OMG? What time period do you want in question? We have barely ANY manuscripts from that time period. What we have however is something written less than 300 years later that directly identifies it as the equivalent of OMG. Did language fashions change that quickly?

 

[Shermana]

Yes, because it isnt. Your claim that OMG is bogus and cannot be backed up and you know this so you put it upon me to prove something that simply is never used anywhere in any writings. Also, for the Holy Spirit to inspire John to put this in writing is also showing Jesus as God and not slang for OMG. John puts it as simple as possible at John 5:18 that Jesus claimed equality to God.

What's bogus is your total dismissal of the fact that it was recognized as such even before the early church was organized as a "Statement of exclamation". What kind of proof do you want other than that when we have VIRTUALLY NO OTHER MANUSCRIPTS FROM THAT TIME PERIOD. John 5:18 was what the Jews accused him of, not what he actually did.

Examining the Trinity: John 5:18 "...making himself equal to God"

Dr. Walter Martin writes in his Kingdom of the Cults (36th printing - 1985):




"John 5:18 - He said that God was his Father, making himself equal with God.



"Concluding our chapter on this vital topic [the deity of Christ] is this verse that is self-explanatory. [1] The Greek term `equal' (ison) cannot be debated; nor [2] is it contextually or grammatically allowable that John is here recording what the Jews said about Jesus, as Jehovah's Witnesses lamely argue. The sentence structure clearly shows that John said it under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and not the Jews! Anyone so inclined can diagram the sentence and see this for himself. [3] No serious scholar or commentator has ever questioned it. [4] In the Jewish mind, for Jesus to claim to be God's Son was a claim to equality with God, a fact Jehovah's Witnesses might profitably consider!



"We see, then, that our Lord was equal with God the Father and the Holy Spirit in his divine nature, though inferior (as a man) by choice in His human nature as the last Adam (John 14:28; 1 Corinthians 15:45-47). [5] This text alone is of enormous value and argues powerfully for our Lord's Deity." - pp. 96-97.



(Martin also said earlier, "the term `equal' here [Phil. 2:6] is another form of ison ... [6] which again denotes absolute sameness of nature, thus confirming Christ's Deity." - p. 68.) [Bracketed numbers above have been added by me. # 1 and #6 are the same point]

What? Show me anywhere in the bible that being Born(Birth) happening anywhere but on earth. Luke 2:7 makes it clear when Jesus is Firstborn. You need to think this out... Also Hebrews 1:5 shows that at the time the Father said, "You are my son", that angels were already present and that "days" where already in existant. (Today, you are my Son) Again, think... (I am not pointing these things out for my mere pleasure)

Agreed

Glad to see we agree.

bizzare thinking... It seems to me that you can make any passage say what you need it to say in order to fit doctorine... You belief in Jr gods for example. I wonder if the LDS give that same answer on that passage? (They also believe in many gods)

You can't just write off a valid interpretation as "bizarre thinking", it seems Trintiarians do exactly what you accuse me of all the time. I wonder if a Trinitarian apologetics site gave you your answers. I do believe in many lesser gods. So did Josephus. So did Paul. So did the Psalmist.

the Bible says we should gather together, you do not do this with others in worship?

Where? Verse please. It also says to not even bid Godspeed to heathens.

Ok, then answer this: Is Jesus the "Son of Man" and also Man?

Of course. That doesn't mean "Son of god" is also "God", or you're saying the "Sons of god" who are the angels are God.

I believe what you are trying to say is that Jesus isnt God by class, but is God in quality... What JW's say, "godlike" but not God. Their whole breakdown is that they believe "The God" (YHWH) is only of their deffinition of singularity. Where the bible shows "THE God" as Plurality (Like one cluster of Grapes) or like man who is in his image(Body, Soul, And Spirit - 3 in 1)

The Bible does not show "The God" as plurality whatsoever. Only in the "Bizarre thinking" of Trinitarians. I love how they warp Genesis 1:26 to make the "Let us" be God talking to himself for example. And also, I asked you for your definition of "god", did I not? Well clearly, the word "god" refers to Angels.

Theos: "God"/"a god"


Another thing we should know about Phil. 2:6, 7 concerns the phrase "of God" (qeou or theou). A perfectly honest alternate translation of this verse can be: "though he was existing in the form of a god [i.e., `a mighty individual' in a similar sense that the Bible calls angels and Israelite judges `gods' - see the DEF and BOWGOD studies]." The NWT does not translate it that way, but grammatically and doctrinally it is a perfectly honest rendering and probably accounts for the 1959 French translation of Phil. 2:6, "being of divine status" and the NEB's "divine nature" and the renderings in Moffatt and the JB. (See the first part of the DEF study which discusses "god/divine.")

It is our belief that many gods do exist in the minds of the weak. (They dont really exist). God is even the God of those fake gods you have created in your mind. (Thats how I see it, understand?)

Well it's my belief that many gods don't exist in the mind of the weak. I don't care what your belief is about me having a "weak mind" on this. Accusing me of having "fake gods I created in my mind" doesn't exactly disprove what I showed the Bible clearly says. It seems you dodge completely from my reference of Psalm 136:2 and you dodge from answering what you think the definition of "god" is. Do you not understand that Angels are called Elohim? How many times do I have to explain on this thread.

I dont believe any gods as real but Jehovah God.

Good for you. But Yah most certainly believes in the existence of lesser "gods" (Elohim) that he is the "god of the gods" of.

They only exist in the mind of the weak who believe they do exist. (Rev 9:20)

"Mind of the weak" is pretty much an insult, don't you think?

Rev 9:20 does not say that at all. There's a difference between idols and actual "Elohim" who are the beings they mold their idols after.

The rest of mankind that were not killed by these plagues still did not repent of the work of their hands; they did not stop worshiping demons, and idols of gold, silver, bronze, stone and wood--idols that cannot see or hear or walk.

Ps 22:10 says as plainly as one can read that "You have been my God from my mother's womb." Use the Holy Spirit to help you understand. Pray!

Will you pray and ask which of us is right or wrong? I asked last time, I got no answer. Are you just expecting me to pray to ask if your "bizarre" translation here is correct? I explained as well that there's a difference between "a god" and "one's god". "The god of" is not the same as "The god". Satan is called "The god of this world". Mammon is the "god of money". That doesn't make them THE god. It's a very common problem that people don't understand the difference of "having a god" and "believing in the existence of a being called a god".

..and that calling his Father "His God" today is not a problem for us.

The classical Trinity doctrine itself really doesn't say that God the Father is the god of the son, so yes it is a problem.

look at Hebrews 1:5 for example. Angels where already present when the Father said to Jesus, you are my son. The word, "Today" indicates the earth and days where already present as well. Jesus became Gods firstborn son 2000 years ago, not before creation. (Pray! Ask the Holy Spirit for guidence)

Quit demanding me to pray, will you pray what I asked you to? With that said, saying "Today you are my son" does not negate the idea of being the Firstborn of Creation, which is meant to be very literal.

Not Created, not even mentioned as created. Jehovah says there are no Jr gods by his side, where exactly do you believe Jesus is and who he is? It doesnt match up.

Oh, no gods at His side? Try Psalm 82:1. And as you can see, the "gods" here are not Human rulers as the NLT is forced to admit by calling them "Heavenly beings" (Called Divine beings in others).

New International Version (©1984)
A psalm of Asaph. God presides in the great assembly; he gives judgment among the "gods":New Living Translation (©2007)
A psalm of Asaph. God presides over heaven's court; he pronounces judgment on the heavenly beings:

So there's other gods in the Great assembly. And Jesus was most clearly created, what's the difference between "Brought forth" and "Created"?

this is proof that John worshipped Jesus BTW

I'm aware John worshiped Jesus. And King David was worshiped. And Joshua worshiped an Angel. They were still SERVING GOD ONLY by doing so. Had they worshiped Satan instead, they would not be.