Before Abraham Was,I AM

[GraceAndPeaceInChrist]

Enough proof for me.Everyone who denies Jesus is God,where is your special Bible that doesn't have this script?Was Jesus only foolin when he said this?Why did the Jews pick up the stones to stone him?And why are my posts deleted,is it because maybe the Word shatters any cultic interpretation of the Bible you got?

You say one script in the Word,but you ignore another.

God said my Word is Eternal,God would never make it hard for us to get his Word,there is no confusion regarding the Word of God.The author of confusion is Satan.This is what happens when we run away from King James.We get into denying the Deity of our Lord

Again

And again, when God brings his firstborn into the world, he says,
   "Let all God's angels worship him." Hebrews 1:6

8I, John, am the one who heard and saw these things. And when I had heard and seen them, I fell down to worship at the feet of the angel who had been showing them to me. 9But he said to me, "Do not do it! I am a fellow servant with you and with your brothers the prophets and of all who keep the words of this book. Worship God!" Revelation 22:8-9

So,if all the angels worship Him,and he is not God,then the Word of God I guess is in the wrong according to you.
---------
Please give me your interpretations of this Aieno.

[Aineo]

Have you read these threads:

http://www.jesus-christ-forums.com/home/viewtopic.php?t=7712
http://www.jesus-christ-forums.com/home/viewtopic.php?t=7720

I have already covered all of your proof texts on these threads.

Now answer some questions for me since Jesus also said in John 17:1-3 that the Father is the only true God and Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 8 that for "us" there is but one God, the Father is it your contention the Bible contradicts itself?

[absolutetruth]

I've been intrigued by 1 Cor 8:6

yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.

you're contending that since the verse says that the Father is the "one God", that therefore Jesus is not. but what about the second part of that verse? the second part says that Jesus is the "one Lord". that then means, according to you, that the Father is not Lord. But we know that the Father is Lord. Jesus Himself says:

Luke 4:8 "Worship the Lord your God and serve him only."

Luke 19:38 Blessed is the king who comes in the name of the Lord!

It seems more like this verse demonstrates your obviously false position.

[Aineo]

The word "lord" is used for men as well as God so to appeal to words such as "lord" to interpret Scripture to show that Jesus is God is ludicrous especially since Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians that there are "many lords", but for us, there is but one God, the Father and one Lord Jesus Christ.

In Psalm 110 David wrote:

Psalms 110:1
The LORD says to my Lord:
"Sit at My right hand,
Until I make Thine enemies a footstool for Thy feet." NAS

The Hebrew word translated LORD is YWHW and a better translation would be Yehovah. So what David wrote was, "Yehovah says to my Lord: "Sit at my right hand,.." Who was David referring to when he wrote "to my Lord"?

[:)]

The word "lord" is used for men as well as God so to appeal to words such as "lord" to interpret Scripture to show that Jesus is God is ludicrous especially since Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians that there are "many lords", but for us, there is but one God, the Father and one Lord Jesus Christ.

In Psalm 110 David wrote:

Psalms 110:1
The LORD says to my Lord:
"Sit at My right hand,
Until I make Thine enemies a footstool for Thy feet." NAS

The Hebrew word translated LORD is YWHW and a better translation would be Yehovah. So what David wrote was, "Yehovah says to my Lord: "Sit at my right hand,.." Who was David referring to when he wrote "to my Lord"?

Yes there are "many lords", pagan lords that is. And there is also "many gods", pagan gods that is. But there is only one supreme and sovereign Lord and that is Christ.

For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,) 6 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him. (1 Cor. 8:5,6)

Now since there is one Lord, does this exclude the Father as being Lord? Any messianic Jew could tell you that when Paul said "One Lord and One God", both were descriptions of Deity.

[:)]

The word "lord" is used for men as well as God so to appeal to words such as "lord" to interpret Scripture to show that Jesus is God is ludicrous especially since Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians that there are "many lords", but for us, there is but one God, the Father and one Lord Jesus Christ.

In Psalm 110 David wrote:

Psalms 110:1
The LORD says to my Lord:
"Sit at My right hand,
Until I make Thine enemies a footstool for Thy feet." NAS

The Hebrew word translated LORD is YWHW and a better translation would be Yehovah. So what David wrote was, "Yehovah says to my Lord: "Sit at my right hand,.." Who was David referring to when he wrote "to my Lord"?

Watershed at Nicea
Brown is right about one thing (and not much more). In the course of Christian history, few events loom larger than the Council of Nicea in 325. When the newly converted Roman Emperor Constantine called bishops from around the world to present-day Turkey, the church had reached a theological crossroads.

Led by an Alexandrian theologian named Arius, one school of thought argued that Jesus had undoubtedly been a remarkable leader, but he was not God in flesh. Arius proved an expert logician and master of extracting biblical proof texts that seemingly illustrated differences between Jesus and God, such as John 14:28: "the Father is greater than I." In essence, Arius argued that Jesus of Nazareth could not possibly share God the Father's unique divinity.

In The Da Vinci Code, Brown apparently adopts Arius as his representative for all pre-Nicene Christianity. Referring to the Council of Nicea, Brown claims that "until that moment in history, Jesus was viewed by His followers as a mortal prophet … a great and powerful man, but a man nonetheless."

In reality, early Christians overwhelmingly worshipped Jesus Christ as their risen Savior and Lord. Before the church adopted comprehensive doctrinal creeds, early Christian leaders developed a set of instructional summaries of belief, termed the "Rule" or "Canon" of Faith, which affirmed this truth. To take one example, the canon of prominent second-century bishop Irenaeus took its cue from 1 Corinthians 8:6: "Yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ."

The term used here—Lord, Kyrios—deserves a bit more attention. Kyrios was used by the Greeks to denote divinity (though sometimes also, it is true, as a simple honorific). In the Greek translation of the Old Testament (the Septuagint, pre-dating Christ), this term became the preferred substitution for "Jahweh," the holy name of God. The Romans also used it to denote the divinity of their emperor, and the first-century Jewish writer Josephus tells us that the Jews refused to use it of the emperor for precisely this reason: only God himself was kyrios.

The Christians took over this usage of kyrios and applied it to Jesus, from the earliest days of the church. They did so not only in Scripture itself (which Brown argues was doctored after Nicea), but in the earliest extra-canonical Christian book, the Didache, which scholars agree was written no later than the late 100s. In this book, the earliest Aramaic-speaking Christians refer to Jesus as Lord.

In addition, pre-Nicene Christians acknowledged Jesus's divinity by petitioning God the Father in Christ's name. Church leaders, including Justin Martyr, a second-century luminary and the first great church apologist, baptized in the name of the triune God—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—thereby acknowledging the equality of the one Lord's three distinct persons.

The Council of Nicea did not entirely end the controversy over Arius's teachings, nor did the gathering impose a foreign doctrine of Christ's divinity on the church. The participating bishops merely affirmed the historic and standard Christian beliefs, erecting a united front against future efforts to dilute Christ's gift of salvation.

"Fax from Heaven"?
With the Bible playing a central role in Christianity, the question of Scripture's historic validity bears tremendous implications. Brown claims that Constantine commissioned and bankrolled a staff to manipulate existing texts and thereby divinize the human Christ.

Yet for a number of reasons, Brown's speculations fall flat. Brown correctly points out that "the Bible did not arrive by fax from heaven." Indeed, the Bible's composition and consolidation may appear a bit too human for the comfort of some Christians. But Brown overlooks the fact that the human process of canonization had progressed for centuries before Nicea, resulting in a nearly complete canon of Scripture before Nicea or even Constantine's legalization of Christianity in 313.

Ironically, the process of collecting and consolidating Scripture was launched when a rival sect produced its own quasi-biblical canon. Around 140 a Gnostic leader named Marcion began spreading a theory that the New and Old Testaments didn't share the same God. Marcion argued that the Old Testament's God represented law and wrath while the New Testament's God, represented by Christ, exemplified love. As a result Marcion rejected the Old Testament and the most overtly Jewish New Testament writings, including Matthew, Mark, Acts, and Hebrews. He manipulated other books to downplay their Jewish tendencies. Though in 144 the church in Rome declared his views heretical, Marcion's teaching sparked a new cult. Challenged by Marcion's threat, church leaders began to consider earnestly their own views on a definitive list of Scriptural books including both the Old and New Testaments.

Another rival theology nudged the church toward consolidating the New Testament. During the mid- to late-second century, a man from Asia Minor named Montanus boasted of receiving a revelation from God about an impending apocalypse. The four Gospels and Paul's epistles achieved wide circulation and largely unquestioned authority within the early church but hadn't yet been collected in a single authoritative book. Montanus saw in this fact an opportunity to spread his message, by claiming authoritative status for his new revelation. Church leaders met the challenge around 190 and circulated a definitive list of apostolic writings that is today called the Muratorian Canon, after its modern discoverer. The Muratorian Canon bears striking resemblance to today's New Testament but includes two books, Revelation of Peter and Wisdom of Solomon, which were later excluded from the canon.

By the time of Nicea, church leaders debated the legitimacy of only a few books that we accept today, chief among them Hebrews and Revelation, because their authorship remained in doubt. In fact, authorship was the most important consideration for those who worked to solidify the canon. Early church leaders considered letters and eyewitness accounts authoritative and binding only if they were written by an apostle or close disciple of an apostle. This way they could be assured of the documents' reliability. As pastors and preachers, they also observed which books did in fact build up the church—a good sign, they felt, that such books were inspired Scripture. The results speak for themselves: the books of today's Bible have allowed Christianity to spread, flourish, and endure worldwide.

Though unoriginal in its allegations, The Da Vinci Code proves that some misguided theories never entirely fade away. They just reappear periodically in a different disguise. Brown's claims resemble those of Arius and his numerous heirs throughout history, who have contradicted the united testimony of the apostles and the early church they built. Those witnesses have always attested that Jesus Christ was and remains God himself. It didn't take an ancient council to make this true. And the pseudohistorical claims of a modern novel can't make it false.


http://www.christianitytoday.com/histor ... /nov7.html

[absolutetruth]

Exactly. Thanks for the info.

That position is unstustainable regarding this verse.

[absolutetruth]

Aineo wrote:

The word "lord" is used for men as well as God so to appeal to words such as "lord" to interpret Scripture to show that Jesus is God is ludicrous

so many mistakes in this one sentence. 1) there's a clear difference between using a generic or ambiguous application of the word "lord" and using the title or phrase "One Lord" or "Only Lord". 2) i haven't used this verse to show that Jesus is God (i don't even prefer to use that language), just to show that your use of it causes problems for you. 3) while it's true that the word "lord" is used for men, the phrase "One Lord" or "Only Lord" is not.

especially since Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians that there are "many lords", but for us, there is but one God, the Father and one Lord Jesus Christ.

EXACTLY! "for us". since he's qualified this passage by excuding all other "lords" and "gods", he then makes an absolute statement, that there is One God, and One Lord. both claims of Deity. now, if Jesus is the One Lord, then that means (by your understanding) that the Father isn't. but we know that the Father IS Lord.

your difficulty with this verse is obvious.

The Hebrew word translated LORD is YWHW and a better translation would be Yehovah. So what David wrote was, "Yehovah says to my Lord: "Sit at my right hand,.." Who was David referring to when he wrote "to my Lord"?

the Messiah after His ascencion to sit at the right hand of the Father (Acts 2:33-35).

[Aineo]

Yes there are "many lords", pagan lords that is. And there is also "many gods", pagan gods that is. But there is only one supreme and sovereign Lord and that is Christ.

You are displaying your own ignorance. “Lord” is used in Scripture for men of high rank or simply as we would use “sir”. Sarah referred to Abraham as her “lord”, a slave owner (including Christians who owned slaves) were referred to as “lord”.

Jesus is sovereign as any king is sovereign over his kingdom and Jesus is the King of kings and Lord of lords over all human beings and God’s creation because God anointed Him King, and also appointed Him His heir.

As to the article you posted from Christianity Today, I find it a superficial response to Brown’s “The Da Vinci Code”, which has nothing to do with this discussion. However, lets look at a couple of points found in the article.

The tetragrammaton YWHW is the third person singular of the Hebrew “hayah” and should be translated “he is”, not “I am”. Also to appeal to the Septuagint, which did not translate YWHW but adhered to the Hebrew custom of substituting “lord” for their covenant name for God is simply striving over words found in a translation of the Hebrew Scriptures.

Justin Martyr did not teach or even have the concept of the Trinity. This concept was first developed by Origin, and since neither Justin Martyr or Origin knew or were taught by one of the Lord’s apostles you are appealing to Greeks influenced by Plato and other Greek philosophers as well as their pagan origins. The same is true of St. Irenaeus. Have you read or researched what these three men believed and why they believed what they believed?

As to Arius, he taught that Jesus was divine by creation and therefore not equal with or of the same substance as the Father. His Christology was rejected and declared heretical by other Greeks who were influenced by Origin’s Christology, neither of which was based on Scripture.

So what did the apostles teach?

On the Day of Pentecost Peter preached:

Acts 2:14-36
14 But Peter, taking his stand with the eleven, raised his voice and declared to them: "Men of Judea, and all you who live in Jerusalem, let this be known to you, and give heed to my words. 15 "For these men are not drunk, as you suppose, for it is only the third hour of the day; 16 but this is what was spoken of through the prophet Joel:

17 'And it shall be in the last days,' God says,
'That I will pour forth of My Spirit upon all mankind;
And your sons and your daughters shall prophesy,
And your young men shall see visions,
And your old men shall dream dreams;
18 Even upon My bondslaves, both men and women,
I will in those days pour forth of My Spirit
And they shall prophesy.
19 'And I will grant wonders in the sky above,
And signs on the earth beneath,
Blood, and fire, and vapor of smoke.
20 'The sun shall be turned into darkness,
And the moon into blood,
Before the great and glorious day of the Lord shall come.
21 'And it shall be, that everyone who calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved.'

22 "Men of Israel, listen to these words: Jesus the Nazarene, a man attested to you by God with miracles and wonders and signs which God performed through Him in your midst, just as you yourselves know-- 23 this Man, delivered up by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God, you nailed to a cross by the hands of godless men and put Him to death. 24 "And God raised Him up again, putting an end to the agony of death, since it was impossible for Him to be held in its power. 25 "For David says of Him,

'I was always beholding the Lord in my presence;
For He is at my right hand, that I may not be shaken.
26 'Therefore my heart was glad and my tongue exulted;
Moreover my flesh also will abide in hope;
27 Because Thou wilt not abandon my soul to Hades,
Nor allow Thy Holy One to undergo decay.
28 'Thou hast made known to me the ways of life;
Thou wilt make me full of gladness with Thy presence.'

29 "Brethren, I may confidently say to you regarding the patriarch David that he both died and was buried, and his tomb is with us to this day. 30 "And so, because he was a prophet, and knew that God had sworn to him with an oath to seat one of his descendants upon his throne, 31 he looked ahead and spoke of the resurrection of the Christ, that He was neither abandoned to Hades, nor did His flesh suffer decay. 32 "This Jesus God raised up again, to which we are all witnesses. 33 "Therefore having been exalted to the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, He has poured forth this which you both see and hear. 34 "For it was not David who ascended into heaven, but he himself says:

'The Lord said to my Lord,
"Sit at My right hand,
35 Until I make Thine enemies a footstool for Thy feet. "'
36 "Therefore let all the house of Israel know for certain that God has made Him both Lord and Christ-- this Jesus whom you crucified." NAS

Do you see the Trinity in what Peter preached to Jews who understood the Messianic prophesies? I don’t! In fact in Acts 5 we read:

Acts 5:28-32
29 But Peter and the apostles answered and said, "We must obey God rather than men. 30 "The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom you had put to death by hanging Him on a cross. 31 "He is the one whom God exalted to His right hand as a Prince and a Savior, to grant repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins. 32 "And we are witnesses of these things; and so is the Holy Spirit, whom God has given to those who obey Him." NAS

And Paul wrote:

Romans 5:15
15 But the free gift is not like the transgression. For if by the transgression of the one the many died, much more did the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abound to the many.
NAS

1 Timothy 2:5-7
5 For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, 6 who gave Himself as a ransom for all, the testimony borne at the proper time. 7 And for this I was appointed a preacher and an apostle (I am telling the truth, I am not lying) as a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth. NAS

Jesus is our "one Lord" because no man can come to the Father except through the Lord Jesus Christ by God's sovereign decree. This is known as a chain of command.

absolutetruth, you abandoned the following threads so why try to come back on this one when this has all been discussed on these:

http://www.jesus-christ-forums.com/home/viewtopic.php?t=7710
http://www.jesus-christ-forums.com/home/viewtopic.php?t=7712
http://www.jesus-christ-forums.com/home/viewtopic.php?t=7720

You could not refute what I posted on the above so what makes you think I will accept what you have to say on this thread?

When any of you are willing to discuss Scripture (in context) instead of striving over words then just maybe we can advance this discussion beyond man’s interpretations of God’s word.

[:)]

Actually your the one who is displaying ignorance. If Abraham was referred to as "lord", than how many Lords are there according to 1 Corinthians 8:6? Your suggesting that the designation "Lord" to Christ refers to the same rank as the ones given to Abraham and kings, if this were the case than this would posit a contradiction to 1 Corinthians 8:6, Put your thinking cap on! Are you telling me that there is only one "Lord" (king; salve owner?) Simple context easily refutes your position of defining Lord in 1 Corinthians 8:6. If Jesus is simply a king then your calling Paul a liar since Pauls says that there is ONE LORD. And if your calling Jesus the supreme Lord or "King of Kings and Lord of Lords", what about the Father? The Father is also called "Lord" (kurios), the same Greek word used in 1 Corinthians 8:6, and the context proves that He is equal in the sense of Lordship. Your almost too easy!!!

[:)]

According to 1 Corinthians 8:6 there is ONE LORD, now lets determine the True meaning of Lord in that verse OK?

Lord:kurios {koo'-ree-os}

1) he to whom a person or thing belongs, about which he has power of deciding; master, lord (MORE THAN ONE)

a) the possessor and disposer of a thing (MORE THAN ONE)

1) the owner; one who has control of the person, the master (MORE THAN ONE)

2) in the state: the sovereign, prince, chief, the Roman emperor (MORE THAN ONE)

b) is a title of honour expressive of respect and reverence, with which servants greet their master (MORE THAN ONE)

c) this title is given to: God, the Messiah (BINGO!!!)

The Messiah and the Father are both God and Lord (ONE), both are equal descriptions of Deity. In the Jewish context, Paul is implying that both are Deity and used two designations to show "DISTINCTION" in the Godhead.

Oh and By the way, I read and followed your posts on the links and see why the members who debated with you left the discussion. You have a NASTY attitude, even though some of those you debated with were incorrect in some areas of the doctrine, i.e., (Believer). You still have a Nasty ATTITUDE.

[absolutetruth]

Aineo wrote:

absolutetruth, you abandoned the following threads so why try to come back on this one when this has all been discussed on these:

http://www.jesus-christ-forums.com/home/viewtopic.php?t=7710
http://www.jesus-christ-forums.com/home/viewtopic.php?t=7712
http://www.jesus-christ-forums.com/home/viewtopic.php?t=7720

actually, i was only a part of ONE of them: "Messianic Prophecies vs. The Trinity". stop makin' stuff up. and i didn't "abandon" the one. i still read what goes on there, and i can see that your position is being satisfactorily dealt with by my brothers and sisters in Christ. but it gets to a point when someone (you) is so blind that it's no point in even arguing anymore. like i said before, you're a perfect example of my George McDonald quote.

You could not refute what I posted on the above so what makes you think I will accept what you have to say on this thread?

not the case at all. you've clearly demonstrated that you continue to use the same arguments, and ignore the main issue: that the stance you've taken is an absolute negation. and in order for your position to be right EVERY passage has to agree with you (which is why you go to such great lengths to wrench meaning out of them that isn't even there), because for a creation to be honored just as the Father, and Glorified just as the Father, and called God just as the Father, is BLASPHEMY. however, God, taking on human form and being made in the likeness of man is NOT, and we see that clearly taught in the Bible. it's YOU who's wrong, not us.

When any of you are willing to discuss Scripture (in context) instead of striving over words then just maybe we can advance this discussion beyond man’s interpretations of God’s word.

you keep on saying "context" like we don't understand what that means. and yet the "context" you keep appealing to is that Jesus was a man (WHICH WE DON'T DISAGREE WITH).

we agree that Jesus was FULLY human. there. so ANY passage you bring forth now about Jesus' humanity is NUGATORY. there's no debate there. NOW, let's deal with the REST of what the Bible says. i don't wanna see anymore verses from you regarding Jesus' humanity trying to disprove His Divinity.

[Aineo]

I am not making stuff up. By not contributing to the other threads you abandoned the discussion just like Reaper did when I refuted his Granville laws.

I keep bringing up the same Scriptures because you and others refuse to address those Scriptures. Also I do know what the word "context" means. What you have refused to do is put Scripture in context by accepting a doctrine that is fully defeated by God's word. One God does not equate to a triune God. One does not mean three in one. You also lamely avoid the fact I have refuted assumption like since God is Lord and Jesus is Lord therefore Jesus is God. This absolutetruth is a logical fallacy. Abraham was addressed as "lord" so does this make Abraham God? In Acts 25 King Agrippa is addressed as "lord", in Revelation 7 John calls an angel "lord", but you do not assume King Agrippa or angels are God do you?

Now, since we find throughout Scripture that the Father is the only and true God how can you assume Jesus who is not the Father is God except by taking Scripture out of context and striving over words?

[absolutetruth]

man. it never ends with you. you still failed to address what i said about your position. (i assume because you realize that i'm right).

Aineo wrote:

I am not making stuff up. By not contributing to the other threads you abandoned the discussion just like Reaper did when I refuted his Granville laws.

you ARE making stuff up. i was only part of ONE of the debates that you mentioned, and yet you said i had abandoned all three. that's MAKING STUFF UP. and who said i abandoned it? i felt like the subject had satisfactorily been discussed, and that we were getting nowhere because you keep bringing up the SAME arguments and refuse to listen to or accept the answers that we give. and yet, somehow, it seems like we're supposed to accept the answers that you give. just like Muslims i debate, you refuse to accept the answers that we give, but expect us to accept yours.

I keep bringing up the same Scriptures because you and others refuse to address those Scriptures.

like what? the ones that say Jesus is a man? we agree with that. WHAT ELSE DO YOU HAVE??? we have the SAME answer for those verses. JESUS WAS FULLY HUMAN.

Also I do know what the word "context" means.

there's ANOTHER problem right there. it's hard to debate with someone who's constantly misunderstanding the answers and statements presented. i wasn't saying that YOU didn't understand what the word "context" meant, i was saying that it seems like YOU think that WE don't understand what it means. you're so pugnacious that it clouds your thinking even on simple irrelevant subjects.

What you have refused to do is put Scripture in context by accepting a doctrine that is fully defeated by God's word.

really? because, as we have gone over, there are verses that say the Father is Divine (God), that the Son is Divine (God), and that the Holy Spirit is Divine (God). if this is not the case, then blasphemy abounds in the NT.

One God does not equate to a triune God.

and a Unitarian views opens itself to blasphemy of the highest degree when calling anyone but the Father "Only Lord" and "God". ABSOLUTE NEGATION. you simply refuse to respond to that fact that i keep mentioning.

One does not mean three in one.

then the NT blasphemes against God by it's language.

You also lamely avoid the fact I have refuted assumption like since God is Lord and Jesus is Lord therefore Jesus is God. This absolutetruth is a logical fallacy. Abraham was addressed as "lord" so does this make Abraham God? In Acts 25 King Agrippa is addressed as "lord", in Revelation 7 John calls an angel "lord", but you do not assume King Agrippa or angels are God do you?

it's so hard to believe that you're actually saying these things. this is why it's so hard to debate with you without losing one's mind. i'm gonna say this one last time (hopefully):

we are not saying that because Jesus is called Lord, and the Father is called Lord that ipso facto Jesus is God (at least i'm not arguing for that right here). we're saying (specifically regarding 1 Cor 8:6) that Jesus is called the ONE or ONLY Lord, and that therefore the Father is NOT Lord (according to YOUR interpretation which takes the first part of the verse to mean ONLY ONE GOD the FATHER); which is FALSE. the Father IS Lord (Luke 4:8 ). THAT'S what we're saying. that cute little analogy of King Agrippa and Abraham that you KEEP bringing up is not even the issue here (and even on that note, they could never be called "Lord" the same way that Jesus was because Jesus was SINLESS, while these men were not and were excluded from being Divine or God or even perfect). so NONE of your arguments work.

Now, since we find throughout Scripture that the Father is the only and true God how can you assume Jesus who is not the Father is God except by taking Scripture out of context and striving over words?

what you continue to call "out of context" is actually a deduction based on GOOD biblical hermeneutics from the Word. no other interpretation makes sense except that Jesus is ONE in Nature with the Father and Holy Spirit. You give praise and worship to what you believe is a created being, and in so doing violate God's law and become an idolater (Exodus 20). simple as that.

[Aineo]

absolutetruth, I did not bother to read your whole post as it was nothing more than a rehash of your refusal to address the whole word of God.

As to my position I have made it clear. My position is that Jesus is our Lord and is a human being who was anointed King, appointed God's heir, highly exalted by God to be the Savior of those who by God's grace put their faith in Jesus Christ, which is totally Biblical. The deity of Jesus is a manmade doctrine based on pagan Greek mythology and Greek philosophical concepts that are the antithesis of God's truth. I have not only shown my position with Scripture I have refuted all your personal interpretations of God's word. Hermeneutics is the interpretation of God's word and violates Peter's instructions in 2 Peter 1:20f.

Now, I will post 1 Corinthians 8:5-6 one more time and hopefully you will read it with understanding and in context by not ignoring words that refute your position.

1 Corinthians 8:5-6
5 For even if there are so-called gods whether in heaven or on earth, as indeed there are many gods and many lords, 6 yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom are all things, and we exist for Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we exist through Him. NAS

Now since Paul did not write that Jesus is the only lord I fail to see the validity of your rhetoric. On the other hand when my smilie decided to bring in the Septuagint and built an argument based on a Greek translation of the Hebrew he showed his ignorance of God's word as written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. And you have by supporting him shown you are not interested in God's truth.

If anyone is in violation of Exodus 20, it is those who have decided to ignore Exodus 20:3

Exodus 20:3
3 "You shall have no other gods before Me. NAS

As well as Deuteronomy 6:4

Deuteronomy 6:4

4 "Hear, O Israel! The LORD is our God, the LORD is one! NAS

The LORD is Yehovah, who is the Father so when men decided that Jesus is God they also decided that Yehovah is not one but three. Yehovah is not a schizophrenic with multiple personality disorder.

[:)]

What a lame excuse, whenever uneducated bible teachers run out of refutations they turn to the "Holy Spirit" excuse, thats a shame! You didn't and couldn't refute what I posted. Lord means Lord and the context proves you wrong, you simply nitpicked your definition of Lord and denied the overwhelming evidence of the true meaning by context, this is what heretics do. Anyone can see that your running from this argument by reiterating the same poor rebuttal which has been refuted. By the way, I'm simply an internet smilie, not your smilie, so get off your high horse!

Now since Paul did not write that Jesus is the only lord I fail to see the validity of your rhetoric.

And Paul did not write that the Father is only God also, your logic is pathetic!!! I said your rebuttals not you, so don't get nasty on me.

[ZoSo]

As to my position I have made it clear. My position is that Jesus is our Lord and is a human being who was anointed King, appointed God's heir, highly exalted by God to be the Savior of those who by God's grace put their faith in Jesus Christ, which is totally Biblical. The deity of Jesus is a manmade doctrine based on pagan Greek mythology and Greek philosophical concepts that are the antithesis of God's truth.

So, let me see if this is correct; not only do you reject the Holy Trinity, but you also maintain that Jesus is not God? Then how is he capable of saving us, if he is not God? Why accept him into our hearts, if he is only a man?

[:)]

You won't get a straight answer out of Aineo, he uses circular arguments and puts his interpretation over the authority of scriptures. This is why everyone has left the debate with him, but in his mind he thinks he's right. By the Way, cool avatar!

[Aineo]

Okay, lets nip the attitude in the bud, Mr. arrogant smilie. Your last two posts violate our Forum Rules, which you agreed to abide by when you registered. I suggest you review those rules and either abide by them or suffer the consequences. I also suggest you read this thread:
http://www.jesus-christ-forums.com/home/viewtopic.php?t=7752

Now, lets educate you and just maybe your hubris will be exposed for the ignorance it demonstrates.

LORD. The rendering of several Heb. and Gk. words, which have different meanings:

1. Jehovah (yahweh; Heb. YHWH, "self-existent"). This is used as a proper name of God and should have been retained in that form by the translators. See (The) LORD (below); Yahweh.

2. lord (Heb. 'Adon), an early word denoting ownership; hence, absolute control. It is not properly a divine title, being used of the owner of slaves (Genesis 24:14,27; 39:2,7, rendered "master"), of kings as the lords of their subjects (Isaiah 26:13, "master"), of a husband as lord of the wife (Genesis 18:12). It is applied to God as the owner and governor of the whole earth (Psalms 114:7). It is sometimes used as a term of respect (like our sir) but with a pronoun attached ("my lord"). It often occurs in the plural.

3. Adonai (Heb. 'adonay), emphatic, "the Lord"; many regard it as the plural of no. 2. It is used chiefly in the Pentateuch-always where God is submissively and reverently addressed (Exodus 4:10,13; Joshua 7:8) and also when God is spoken of (1 Kings 13:9; 22:6; etc.). The Jews, out of a superstitious reverence for the name Jehovah, always pronounce Adonai where Jehovah is written. The similar form, with the suffix, is also used of men, as of Potiphar (Genesis 39:2, "master") and of Joseph (42:30,33).

4. lord, Master (Grk. kurios, "supreme"), he to whom a person or thing belongs, the master, the one having disposition of men or property, as the "owner of the vineyard" (Matthew 20:8; 21:40; Mark 12:9; Luke 20:15, see marg.); the "Lord of the harvest" (Matthew 9:38; Luke 10:2); the "master of the house" (Mark 13:35, see marg.); "Lord of the Sabbath" (Matthew 12:8; Mark 2:28; Luke 6:5), as having the power to determine what is suitable to the Sabbath, and of releasing himself and others from its obligation. The term is also a title of honor sometimes rendered "sir" and is expressive of the respect and reverence with which servants salute their master (Matthew 13:27; Luke 13:8; 14:22; etc.); employed by a son in addressing his father (Matthew 21:29); by citizens toward magistrates (27:63); by anyone wishing to honor a man of distinction (8:2,6,8; 15:27; Mark 7:28; Luke 5:12; etc.); by the disciples in saluting Jesus, their teacher and master (Matthew 8:25; 16:22; Luke 9:54; John 11:12; etc.). This title is given to God, the ruler of the universe, both with the article ho kurios (Matthew 1:22; 5:33; Mark 5:19; Acts 7:33; 2 Timothy 1:16,18; etc.) and without the article (Matthew 21:9; 27:10; Mark 13:20; Luke 2:9,23,26; Hebrews 7:21; etc.). The title is also applied to Jesus as the Messiah, since by His death He acquired a special ownership of mankind and after His resurrection was exalted by a partnership in the divine administration (Acts 10:36; Romans 14:8; 1 Corinthians 7:22; 8:6; Philippians 2:9-11).
5. Baal (Heb. ba`al, "master"), applied only to heathen deities, or to the man as husband, and so on, or to one specially skilled in a trade or profession. See Baal.

6. Other and less important words in the original are rendered "Lord," such as mare', "master" (Acts 2:47), an official title, and seren, a Philistine term found in Joshua, Judges, and 1 Samuel, where "the lords of the Philistines" are mentioned.

BIBLIOGRAPHY: E. Lohmeyer, Kyrios Christos (1928); W. Bousset, Kyrios Christos (1935).

(THE) LORD; KJV, "Jehovah" (je-ho'va; Heb. YHWH, LXX; usually ho Kurios). The name of God most frequently used in the Hebrew Scriptures but commonly represented-we cannot say rendered-in the KJV and NIV by LORD.

Pronunciation. The true pronunciation of this name, by which God was known to the Hebrews, has been entirely lost, the Jews themselves scrupulously avoiding every mention of it and substituting in its stead one or other of the words with whose proper vowel points it may happen to be written, usually the name Adonai. They continued to write YHWH, but read Adonai. Where God is called "My Lord Jehovah" (Heb. Adonai YHWH), Elohim was substituted to avoid the double Adonai. When the vowel points were added to the Heb. text the rule, in the case of words written but not read, was to attach to these words the vowels belonging to the words read in place of them. Thus they attached to YHWH the points of 'adonay; hence the form Yehowah and the name Yeh'v'h. The strong probability is that the name Jehovah was anciently pronounced Yahweh, like the Iabe of the Samaritans. This custom, which had its origin in reverence, and has almost degenerated into a superstition, was founded upon an erroneous rendering of Leviticus 24:16, from which it was inferred that the mere utterance of the name constituted a capital offense. According to Jewish tradition, it was pronounced but once a year by the high priest on the Day of Atonement when he entered the Holy of Holies; but on this point there is some doubt.

For the LeClerc-Haupt-Albright view that Yahweh was originally a causative finite verb see Yahweh.
Import. The passage in Exodus 3:14 seems to furnish designedly a clue to the meaning of the word. When Moses received his commission to be the deliverer of Israel, the Almighty, who appeared in the burning bush, communicated to him the name that he should give as the credentials of his mission: "God said unto Moses, I am that I am [Heb. 'ehyeh 'asher 'ehyeh]: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I am hath sent me unto you" (KJV).
In both names 'ehyeh and YHWH, the root idea is that of underived existence. When it is said that God's name is He Is, simple being is not all that is affirmed. He is in a sense in which no other being is. He is, and the cause of His being is in Himself. He is because He is. But compare the etymology that Yahweh means "He causes to be"-"He creates" (P. Haupt and W. F. Albright's view). See Yahweh.
When Made Known. The notice in Exodus 6:3, "By my name Jehovah was I not known to them" (KJV), does not imply that the patriarchs were completely ignorant of the existence or the use of the name. It simply means that previous to their deliverance from Egyptian bondage they had no experiential knowledge of such redemption. Under Moses they were to experience such deliverance and have the redemptive power of God made real to them and the redemptive name of God vouchsafed to them. Previously, as shepherds in Palestine, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob had known God as El Shaddai ("the Almighty," Genesis 17:1, KJV), proving His power, but not in redemption as such.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: W. Eichrodt, Theology of the Old Testament (1975), 1:187-92; J. Kitto, Daily Bible Illustrations (1981), 1:372-74.
(from The New Unger's Bible Dictionary. Originally published by Moody Press of Chicago, Illinois. Copyright (c) 1988.)

Now, if you don't like the truth I suggest you refrain from posting based on your ignorance and lack of understanding.

I have refuted your assumption with God's word as well as the above definition from a Trinitarian source.

As to what Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians, if you deny what is written in plain language then be so kind as to explain what Paul wrote. Resorting to sarcasm when you cannot refute an arguement only shows you are incapable of engaging in a real debate.

Zoso, Jesus is our Savior and can save mankind because God's sovereign plan for our salvation revolves around the Lord Jesus Christ. Jesus never claimed to be God. Jesus was clear He is the Son of God who can only do and teach what the Father (the only true and wise God) told Him to teach and do.

Does God have a God? If your answer is no then explain why Jesus said this:

John 20:17
17 Jesus said to her, "Stop clinging to Me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father; but go to My brethren, and say to them, 'I ascend to My Father and your Father, and My God and your God.'" NAS

This agrees with this Messianic prophesy:

Psalms 89:20-27
20 "I have found David My servant;
With My holy oil I have anointed him,
21 With whom My hand will be established;
My arm also will strengthen him.
22 "The enemy will not deceive him,
Nor the son of wickedness afflict him.
23 "But I shall crush his adversaries before him,
And strike those who hate him.
24 "And My faithfulness and My lovingkindness will be with him,
And in My name his horn will be exalted.
25 "I shall also set his hand on the sea,
And his right hand on the rivers.
26 "He will cry to Me, 'Thou art my Father,
My God, and the rock of my salvation.'
27 "I also shall make him My first-born,
The highest of the kings of the earth. NAS

You might also try accepting God's word at face value instead of interpreting words, phrases, and Scriptures taken out of context to defend a doctrine developed by Greeks, not the apostles.

[absolutetruth]

Aineo wrote:

absolutetruth, I did not bother to read your whole post as it was nothing more than a rehash of your refusal to address the whole word of God.

how could you know that unless you read it? sounds like you're actively refusing to try and understand these things.

As to my position I have made it clear. My position is that Jesus is our Lord and is a human being who was anointed King, appointed God's heir, highly exalted by God to be the Savior of those who by God's grace put their faith in Jesus Christ, which is totally Biblical.

indeed. as is the biblical stance that He is Divine (John 1:1-3; 14, 10:30-33; 34-39, 20:28, 1 Cor 8:6, Philipians 2:6, Hebrews 1:8, Revelations 1:8; 17-18, cf Isaiah 8:5, 9:6).

The deity of Jesus is a manmade doctrine based on pagan Greek mythology and Greek philosophical concepts that are the antithesis of God's truth.

nope: (John 1:1-3; 14, 10:30-33; 34-39, 20:28, 1 Cor 8:6, Philipians 2:6, Hebrews 1:8, Revelations 1:8; 17-18, cf Isaiah 8:5, 9:6).

I have not only shown my position with Scripture I have refuted all your personal interpretations of God's word. Hermeneutics is the interpretation of God's word and violates Peter's instructions in 2 Peter 1:20f.

wrong again. you have done no such thing. and you've wielded this verse from Peter before, and you should realize that you're using it incorrectly. it's funny. the very verse you USE in order to say that we shouldn't interpret the Bible, you yourself INTERPRET WRONGLY. which is why you need to include verse 21 in there. it's saying that prophecy or "scripture" has never come from man but from God. it's not saying that we're not supposed to interpret what the Word says. we're not supposed to interpret it WRONGLY. if we interpret it RIGHTLY then there's no problem.

this is almost a childish charge coming from a person as old and educated as yourself. you ought to know that NO PERSON is able to take the scriptures and read without interpretation. we are not omniscient and don't know everything so can only draw OUT of the Bible what it says. you need to understand the difference between EPISTEMOLOGY and ONTOLOGY. what we believe may be ONTOLOGICAL, but there's no way of KNOWING that for sure ONTOLOGICALLY unless we were omniscient. so there MUST be interpretation. and you, my friend, have interpreted the scriptures wrongly.

Now, I will post 1 Corinthians 8:5-6 one more time and hopefully you will read it with understanding and in context by not ignoring words that refute your position.

1 Corinthians 8:5-6
5 For even if there are so-called gods whether in heaven or on earth, as indeed there are many gods and many lords, 6 yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom are all things, and we exist for Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we exist through Him. NAS

Now since Paul did not write that Jesus is the only lord I fail to see the validity of your rhetoric.

i clearly qualified my "rhetoric" by saying "since YOU understand the first part of the verse to mean 'ONE' or 'ONLY' God, then you must apply that to the second part of the verse that deals with Christ being the 'ONE' or 'ONLY' Lord", implying that the Father is not Lord. but He IS. your reasoning has backfired against you.

On the other hand when my smilie decided to bring in the Septuagint and built an argument based on a Greek translation of the Hebrew he showed his ignorance of God's word as written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. And you have by supporting him shown you are not interested in God's truth.

and you still haven't responded to what i said. could Jesus really be called "Lord" in the same way that the others were from your examples, given that He was sinless and perfect and demanded EQUAL HONOR AND PRAISE AS THE FATHER (John 5:22-23)? your objection fails, and you fail to admit it.

If anyone is in violation of Exodus 20, it is those who have decided to ignore Exodus 20:3

Exodus 20:3
3 "You shall have no other gods before Me. NAS

As well as Deuteronomy 6:4

Deuteronomy 6:4

4 "Hear, O Israel! The LORD is our God, the LORD is one! NAS

and yet you have another God (John 20:28, Rev 1:8 ) since you reject the Divinity of Jesus.

The LORD is Yehovah, who is the Father so when men decided that Jesus is God they also decided that Yehovah is not one but three. Yehovah is not a schizophrenic with multiple personality disorder.

this is simply semantics. you need to qualify what way He is ONE and what way He is THREE. He's THREE in person, ONE in Nature. the scriptures clearly show this.

you can keep trying to argue all you want and keep telling us that we don't take the whole Bible into consideration and keep misinterpreting verses to fit your beliefs, but it'll never change the fact that it's you who's mistaken. you didn't even interpret the verse from Peter accurately. how in the world do you suppose you got everything else right?

[absolutetruth]

Aineo wrote:

Zoso, Jesus is our Savior and can save mankind because God's sovereign plan for our salvation revolves around the Lord Jesus Christ. Jesus never claimed to be God.

John 10:29-33
29My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all[d]; no one can snatch them out of my Father's hand. 30I and the Father are one."

31Again the Jews picked up stones to stone him, 32but Jesus said to them, "I have shown you many great miracles from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?"

33"We are not stoning you for any of these," replied the Jews, "but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God."

His audience understood it.

Does God have a God? If your answer is no then explain why Jesus said this:

John 20:17
17 Jesus said to her, "Stop clinging to Me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father; but go to My brethren, and say to them, 'I ascend to My Father and your Father, and My God and your God.'" NAS

This agrees with this Messianic prophesy:

Psalms 89:20-27
20 "I have found David My servant;
With My holy oil I have anointed him,
21 With whom My hand will be established;
My arm also will strengthen him.
22 "The enemy will not deceive him,
Nor the son of wickedness afflict him.
23 "But I shall crush his adversaries before him,
And strike those who hate him.
24 "And My faithfulness and My lovingkindness will be with him,
And in My name his horn will be exalted.
25 "I shall also set his hand on the sea,
And his right hand on the rivers.
26 "He will cry to Me, 'Thou art my Father,
My God, and the rock of my salvation.'
27 "I also shall make him My first-born,
The highest of the kings of the earth. NAS

as a man, yeah He did have a God like we all do because He humbled Himself and made Himself obedient to the Father's plan:

Philipians 2:6-8
6who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped,

7but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men.

8Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.

and

Hebrews 2:9
But we do see Him who was made for a little while lower than the angels, namely, Jesus, because of the suffering of death crowned with glory and honor, so that by the grace of God He might taste death for everyone.

You might also try accepting God's word at face value instead of interpreting words, phrases, and Scriptures taken out of context to defend a doctrine developed by Greeks, not the apostles.

we do that. you need to get real.

[Aineo]

I am not going to respond to your post until you actually respond to my questions. So far you have avoided anwering any of my questions by appealing to some man name George MacDonald. I am also not going to reply to Scripture taken out of context that I have already addressed on multiple threads.

I have just this to post concerning all your "wise men" who use fancy words to avoid accepting the plain meaning of God's word:

1 Corinthians 1:20-25

20 Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21 For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not come to know God, God was well-pleased through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe. 22 For indeed Jews ask for signs, and Greeks search for wisdom; 23 but we preach Christ crucified, to Jews a stumbling block, and to Gentiles foolishness, 24 but to those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25 Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men. NAS

Your whole theology revolves around the wisdom of men who think if foolish that God can appoint a man to be the Savior of those who accept the foolishness of His wisdom and predestined plan for the Messiah.

Now, when will you respond to what Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 8:5-6? Specifically, for us there is but one God, the Father. How do you get God is three from one God, the Father? Do I need to give you a lesson in adjectives that define and describe the subject of a clause?

[:)]

Aineo, you didn't refute anything, you simply did your usual nitpicking tactic of choosing interpretations which is preferable to your heresy. You underlined and bolded the definition of Lord which is applicable to your out of context interpretation of 1 Corinthians 8:6. Lord CAN mean sir, but it can also refer to Deity which you completely IGNORED. AGAIN, 1 Corinthians 8:6 says that there is ONE LORD, your calling Paul a LIAR by putting emphasis on your definition of Lord in that verse, how many (LORD="SIRS,. MAGISTRATES, MEN OF HONOR") are there??? according to your heretical interpretation of 1 Corinthians 8:6 there is more than One! You have redefined that verse by saying that to "US" (Paul and others). there is only one "Sirs, human masters, magistrates, slave owners, blah blah blah" Get real!!!

Ooooh Aineo, I'm scared! suffer the consequences of what? being banned? Or perhaps my post will be deleted because you are AFRAID that you can't refute it. I rarely behave in this manner, however if your going to be pompous and harden your heart, then God will use me to ruffle your feathers.

[Aineo]

Since my point is there is one God, not one Lord the fact you refuse to address what Paul wrote concerning one God only shows you cannot refute what Paul wrote.

Now, I gave you a warning as the Administrator of this board, a warning you have chosen to ignore. Since I have had to many run ins with arrogant, sophomoric, hubris posting so-called Christians who think that being demeaning, sarcastic, and posting garbage makes their case while they choose to also think our rules do not apply to them I am going to show you they do apply to you.

Find another board to play your games.

[GraceAndPeaceInChrist]

Okay, lets nip the attitude in the bud, Mr. arrogant smilie. Your last two posts violate our Forum Rules, which you agreed to abide by when you registered. I suggest you review those rules and either abide by them or suffer the consequences. I also suggest you read this thread:
http://www.jesus-christ-forums.com/home/viewtopic.php?t=7752

Now, lets educate you and just maybe your hubris will be exposed for the ignorance it demonstrates.

LORD. The rendering of several Heb. and Gk. words, which have different meanings:

1. Jehovah (yahweh; Heb. YHWH, "self-existent"). This is used as a proper name of God and should have been retained in that form by the translators. See (The) LORD (below); Yahweh.

2. lord (Heb. 'Adon), an early word denoting ownership; hence, absolute control. It is not properly a divine title, being used of the owner of slaves (Genesis 24:14,27; 39:2,7, rendered "master"), of kings as the lords of their subjects (Isaiah 26:13, "master"), of a husband as lord of the wife (Genesis 18:12). It is applied to God as the owner and governor of the whole earth (Psalms 114:7). It is sometimes used as a term of respect (like our sir) but with a pronoun attached ("my lord"). It often occurs in the plural.

3. Adonai (Heb. 'adonay), emphatic, "the Lord"; many regard it as the plural of no. 2. It is used chiefly in the Pentateuch-always where God is submissively and reverently addressed (Exodus 4:10,13; Joshua 7:8) and also when God is spoken of (1 Kings 13:9; 22:6; etc.). The Jews, out of a superstitious reverence for the name Jehovah, always pronounce Adonai where Jehovah is written. The similar form, with the suffix, is also used of men, as of Potiphar (Genesis 39:2, "master") and of Joseph (42:30,33).

4. lord, Master (Grk. kurios, "supreme"), he to whom a person or thing belongs, the master, the one having disposition of men or property, as the "owner of the vineyard" (Matthew 20:8; 21:40; Mark 12:9; Luke 20:15, see marg.); the "Lord of the harvest" (Matthew 9:38; Luke 10:2); the "master of the house" (Mark 13:35, see marg.); "Lord of the Sabbath" (Matthew 12:8; Mark 2:28; Luke 6:5), as having the power to determine what is suitable to the Sabbath, and of releasing himself and others from its obligation. The term is also a title of honor sometimes rendered "sir" and is expressive of the respect and reverence with which servants salute their master (Matthew 13:27; Luke 13:8; 14:22; etc.); employed by a son in addressing his father (Matthew 21:29); by citizens toward magistrates (27:63); by anyone wishing to honor a man of distinction (8:2,6,8; 15:27; Mark 7:28; Luke 5:12; etc.); by the disciples in saluting Jesus, their teacher and master (Matthew 8:25; 16:22; Luke 9:54; John 11:12; etc.). This title is given to God, the ruler of the universe, both with the article ho kurios (Matthew 1:22; 5:33; Mark 5:19; Acts 7:33; 2 Timothy 1:16,18; etc.) and without the article (Matthew 21:9; 27:10; Mark 13:20; Luke 2:9,23,26; Hebrews 7:21; etc.). The title is also applied to Jesus as the Messiah, since by His death He acquired a special ownership of mankind and after His resurrection was exalted by a partnership in the divine administration (Acts 10:36; Romans 14:8; 1 Corinthians 7:22; 8:6; Philippians 2:9-11).
5. Baal (Heb. ba`al, "master"), applied only to heathen deities, or to the man as husband, and so on, or to one specially skilled in a trade or profession. See Baal.

6. Other and less important words in the original are rendered "Lord," such as mare', "master" (Acts 2:47), an official title, and seren, a Philistine term found in Joshua, Judges, and 1 Samuel, where "the lords of the Philistines" are mentioned.

BIBLIOGRAPHY: E. Lohmeyer, Kyrios Christos (1928); W. Bousset, Kyrios Christos (1935).

(THE) LORD; KJV, "Jehovah" (je-ho'va; Heb. YHWH, LXX; usually ho Kurios). The name of God most frequently used in the Hebrew Scriptures but commonly represented-we cannot say rendered-in the KJV and NIV by LORD.

Pronunciation. The true pronunciation of this name, by which God was known to the Hebrews, has been entirely lost, the Jews themselves scrupulously avoiding every mention of it and substituting in its stead one or other of the words with whose proper vowel points it may happen to be written, usually the name Adonai. They continued to write YHWH, but read Adonai. Where God is called "My Lord Jehovah" (Heb. Adonai YHWH), Elohim was substituted to avoid the double Adonai. When the vowel points were added to the Heb. text the rule, in the case of words written but not read, was to attach to these words the vowels belonging to the words read in place of them. Thus they attached to YHWH the points of 'adonay; hence the form Yehowah and the name Yeh'v'h. The strong probability is that the name Jehovah was anciently pronounced Yahweh, like the Iabe of the Samaritans. This custom, which had its origin in reverence, and has almost degenerated into a superstition, was founded upon an erroneous rendering of Leviticus 24:16, from which it was inferred that the mere utterance of the name constituted a capital offense. According to Jewish tradition, it was pronounced but once a year by the high priest on the Day of Atonement when he entered the Holy of Holies; but on this point there is some doubt.

For the LeClerc-Haupt-Albright view that Yahweh was originally a causative finite verb see Yahweh.
Import. The passage in Exodus 3:14 seems to furnish designedly a clue to the meaning of the word. When Moses received his commission to be the deliverer of Israel, the Almighty, who appeared in the burning bush, communicated to him the name that he should give as the credentials of his mission: "God said unto Moses, I am that I am [Heb. 'ehyeh 'asher 'ehyeh]: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I am hath sent me unto you" (KJV).
In both names 'ehyeh and YHWH, the root idea is that of underived existence. When it is said that God's name is He Is, simple being is not all that is affirmed. He is in a sense in which no other being is. He is, and the cause of His being is in Himself. He is because He is. But compare the etymology that Yahweh means "He causes to be"-"He creates" (P. Haupt and W. F. Albright's view). See Yahweh.
When Made Known. The notice in Exodus 6:3, "By my name Jehovah was I not known to them" (KJV), does not imply that the patriarchs were completely ignorant of the existence or the use of the name. It simply means that previous to their deliverance from Egyptian bondage they had no experiential knowledge of such redemption. Under Moses they were to experience such deliverance and have the redemptive power of God made real to them and the redemptive name of God vouchsafed to them. Previously, as shepherds in Palestine, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob had known God as El Shaddai ("the Almighty," Genesis 17:1, KJV), proving His power, but not in redemption as such.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: W. Eichrodt, Theology of the Old Testament (1975), 1:187-92; J. Kitto, Daily Bible Illustrations (1981), 1:372-74.
(from The New Unger's Bible Dictionary. Originally published by Moody Press of Chicago, Illinois. Copyright (c) 1988.)

Now, if you don't like the truth I suggest you refrain from posting based on your ignorance and lack of understanding.

I have refuted your assumption with God's word as well as the above definition from a Trinitarian source.

As to what Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians, if you deny what is written in plain language then be so kind as to explain what Paul wrote. Resorting to sarcasm when you cannot refute an arguement only shows you are incapable of engaging in a real debate.

Zoso, Jesus is our Savior and can save mankind because God's sovereign plan for our salvation revolves around the Lord Jesus Christ. Jesus never claimed to be God. Jesus was clear He is the Son of God who can only do and teach what the Father (the only true and wise God) told Him to teach and do.

Does God have a God? If your answer is no then explain why Jesus said this:

John 20:17
17 Jesus said to her, "Stop clinging to Me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father; but go to My brethren, and say to them, 'I ascend to My Father and your Father, and My God and your God.'" NAS

This agrees with this Messianic prophesy:

Psalms 89:20-27
20 "I have found David My servant;
With My holy oil I have anointed him,
21 With whom My hand will be established;
My arm also will strengthen him.
22 "The enemy will not deceive him,
Nor the son of wickedness afflict him.
23 "But I shall crush his adversaries before him,
And strike those who hate him.
24 "And My faithfulness and My lovingkindness will be with him,
And in My name his horn will be exalted.
25 "I shall also set his hand on the sea,
And his right hand on the rivers.
26 "He will cry to Me, 'Thou art my Father,
My God, and the rock of my salvation.'
27 "I also shall make him My first-born,
The highest of the kings of the earth. NAS

You might also try accepting God's word at face value instead of interpreting words, phrases, and Scriptures taken out of context to defend a doctrine developed by Greeks, not the apostles.

You my friend have a Cultish doctrine.Your doctrine is a doctrine of MAN.Your essence is the same as JW'S,Mormons,Judaism,Islam,Buddism,Hinduism,and all other manner of BROAD religion which have one thing in common:THE DENIAL OF THE DEITY OF CHRIST.

Broad is the gate that leads to destruction,yet being broad they are in unity over one matter and you know it yourself.

Yes Jesus was a man,but what dwelt inside that man?The fullness of Deity.And you are denying that God has the power to be a man if he wishes.

Those Acts scriptures you post don't give you no backing whatsoever.Can I give you a picture(which is not true but it is to help you see):

I created ants,now I can drop rocks on the ants I can squish them,but geez I can't seem to get my purpose through to them,what do I do?I come as an ant.

God said "Let US create man in our image,so he created man in the image of God."

Does the Father look like a man?Didn't Jesus say:God is a spirit?He didn't say let me make man in my image.And if you wanna even suggest angels I ask you how is it he said "He created them in the image of God."

The Trinity is written all over the Old testament

Unto a Son is given but he is also called Mighty God Isaiah 9:6

Here is Trinity in the Old Testament:

http://www.biblicalresources.info/pages ... ityot.html

[absolutetruth]

I am not going to respond to your post until you actually respond to my questions. So far you have avoided anwering any of my questions by appealing to some man name George MacDonald. I am also not going to reply to Scripture taken out of context that I have already addressed on multiple threads.

I have just this to post concerning all your "wise men" who use fancy words to avoid accepting the plain meaning of God's word:

1 Corinthians 1:20-25

20 Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21 For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not come to know God, God was well-pleased through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe. 22 For indeed Jews ask for signs, and Greeks search for wisdom; 23 but we preach Christ crucified, to Jews a stumbling block, and to Gentiles foolishness, 24 but to those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25 Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men. NAS

Your whole theology revolves around the wisdom of men who think if foolish that God can appoint a man to be the Savior of those who accept the foolishness of His wisdom and predestined plan for the Messiah.

Now, when will you respond to what Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 8:5-6? Specifically, for us there is but one God, the Father. How do you get God is three from one God, the Father? Do I need to give you a lesson in adjectives that define and describe the subject of a clause?

Who is George MacDonald? he was simply one of the brilliant thinkers that influenced such people as G.K. Chesterton and C.S. Lewis, and was DEEPLY committed to the Truth of the Bible, defending it and the Lord Jesus Christ. Learn somethin'.

and what questions didn't i address that you raised for me? i specifically responded to EVERYTHING you wrote and answered every question and statement you raised. i even answered questions that you asked to OTHER PEOPLE. i went BEYOND responding simply to your points to me and answered questions you raised for other people.

and since you didn't respond to the questions i asked you, and the challenges i gave you, i assume that you can't. you must've realized the devastating blow that was delivered to your interpretation of 2 Peter 1:20-21.

thanks a lot man. like i said. you need to get real and stop fooling yourself. you're a perfect example (like i said many weeks ago) of Colossians 2:8:

See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy that depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ.

[Aineo]

Ah, the old you have a cult attitude defense from another Trinitarian who cannot defend what he believes. As to your link that proves the Trinity from the OT, I have one that refutes them all you should check it out since you might learn something.

http://www.biblicalunitarian.com/html/index.php

You might also find this one of interest:

Did Somebody Find the Trinity in the First Chapter of the Bible? To Whom Was God Speaking to When He Said, “Let Us Make Man in Our Image”?

absolutetruth, one question you have not answered is does God have a God? Another question you have avoided is to explain what Paul meant with "one God, the Father". You see absolutetruth, I have already covered all your NT proofs on other threads and as I posted before I am not going to repeat myself because you are to lazy and arrogant to read the other threads.

Also, I could care less who MacDonald is since God wrote the Bible not MacDonald or Lewis. Catholics appeal to Justin Martyr, Origin, Irenaeus, Augustine, and etc. but I don't accept their interpretations of the Bible any more than I do any other mans.

Now, I am going to give you a warning. If you cannot conduct yourself in a courteous and respectful manner on this message board I will terminate your account. We don't want people as professed Christian members who think they knowledge exceeds that of the Lord and God.

Now, if you want to discuss Deuteronomy 6:4, Exodus 20:3, Malachi 2:10, 1 Corinthians 8:6, Ephesians 6:4, and 1 Timothy 2:5 without resorting to interpreting what is plainly written then just maybe we can have a courteous and respectful discussion. If you are not willing to adhere to our Forum Rules then either move on or I will do what I have to do to enforce our Forum Rules.

[absolutetruth]

Aineo wrote:

absolutetruth, one question you have not answered is does God have a God? Another question you have avoided is to explain what Paul meant with "one God, the Father". You see absolutetruth, I have already covered all your NT proofs on other threads and as I posted before I am not going to repeat myself because you are to lazy and arrogant to read the other threads.

Ahhhhhhh.....finally! you actually answered something that i asked of you. hopefully we're makin' progress now.

now regarding 1 Cor 8:6. i admit that it is difficult. it says "One God, the Father". my answer to you is that we need to understand the context in which this statement is made. the passage is juxtaposing false "gods" on one side, with the True God on the other. but what do we find on the other side? Jesus as well. false Gods on one side, the Father and Jesus on the other. putting Jesus in the same category as the Father.

another point here is that the word "One" does not necessarily preclude the Trinity as we understand it. it doesn't only mean a complete singularity within the "One". One doesn't always mean singleness within the "One". there can be "One" community, or "One" gathering, or "One" couple. Examples:

Genesis 2:24
For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh.

Ephesians 4:25
Therefore each of you must put off falsehood and speak truthfully to his neighbor, for we are all members of one body.

i admit that in this verse is qualified by "the Father", but that's how the people understood it, and is not incorrect or a lie as you would charge if there were a Trinity. like i said before, there's adaptation to human finitude, and accomodation to human error. the people understood God as the Father in Heaven, who was distinct from Jesus the Son. therefore, to not make the distinction would be confusing.

the last point is that the second part of this verse needs to be addressed by you. if it says "One God, the Father" and you take that to exclude the Son, then you must apply that also to where it says "One Lord, Jesus Christ". but that would then mean that the Father is not Lord, but we know He is:

Matthew 11:25
At that time Jesus said, "I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children.

if Jesus is the "One Lord", then that means that the Father is not, and someone was lying. either Paul, or Jesus. you take your pick.

Also, I could care less who MacDonald is since God wrote the Bible not MacDonald or Lewis. Catholics appeal to Justin Martyr, Origin, Irenaeus, Augustine, and etc. but I don't accept their interpretations of the Bible any more than I do any other mans.

yeah, catholics do tend to make a mockery out of biblical passages, and yet so do many others, like those who deny Christ's Divinity. but i've seen even secular people give good answers to Bible questions. i don't agree with MacDonald's and Lewis's view on EVERYTHING, but such clear thinkers have a lot to say when they're in tune with the Bible.

Now, I am going to give you a warning. If you cannot conduct yourself in a courteous and respectful manner on this message board I will terminate your account. We don't want people as professed Christian members who think they knowledge exceeds that of the Lord and God.

ah yes. there's that threat again. if you go back and read our dialogues between you and i, you'll see that you actually get more vicious and out of line than i do. other posters see that as well. you're pugnacious and bitter, and you get angry and insult people constantly. if you cancel me, you'd better cancel yourself as well. i'll leave you with one quote from Thomas Chandler Halliburton that reminds me of you:

"When a man is wrong and won't admit it, he always gets angry."

Now, if you want to discuss Deuteronomy 6:4, Exodus 20:3, Malachi 2:10, 1 Corinthians 8:6, Ephesians 6:4, and 1 Timothy 2:5 without resorting to interpreting what is plainly written then just maybe we can have a courteous and respectful discussion. If you are not willing to adhere to our Forum Rules then either move on or I will do what I have to do to enforce our Forum Rules.

great. let's discuss 'em.

Deuteronomy 6:4: I don't disagree with. Like i said, "One" does not necessarily mean "singularity". "One" body (in Christ), "One" flesh, "One" community, "One" people.

Exodus 20:3: If you accept John 1:1, then you have a "God" (the Word/Christ) beside the Father.

Malachi 2:10: see above.

1 Corinthians 8:6: see above.

Ephesians 6:4 (actually i think you meant "Ephesians 4:6"): see above.

1 Timothy 2:5: see above. there IS "One God". but that doesn't exclude a plurality of Persons in that "One God".

you always talk about context. it's not good to look at these passages without the rest of scripture like i pointed out before: (John 1:1-3; 14, 10:30-33; 34-39, 20:28, 1 Cor 8:6, Philipians 2:6, Hebrews 1:8, Revelations 1:8; 17-18, cf Isaiah 8:5, 9:6).

now for you, i wonder why you didn't respond to this that i wrote to you when you fallaciously appealed to 2 Peter 1:20 again:

wrong again. you have done no such thing. and you've wielded this verse from Peter before, and you should realize that you're using it incorrectly. it's funny. the very verse you USE in order to say that we shouldn't interpret the Bible, you yourself INTERPRET WRONGLY. which is why you need to include verse 21 in there. it's saying that prophecy or "scripture" has never come from man but from God. it's not saying that we're not supposed to interpret what the Word says. we're not supposed to interpret it WRONGLY. if we interpret it RIGHTLY then there's no problem.

this is almost a childish charge coming from a person as old and educated as yourself. you ought to know that NO PERSON is able to take the scriptures and read without interpretation. we are not omniscient and don't know everything so can only draw OUT of the Bible what it says. you need to understand the difference between EPISTEMOLOGY and ONTOLOGY. what we believe may be ONTOLOGICAL, but there's no way of KNOWING that for sure ONTOLOGICALLY unless we were omniscient. so there MUST be interpretation. and you, my friend, have interpreted the scriptures wrongly.

[Aineo]

Since no man can come to the Father except through Jesus, that makes Jesus our Lord, which does not preclude God also having the title "Lord". Also, if you bothered to check the links I posted in response to GraceAndPeaceInChrist you will find that interpreting "one" to mean a compound unity is not generally accepted by all Trinitarians. You examples of one meaning a compound unity are ludicrous. A married couple does not become 1 person and church is the unity not the word one. One means one, what indicates a compound unity is "community" or some other plural word. Also in 1 Corinthians 8 Paul wrote:

1 Corinthians 8:4-6
5 For even if there are so-called gods whether in heaven or on earth, as indeed there are many gods and many lords, 6 yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom are all things, and we exist for Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we exist through Him. NAS

Satan is referred to in the Bible as the god of this world, so you explanation denies how "god" is used in Scripture.

Also if you are going to deny the truth of Deuteronomy 6:4 then we have no basis on which to agree about anything since like most cults you are rejecting those parts of the Bible that prove your position is wrong.

Now if you expect me to answer anymore of your questions then it is time you responded to does God have a God?

[absolutetruth]

Aineo wrote:

Since no man can come to the Father except through Jesus, that makes Jesus our Lord, which does not preclude God also having the title "Lord".

thank you. now apply that to the first part of the same verse. "One God, the Father" does not preclude Jesus being Divine.

Also, if you bothered to check the links I posted in response to GraceAndPeaceInChrist you will find that interpreting "one" to mean a compound unity is not generally accepted by all Trinitarians.

and your view is held by even less people. there are some "Trinitarians" that believe in evolution, and even accept homosexuals and feel their lifestyle is ok, but we know they're wrong by scripture. same here.

You examples of one meaning a compound unity are ludicrous.

and YOU tell ME that I don't conduct myself in a "courteous and respectful manner"??? you're such a hypocrite.

A married couple does not become 1 person and church is the unity not the word one.

God considers them "one flesh" (Gen 2:24), and there is ONE church of Christ, composed of many people and One Truth. you're starting to misunderstand these concepts again and are making errors in logic and grammar.

One means one, what indicates a compound unity is "community" or some other plural word.

not necessarily. the "One" needs to be qualified. if we're talking about "One person", then we're talking about a single individual. if we're talking about "One couple", we're talking about two people UNDER the category of one. so it needs to be qualified and is not simply explained away by your false ideas. same with God. if God is a Being in relationship and community, then the phrase "One God" can mean the Trinity when qualified by the rest of Scripture. you need to think more clearly. you shouldn't have such a hard time understanding these concepts. they're not that difficult.

Satan is referred to in the Bible as the god of this world, so you explanation denies how "god" is used in Scripture.

wrong again. you keep appealing to general terms and try to extrapolate them into greater areas. these terms are qualified by the texts in which they are presented. you've made this mistake before and you continue to make it.

Also if you are going to deny the truth of Deuteronomy 6:4 then we have no basis on which to agree about anything since like most cults you are rejecting those parts of the Bible that prove your position is wrong.

on the contrary, i affirm the truth of that passage, i reject your interpretation of it. and i can say the same thing to you. you reject as well the parts of the Bible that reject your position also. however, you have a greater dilemma. to have God come in the form of a man is not blasphemy, but to have a man be called God and worshipped the same way is. my position makes more sense than yours and isn't blasphemous.

Now if you expect me to answer anymore of your questions then it is time you responded to does God have a God?

sorry. you're right. i did forget to answer that question of yours in my last post (although i've answered it SEVERAL times before elsewhere). As God, no. as a man, yeah. since He humbled himself and took on the form of a servant (Philipians 2:6-8 ), then yes. he had a God. because He became like us in EVERY WAY:

Hebrews 2:5-18:
5 For He has not put the world to come, of which we speak, in subjection to angels. 6 But one testified in a certain place, saying:


“ What is man that You are mindful of him,
Or the son of man that You take care of him?
7 You have made him a little lower than the angels;
You have crowned him with glory and honor,
And set him over the works of Your hands.
8 You have put all things in subjection under his feet.”

For in that He put all in subjection under him, He left nothing that is not put under him. But now we do not yet see all things put under him. 9 But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels, for the suffering of death crowned with glory and honor, that He, by the grace of God, might taste death for everyone.

10 For it was fitting for Him, for whom are all things and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons to glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings. 11 For both He who sanctifies and those who are being sanctified are all of one, for which reason He is not ashamed to call them brethren, 12 saying:


“ I will declare Your name to My brethren;
In the midst of the assembly I will sing praise to You.”

13 And again:


“ I will put My trust in Him."


And again:


“ Here am I and the children whom God has given Me.”

14 Inasmuch then as the children have partaken of flesh and blood, He Himself likewise shared in the same, that through death He might destroy him who had the power of death, that is, the devil, 15 and release those who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage. 16 For indeed He does not give aid to angels, but He does give aid to the seed of Abraham. 17 Therefore, in all things He had to be made like His brethren, that He might be a merciful and faithful High Priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people. 18 For in that He Himself has suffered, being tempted, He is able to aid those who are tempted.

he was made like us in EVERY way. i don't know why that's so hard for you to understand.

now, i have a question for you: can Jesus be called "Lord" in the same way that the other people you've mentioned were considering He was perfect and completely sinless? you continue to charge that the fact that Jesus was called "Lord" or even "THE Lord", that since others were too then it's not that big of a deal. but since perfection is an attribute of God, and the other people weren't perfect, could Jesus really be put into the same category as them? since He was Perfect, He isn't excluded from being Divine, while all the others were. can He really be put into the same category as them as you keep trying to do?

i've asked you this 2 or 3 times before, and you haven't responded. be fair. if you want me to answer your questions, then answer mine after i address yours. (and also address what i challenged you with regarding Peter in my last post to you.) thanks.

[Aineo]

Show me in 2 Peter 1:20-21 that Peter wrote we should not interpet God's word "wrongly". The fact is he did not.

2 Peter 1:20-21
20 But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation, 21 for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God. NAS

The people who have decided to interpret Scripture are those who refuse to take God as His word, like you when you interpret "one" to mean a compound unity, a concept that can be shown to be false based on common usage of the word "one". One herd is just that, one herd composed of many animals. The plurality is found in the word "herd" not the word "one". The same is true of "one church". The "church" is composed of all true believers.

Your Hebrews proof text tells us the Son was "made", not that the Son preexisted with God and is God, that again is a "personal interpretation". The same is true of Philippians 2:6:

Philippians 2:5-11
5 Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, 6 who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. 9 Therefore also God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name, 10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those who are in heaven, and on earth, and under the earth, 11 and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
NAS

The fact is the Lord was created as God's servant as I have adequately demonstrated with the Messianic prophesies that you disagree with based on your own personal interpretation of the Bible.

Here is what you posted on the Messianic Prophesies vs. Trinity thread:

But it seems you reject even those Scriptures used to support that Jesus is the Messiah of the OT by Trinitarians.

i also reject the false ideas of "long-agers" and false interpretations of Bible passages by men. you seem to be implying that "since these people are Trinitarians, therefore you should trust what they say." i don't care what these "Trinitarians" say. if they're wrong, i VEHEMENTLY disagree with them.

Why should I accept the interpretation of a man who denies the Bible is true and then interprets "one" to mean a compound unity when this concept has been rejected by most Trinitarians?

Your proof texts tell us the Son was made, not that the Son preexisted creation as God.

[REAPER]

I'm not sure why I bothered to respond, but since you are implying that the Son was "made" as in CREATED according to absolutetruth's prooftext, I thought I might comment just this once on how wrong you are. Lets see if you are willing to admit it.

Your Hebrews proof text tells us the Son was "made", not that the Son preexisted with God and is God, that again is a "personal interpretation".

The word "madest" in Hebrews 2:7 and 9 is (elattoo) and does not refer to creation at all, but rather a decrease in authority or position. It is only used 3 times in the New Testament, twice in Hebrews 2 and once in John 3:30. The precise context clearly tells us that the Son apparently once had a higher authority before taking on human flesh.

If anyone is resorting to personal opinion and taking scriptures out of context, it is you Aineo.

[REAPER]

But Sharp’s rule has been almost totally neglected, discounted, or misapplied in recent discussions on these passages. In light of this, our purpose in this essay is threefold: (1) to give a brief historical sketch of the articulation and discussion of Sharp’s canon, from Sharp to the present day; (2) to test the validity of Sharp’s rule against the data, both within the NT and elsewhere; and (3) to reassess the application of the rule to two christologically significant texts.http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=1496

Now, who has not done their homework? I am not going to respond to the balance of your post as your assumptions have overridden your credibility.

Do the words NEGLECTED OR DISCOUNTED mean anything to you?

Furthermore, did you bother to read the entire article from "your link" regarding Granville sharps rule?

IV. Conclusion

Although Granville Sharp lacked the erudition of a lettered savant, he had an authentically visceral sense about the structure of language. This intuition, fueled by an unquenchable piety, enabled him to be the first to articulate a genuine feature of the language which spans the constellation graecae from the sublime elegance of the Attic philosophers to the mundane and hasty scribblings of nameless masses in the vulgar papyri.

Calvin Winstanley’s counter-examples, borne no doubt of great industry, served their purpose well. Thomas Fanshaw Middleton might never have devoted so much space to Sharp’s canon had Winstanley’s illustrations not been so challenging.217 And to Middleton we owe a debt of gratitude for raising the stakes, for giving a measure of linguistic sophistication to the articulation of Sharp’s principle. These three—Sharp, Winstanley, Middleton—more than the whole company of combatants that would follow have put real meat on the table, for they all produced examples. While others contented themselves with linguistic sophistry or theological prejudice (as in the case of Winer on one side and a legion of well-meaning scholars on the other), this trio of Englishmen virtually alone anchored the discussion to the actual data.

In particular, Winstanley produced four classes of exceptions to Sharp’s rule: generic singulars, translation Greek (one illustration), several substantives in the construction (one illustration), and patristic usage. Our research has turned up more examples for the first and third categories, as well an instance of a fifth (ordinal numerals). Yet even Winstanley admitted the general validity of Sharp’s rule in the language. The emerging conviction of this paper—albeit based on partial data—is that the five classes of “exceptions” can be readily explained on sound linguistic principles. These exceptions in fact help to reveal the semantic depth of Sharp’s rule, even to the extent that it is much more than a general principle.

Three final comments will conclude this essay. First, although the restatement of Sharp’s rule addresses all the exceptions, the sampling of Greek writing examined for this paper was but a small drop in the bucket. Rough estimates suggest that less than four percent of the more than 57 million words of extant Greek writings218 were investigated. Only extreme naﶥt頯r bald arrogance would permit us to shut our eyes to the possibility of other counter-examples in the remaining ninety-six percent. At the same time, it must be admitted that numerous examples have been produced which tell the same monotonous story: Sharp’s rule is valid.

Second, the other side of the coin is that the more classes of exceptions there are, the less Occam’s razor can be invoked. The rule, even as Sharp stated it, was complex enough to be ignored or forgotten very quickly by opponents and proponents alike. If our restatement of the rule is a compounding of that complexity, rather than a clarification of the need for it, one has to wonder how a non-native Greek speaker could have perceived such subtle nuances. At the same time, the fact that all of the exceptions fit into a small number of carefully defined categories seems to be eloquent testimony that Occam’s razor retains its cutting edge. There is indeed a tension between linguistic formulation and empirical evidence, between science and history. With historico-literary documents, absolute proof is an ignis fatuus. But the burden of proof is a different matter; demonstrating this is quite achievable. This brings us to our third point.

In part, this paper was an attempt to investigate Winstanley’s evidence (as well as other, more synchronic evidence) and deal with it on a more sure-footed, linguistic basis. Our restatement of Sharp’s rule is believed to be true to the nature of the language, and able to address all classes of exceptions that Winstanley raised. The “Sharper” rule is as follows:

In native Greek constructions (i.e., not translation Greek), when a single article modifies two substantives connected by kaiv (thus, article-substantive-kaiv-substantive), when both substantives are (1) singular (both grammatically and semantically), (2) personal, (3) and common nouns (not proper names or ordinals), they have the same referent.

This rule, as stated, covers all the so-called exceptions. Further, even the exceptions do not impact the christologically significant passages in the NT, for the semantic situation of Titus 2:13 and 2 Pet 1:1 is outside the scope of Winstanley’s counter-illustrations.

History is filled with biting ironies. The debate over Sharp’s rule over the past two centuries has revealed one of them. As industrious as the efforts of the Englishman Winstanley were to dislodge Sharp’s rule, his volume—which was filled with counter-examples—had little impact. It took one cavalier footnote, whose substance was only theological innuendo, from a continental man to dislodge Sharp’s rule. Georg Benedict Winer, the great NT grammarian of the nineteenth century, in this instance spoke outside of his realm, for he gave an unsubstantiated opinion based on a theological preunderstanding. Yet this single footnote largely brought about the eclipse of understanding of Sharp’s rule. Friend and foe alike have unwittingly abused the canon, with the result that scores of NT passages have been misunderstood.

Winer’s opinion notwithstanding, solid linguistic reasons and plenty of phenomenological data were found to support the requirements that Sharp laid down. When substantives meet the requirements of Sharp’s canon, apposition is the result, and inviolably so in the NT. The canon even works outside the twenty-seven books and, hence, ought to be resurrected as a sound principle which has overwhelming validity in all of Greek literature. Consequently, in Titus 2:13 and 2 Pet 1:1 we are compelled to recognize that, on a grammatical level, a heavy burden of proof rests with the one who wishes to deny that “God and Savior” refers to one person, Jesus Christ.

http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=1496

[absolutetruth]

Aineo wrote:

Show me in 2 Peter 1:20-21 that Peter wrote we should not interpet God's word "wrongly". The fact is he did not.

show me where i said that please. what i ACTUALLY said, was that we're not supposed to interpret scripture wrongly. if you disagree with that, then you're saying it's okay to interpret scripture wrongly, which is foolish. stop attacking strawmen.

and that's my point. Peter isn't really talking about "interpretation" of scripture. he's talking about WHERE scripture comes from. it comes from God, not man. the FACT IS, we ALL HAVE TO INTERPRET SCRIPTURE. whether rightly, or wrongly. i prefer rightly. the point i'm making is that since NONE OF US wrote what is contained in the NT, the only people that can know with 100% accuracy what was written (i.e. NOT having to interpret it) would be it's human authors and God Himself. the rest of us didn't write the words so can only interpret what they mean. it's hard to believe that you don't understand that.

The people who have decided to interpret Scripture are those who refuse to take God as His word, like you when you interpret "one" to mean a compound unity, a concept that can be shown to be false based on common usage of the word "one".

are you claiming to be God? are you claiming to be the disciples and apostles that wrote the NT? if you deny either of those claims then you HAVE to interpret scripture. you aren't the one who wrote it.

One herd is just that, one herd composed of many animals.

exactly my point. you need to QUALIFY. in WHAT WAY is something one, and in what way is it more than one. simple logic that you can't seem to grasp.

The plurality is found in the word "herd" not the word "one". The same is true of "one church". The "church" is composed of all true believers.

this exactly what i'm saying! in one sense it's one, and in another it's more than one. same with God. you're PROVING what i'm saying.

Your Hebrews proof text tells us the Son was "made", not that the Son preexisted with God and is God, that again is a "personal interpretation". The same is true of Philippians 2:6:

it's hard to believe that you're serious. cross-reference the Hebrews passage with Rev 1:7-8; 17-18 and you'll see that Christ is the Alpha and Omega. Everlasting. therefore the word "made" is misinterpreted by you (not to mention what refuted by what Reaper posted).

The fact is the Lord was created as God's servant as I have adequately demonstrated with the Messianic prophesies that you disagree with based on your own personal interpretation of the Bible.

hey, do me a favor, alright? don't accuse me of things i didn't say and have never said. i don't disagree with any Messianic prophecies (except Proverbs 8 which ISN'T speaking of Christ but of the personification of Wisdom). STOP ATTACKING STRAWMEN!

Why should I accept the interpretation of a man who denies the Bible is true and then interprets "one" to mean a compound unity when this concept has been rejected by most Trinitarians?

MORE STRAWMEN??? show me where i deny the Bible??? i'd like to know.

Your proof texts tell us the Son was made, not that the Son preexisted creation as God.

not at all. read again.

like i said before. you need to open your eyes and face reality. none of what you're saying is sustainable and is being "defended" by desparate attemepts.

and you still didn't answer the other question i asked you. thanks a lot.

[Aineo]

I read the whole article.

Few today would take issue with Rudolf Bultmann’s oft-quoted line that “In describing Christ as ‘God’ the New Testament still exercises great restraint.”2 The list of passages which seem explicitly to identify Christ with God varies from scholar to scholar, but the number is almost never more than a half dozen or so.3 As is well known, almost all of the texts are disputed as to their affirmation—due to textual or grammatical glitches—John 1:1 and 20:28 being the only two which are usually conceded without discussion.4 Among the more highly regarded passages are Rom 9:5; 2 Thess 1:12; Titus 2:13; Heb 1:8; and 2 Pet 1:1.

Remarkably, three of these seven involve the construction article-noun-kaiv-noun (TSKS [“‘the’-substantive-kaiv-substantive”]) in the very assertion itself (2 Thess 1:12; Titus 2:13; 2 Pet 1:1). Occasionally, Acts 20:28; Gal 2:20; Eph 5:5; Col 2:2; 1 John 5:20; and Jude 4 are also listed as explicit texts—and these, too, involve the same syntactical form.5 This is where Granville Sharp enters the picture. Sharp developed a grammatical principle in which he discussed the semantics of this very construction. He then applied his “rule” to several christologically significant texts and argued that the construction could only be interpreted as affirming the deity of Christ.
http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=1496

In order to defend Graville Sharp, one must totally ignore the many Scriptures that tell us God is one, not three, redefine words like "echad" and force "elohiym" to mean God is a plurality. Deuteronomy 6:4 totally destroys this interpretation of "elohiym" as do these:

Exodus 22:20
20 He that sacrificeth unto any god, save unto the LORD only, he shall be utterly destroyed.
KJV
Deuteronomy 32:39
39 See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god with me: I kill, and I make alive; I wound, and I heal: neither is there any that can deliver out of my hand.
KJV
Judges 6:31
31 And Joash said unto all that stood against him, Will ye plead for Baal? will ye save him? he that will plead for him, let him be put to death whilst it is yet morning: if he be a god, let him plead for himself, because one hath cast down his altar.
KJV
Judges 8:33
33 And it came to pass, as soon as Gideon was dead, that the children of Israel turned again, and went a whoring after Baalim, and made Baal-berith their god.
KJV
Judges 9:27
27 And they went out into the fields, and gathered their vineyards, and trode the grapes, and made merry, and went into the house of their god, and did eat and drink, and cursed Abimelech.
KJV
Judges 11:24
24 Wilt not thou possess that which Chemosh thy god giveth thee to possess? So whomsoever the LORD our God shall drive out from before us, them will we possess.
KJV
Judges 16:23
23 Then the lords of the Philistines gathered them together for to offer a great sacrifice unto Dagon their god, and to rejoice: for they said, Our god hath delivered Samson our enemy into our hand.
KJV
Judges 16:24
24 And when the people saw him, they praised their god: for they said, Our god hath delivered into our hands our enemy, and the destroyer of our country, which slew many of us.
KJV
1 Samuel 5:7
7 And when the men of Ashdod saw that it was so, they said, The ark of the God of Israel shall not abide with us: for his hand is sore upon us, and upon Dagon our god.
KJV
1 Kings 11:33
33 Because that they have forsaken me, and have worshipped Ashtoreth the goddess of the Zidonians, Chemosh the god of the Moabites, and Milcom the god of the children of Ammon, and have not walked in my ways, to do that which is right in mine eyes, and to keep my statutes and my judgments, as did David his father.
KJV
1 Kings 18:27
27 And it came to pass at noon, that Elijah mocked them, and said, Cry aloud: for he is a god; either he is talking, or he is pursuing, or he is in a journey, or peradventure he sleepeth, and must be awaked.
KJV
2 Kings 1:2
2 And Ahaziah fell down through a lattice in his upper chamber that was in Samaria, and was sick: and he sent messengers, and said unto them, Go, inquire of Baal-zebub the god of Ekron whether I shall recover of this disease.
KJV
2 Kings 1:3
3 But the angel of the LORD said to Elijah the Tishbite, Arise, go up to meet the messengers of the king of Samaria, and say unto them, Is it not because there is not a God in Israel, that ye go to inquire of Baal-zebub the god of Ekron?
KJV
2 Kings 1:16
16 And he said unto him, Thus saith the LORD, Forasmuch as thou hast sent messengers to inquire of Baal-zebub the god of Ekron, is it not because there is no God in Israel to inquire of his word? therefore thou shalt not come down off that bed on which thou art gone up, but shalt surely die.
KJV
2 Kings 19:37
37 And it came to pass, as he was worshipping in the house of Nisroch his god, that Adrammelech and Sharezer his sons smote him with the sword: and they escaped into the land of Armenia. And Esar-haddon his son reigned in his stead.
KJV
2 Chronicles 32:15
15 Now therefore let not Hezekiah deceive you, nor persuade you on this manner, neither yet believe him: for no god of any nation or kingdom was able to deliver his people out of mine hand, and out of the hand of my fathers: how much less shall your God deliver you out of mine hand?
KJV
2 Chronicles 32:21
21 And the LORD sent an angel, which cut off all the mighty men of valour, and the leaders and captains in the camp of the king of Assyria. So he returned with shame of face to his own land. And when he was come into the house of his god, they that came forth of his own bowels slew him there with the sword.
KJV
Isaiah 37:38
38 And it came to pass, as he was worshipping in the house of Nisroch his god, that Adrammelech and Sharezer his sons smote him with the sword; and they escaped into the land of Armenia: and Esar-haddon his son reigned in his stead.
KJV
Daniel 1:2
2 And the Lord gave Jehoiakim king of Judah into his hand, with part of the vessels of the house of God: which he carried into the land of Shinar to the house of his god; and he brought the vessels into the treasure house of his god.
KJV
Daniel 11:36
36 And the king shall do according to his will; and he shall exalt himself, and magnify himself above every god, and shall speak marvellous things against the God of gods, and shall prosper till the indignation be accomplished: for that that is determined shall be done.
KJV
Daniel 11:37
37 Neither shall he regard the God of his fathers, nor the desire of women, nor regard any god: for he shall magnify himself above all.
KJV
Daniel 11:38
38 But in his estate shall he honour the God of forces: and a god whom his fathers knew not shall he honour with gold, and silver, and with precious stones, and pleasant things.
KJV
Daniel 11:39
39 Thus shall he do in the most strong holds with a strange god, whom he shall acknowledge and increase with glory: and he shall cause them to rule over many, and shall divide the land for gain.
KJV
Hosea 13:4
4 Yet I am the LORD thy God from the land of Egypt, and thou shalt know no god but me: for there is no saviour beside me.
KJV
Amos 5:26
26 But ye have borne the tabernacle of your Moloch and Chiun your images, the star of your god, which ye made to yourselves.
KJV
Amos 8:14
14 They that swear by the sin of Samaria, and say, Thy god, O Dan, liveth; and, The manner of Beer-sheba liveth; even they shall fall, and never rise up again.
KJV
Jonah 1:5
5 Then the mariners were afraid, and cried every man unto his god, and cast forth the wares that were in the ship into the sea, to lighten it of them. But Jonah was gone down into the sides of the ship; and he lay, and was fast asleep.
KJV
Micah 4:5
5 For all people will walk every one in the name of his god, and we will walk in the name of the LORD our God for ever and ever.
KJV
Habakkuk 1:11
11 Then shall his mind change, and he shall pass over, and offend, imputing this his power unto his god.
KJV

Now back to your Granville Sharp rule:
http://www.biblicalunitarian.com/module ... ge&pid=126

So the question we must ask ourselves is did Peter and Paul believe Jesus is God? The answer based on what they wrote (without interpreting what they wrote) is no. Peter and Paul both taught Jesus was and is a man who was highly exalted by God, which agrees with the Messianic prophesies.

Five verses from 2 Peter are used to show Granville Sharp's rule is correct.

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

2 Peter 1:11
11 for in this way the entrance into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ will be abundantly supplied to you.
NAS

2 Peter 2:19-20
20 For if after they have escaped the defilements of the world by the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and are overcome, the last state has become worse for them than the first.
NAS

2 Peter 3:2
2 that you should remember the words spoken beforehand by the holy prophets and the commandment of the Lord and Savior spoken by your apostles.
NAS

2 Peter 3:17-18
18 but grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To Him be the glory, both now and to the day of eternity. Amen.
NAS

However, if Peter taught Jesus is God then why not refer to Jesus as God in all 5 verses? Jesus is our Lord and is our Savior because God appointed Jesus our Savior, not because Jesus is God.

Acts 5:31-32
31 "He is the one whom God exalted to His right hand as a Prince and a Savior, to grant repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins. 32 "And we are witnesses of these things; and so is the Holy Spirit, whom God has given to those who obey Him." NAS

Also Paul wrote:
1 Timothy 1:1-2
1:1 Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus according to the commandment of God our Savior, and of Christ Jesus, who is our hope; 2 to Timothy, my true child in the faith: Grace, mercy and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord. NAS

Here Paul makes a distinction between God our Savior and Jesus Christ.

Titus 1:1-4
1:1 Paul, a bond-servant of God, and an apostle of Jesus Christ, for the faith of those chosen of God and the knowledge of the truth which is according to godliness, 2 in the hope of eternal life, which God, who cannot lie, promised long ages ago, 3 but at the proper time manifested, even His word, in the proclamation with which I was entrusted according to the commandment of God our Savior; 4 to Titus, my true child in a common faith: Grace and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Savior. NAS

Here as in 1 Corinthians 8:6 Paul refers to the Father as God, but does not refer to Jesus as God, which also agrees witht the OT Scriptures that equate Yehovah with the Father as being only one.

Now go back to 2 Peter 1:1 and read that one verse in its full context.

2 Peter 1:1-3
1:1 Simon Peter, a bond-servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, to those who have received a faith of the same kind as ours, by the righteousness of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ: 2 Grace and peace be multiplied to you in the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord; 3 seeing that His divine power has granted to us everything pertaining to life and godliness, through the true knowledge of Him who called us by His own glory and excellence. NAS

Who called us by His own glory and excellence? God! To what are we called? The same faith as Peter had, which is that Jesus was a man, not God, which is what Peter clearly preached in Acts 2.

[absolutetruth]

Aineo wrote:

Show me in 2 Peter 1:20-21 that Peter wrote we should not interpet God's word "wrongly". The fact is he did not.

show me where i said that please. what i ACTUALLY said, was that we're not supposed to interpret scripture wrongly. if you disagree with that, then you're saying it's okay to interpret scripture wrongly, which is foolish. stop attacking strawmen.

and that's my point. Peter isn't really talking about "interpretation" of scripture. he's talking about WHERE scripture comes from. it comes from God, not man. the FACT IS, we ALL HAVE TO INTERPRET SCRIPTURE. whether rightly, or wrongly. i prefer rightly. the point i'm making is that since NONE OF US wrote what is contained in the NT, the only people that can know with 100% accuracy what was written (i.e. NOT having to interpret it) would be it's human authors and God Himself. the rest of us didn't write the words so can only interpret what they mean. it's hard to believe that you don't understand that.

The people who have decided to interpret Scripture are those who refuse to take God as His word, like you when you interpret "one" to mean a compound unity, a concept that can be shown to be false based on common usage of the word "one".

are you claiming to be God? are you claiming to be the disciples and apostles that wrote the NT? if you deny either of those claims then you HAVE to interpret scripture. you aren't the one who wrote it.

One herd is just that, one herd composed of many animals.

exactly my point. you need to QUALIFY. in WHAT WAY is something one, and in what way is it more than one. simple logic that you can't seem to grasp.

The plurality is found in the word "herd" not the word "one". The same is true of "one church". The "church" is composed of all true believers.

this exactly what i'm saying! in one sense it's one, and in another it's more than one. same with God. you're PROVING what i'm saying.

Your Hebrews proof text tells us the Son was "made", not that the Son preexisted with God and is God, that again is a "personal interpretation". The same is true of Philippians 2:6:

it's hard to believe that you're serious. cross-reference the Hebrews passage with Rev 1:7-8; 17-18 and you'll see that Christ is the Alpha and Omega. Everlasting. therefore the word "made" is misinterpreted by you (not to mention what refuted by what Reaper posted).

The fact is the Lord was created as God's servant as I have adequately demonstrated with the Messianic prophesies that you disagree with based on your own personal interpretation of the Bible.

hey, do me a favor, alright? don't accuse me of things i didn't say and have never said. i don't disagree with any Messianic prophecies (except Proverbs 8 which ISN'T speaking of Christ but of the personification of Wisdom). STOP ATTACKING STRAWMEN!

Why should I accept the interpretation of a man who denies the Bible is true and then interprets "one" to mean a compound unity when this concept has been rejected by most Trinitarians?

MORE STRAWMEN??? show me where i deny the Bible??? i'd like to know.

Your proof texts tell us the Son was made, not that the Son preexisted creation as God.

not at all. read again.

like i said before. you need to open your eyes and face reality. none of what you're saying is sustainable and is being "defended" by desparate attemepts.

and you still didn't answer the other question i asked you. thanks a lot.

[Aineo]

So what you are trying to convince me of is that in order to understand an English translation of the Bible we have to interpret what words like "one" really mean? In other words you deny that "one" is a cardinal number that indicates a single unit? Enron got in trouble for playing around with numbers and inventing an accounting system that resulted in the largest bankruptcy in American history. "Elohiym" is not a compound unity as I demonstrated with all the Scriptures I posted where "elohiym" is translated "god". God Himself defined "elohiym" for us in Deuteronomy 6:4.

Also you appeal to marriage is a bit far fetched since Scripture tells us that two become one flesh, but David had 9 wives. So are you trying to tell me that 10 people are one flesh? Or how about Solomon who had 300 wives? Also this unity of marriage can be disolved by divorce or death and is therefore an artificial unity that exists only in our material world. Jesus told us that in heaven there will be no marriage or giving in marriage.

As to how you deny Scripture, since you (as do Catholics) ignore and reject the plain language meaning of words and Scriptures that prove their doctrines to be false you reject the authority of God's word. God told us that the Son was born of a woman but does not tell us that the Son is part of a Godhead. God spoke creation into existence and it was God's power that became flesh. Peter addresses the "preexistence" of the Lord in Acts 2.

As to all your other personal interpretations I have addressed them on other threads. None of the apostles taught that Jesus is God. They taught that Jesus is a man who was highly exalted by God to be our Prince and Savior, that God appointed His created Son as His heir and that the Son is the exact representation of God's nature, but that the Son did not and does not have the attributes of God. In fact Jesus Himself told us that He said and did what the Father told Him to say and do.

No, I am not claiming to be God anymore than Jesus claimed to be God. Now, no matter how you try to twist God's word and no matter how many Scriptures you decide to ignore the fact is Scripture tells us that Jesus is a man, who learned obedience by suffering and had a nature like ours and was tempted in all ways as we are yet without sin. Jesus is the best role model for any human being since He emptied Himself of human pride and His human ego and took on the form of a servant to the glory of God the Father, who BTW is Yehovah the one and only true God.

[absolutetruth]

Aineo wrote:

So what you are trying to convince me of is that in order to understand an English translation of the Bible we have to interpret what words like "one" really mean?

as i've clearly shown you already (which you have NO answer to) is that we have to interpret scripture. so the easy answer to your question is "yes". we DO have to interpret what scripture says. and if you're challenging me with the word "one", then i wonder how you interpret the words "Alpha and Omega" referring to Jesus in Revelations. you do the same things you accuse me of.

In other words you deny that "one" is a cardinal number that indicates a single unit?

not at all. clearly you don't understand this issue and are making an attempt at obfuscation, just like most Jehovah's Witnesses. The "one" itself IS one. i'm not denying that. but just because something is under that category of "one", doesn't mean that it has to be a singularity. like i said, "One" community. there's "one" in one sense, and more than "one" in another sense.

Enron got in trouble for playing around with numbers and inventing an accounting system that resulted in the largest bankruptcy in American history.

and many Jehovah's Witnesses have made an even worse mistake (which is the same mistake that you're makin') by denying the Divinity of Jesus. your silly little analogies are unimpressive.

"Elohiym" is not a compound unity as I demonstrated with all the Scriptures I posted where "elohiym" is translated "god". God Himself defined "elohiym" for us in Deuteronomy 6:4.

and none of that helps your case because you're STILL misunderstanding the position. you're arguing against a strawman.

Also you appeal to marriage is a bit far fetched since Scripture tells us that two become one flesh, but David had 9 wives. So are you trying to tell me that 10 people are one flesh?

first, i said that's how GOD views it. secondly, the fact that David had 9 wives demonstrates God's reasoning in this for us. how can you be "one flesh" with someone, if you're already "one flesh" with someone else. marriage to one person is good, and multiple is not. i could ask you the same question: "how could David be 'one flesh' with 9 wives?"

Or how about Solomon who had 300 wives? Also this unity of marriage can be disolved by divorce or death and is therefore an artificial unity that exists only in our material world. Jesus told us that in heaven there will be no marriage or giving in marriage.

correct. but this moves us neither HERE NOR THERE. you don't understand the position, so all these arguments that you're making are wrongheaded. according to God, in a married couple there's "one flesh" and yet two people. how do you explain that?

As to how you deny Scripture, since you (as do Catholics) ignore and reject the plain language meaning of words and Scriptures that prove their doctrines to be false you reject the authority of God's word.

you go too far with that. i deny scripture as much as you deny it. we both affirm it and hold it above all else, the only difference being that you interpret it one way, and i another. while your position is demonstrably false, mine is demonstrably true. so don't come with any more nonsense about how i deny scripture. i don't, and you know i don't. just like you don't.

God told us that the Son was born of a woman but does not tell us that the Son is part of a Godhead.

yeah it does (John 10:30).

God spoke creation into existence and it was God's power that became flesh. Peter addresses the "preexistence" of the Lord in Acts 2.

really? because in John 1:1 we see that the Word was with God (distinct from Him), and that He WAS God. so how could God's "power" be distinct from Him if it's one of His infinite attributes? and conversely, how could God's "power" BE God?

As to all your other personal interpretations I have addressed them on other threads. None of the apostles taught that Jesus is God. They taught that Jesus is a man who was highly exalted by God to be our Prince and Savior, that God appointed His created Son as His heir and that the Son is the exact representation of God's nature, but that the Son did not and does not have the attributes of God. In fact Jesus Himself told us that He said and did what the Father told Him to say and do.

yes they most certainly do, in plain terms. and Jesus doing what the Father told Him does not deny His Divinity. you sound like a Muslim.

No, I am not claiming to be God anymore than Jesus claimed to be God. Now, no matter how you try to twist God's word and no matter how many Scriptures you decide to ignore the fact is Scripture tells us that Jesus is a man,

isn't that interesting. notice how you completely ignored what i was going after with that argument. clearly you saw the problem with it and refused to answer it. my point was that since you are not God, and you're not the one who wrote the NT, then you HAVE to interpret it. you can no more NOT interpret the NT, than you can NOT interpret the poems of a poet, or even the words that i'm saying here.

who learned obedience by suffering and had a nature like ours and was tempted in all ways as we are yet without sin. Jesus is the best role model for any human being since He emptied Himself of human pride and His human ego and took on the form of a servant to the glory of God the Father, who BTW is Yehovah the one and only true God.

you haven't answered most of my objections, and it's clear that you can't. you're grasping for straws and you need to open your eyes and see the Truth.

[Aineo]

I have posted many Scriptures that show your interpretation is false. Jesus never claimed to be God and said that there is only one true God - the Father.

Now, lets look are Revelation and who is "Alpha and Omega".

Revelation 1:8

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

Revelation 21:4-6
5 And He who sits on the throne said, "Behold, I am making all things new." And He said, "Write, for these words are faithful and true." 6 And He said to me, "It is done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end.
NAS

Revelation 22:10-14

10 And he said to me, "Do not seal up the words of the prophecy of this book, for the time is near. 11 "Let the one who does wrong, still do wrong; and let the one who is filthy, still be filthy; and let the one who is righteous, still practice righteousness; and let the one who is holy, still keep himself holy." 12 "Behold, I am coming quickly, and My reward is with Me, to render to every man according to what he has done. 13 "I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end." NAS

The Alpha and the Omega is Yehovah not Jesus. John never refers to Jesus as the Lord God and neither does any other Bible author. So, I reject your "interpretation".

As to comparing what I believe with what Muslims and JW's believe you are only showing your ignorance of what both religions believe about Jesus compared to what I believe.

The fact you have refused to actually address those Scriptures that show your "intepretation" is wrong only shows your attitude is more cultish than correct. "Elohiym" does not indicate a compound unity as God's word clearly shows to those who are willing to take God at His word. Also your continued insistance that "one flesh", which is only a temporary union disolved by death, supports the Trinity is ludicrous.

Now, since you want to believe that we have to interpret Scripture then I reject your interpretation based on the whole word of God and every word that procedes from the mouth of God who tells us that He is one, not three. I also reject your interpretation since Paul wrote there is but one God, the Father and Jesus said the Father is the only true God.

Now, since I write my posts you are not in a position to interpret my posts. I posted that you and Catholics ignore and reject the plain meaning of words. I did not post you reject Scripture. If your reply to me is how you "interpret" plain English then your cognative ability is in question.

[absolutetruth]

Aineo wrote:

I have posted many Scriptures that show your interpretation is false. Jesus never claimed to be God and said that there is only one true God - the Father.

John 10:30
I and the Father are one.

John 10:33
"We are not stoning you for any of these," replied the Jews, "but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God."

Now, lets look are Revelation and who is "Alpha and Omega".

Revelation 1:8

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

Revelation 21:4-6
5 And He who sits on the throne said, "Behold, I am making all things new." And He said, "Write, for these words are faithful and true." 6 And He said to me, "It is done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end.
NAS

Revelation 22:10-14

10 And he said to me, "Do not seal up the words of the prophecy of this book, for the time is near. 11 "Let the one who does wrong, still do wrong; and let the one who is filthy, still be filthy; and let the one who is righteous, still practice righteousness; and let the one who is holy, still keep himself holy." 12 "Behold, I am coming quickly, and My reward is with Me, to render to every man according to what he has done. 13 "I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end." NAS

The Alpha and the Omega is Yehovah not Jesus. John never refers to Jesus as the Lord God and neither does any other Bible author. So, I reject your "interpretation".

so you're saying that verse 7 isn't Jesus?:

Look, he is coming with the clouds,
and every eye will see him,
even those who pierced him;
and all the peoples of the earth will mourn because of him. So shall it be! Amen.

and if you agree that verse 7 is Jesus, then why is not verse 8 Jesus as well? clearly the Father wasn't "pierced". but then again, in verses 17-18 we see:

When I saw him, I fell at his feet as though dead. Then he placed his right hand on me and said: "Do not be afraid. I am the First and the Last. 18I am the Living One; I was dead, and behold I am alive for ever and ever! And I hold the keys of death and Hades.

it's clear that ALL of these passages are clearly referring to Jesus. to conclude anything else is pure desparation.

As to comparing what I believe with what Muslims and JW's believe you are only showing your ignorance of what both religions believe about Jesus compared to what I believe.

as a matter of fact, i'm very familiar with both of these religions (especially JW now after talking to you, you guys have the same false arguments, so i thank you for that). and if you had actually READ what i wrote, you'd see that i didn't say that you guys BELIEVED the same things, only that you SOUNDED like them. what they believe about Jesus compared to you? Muslims don't believe in Him the way we do, but they do believe He was created. i was just saying that your arguments are similar, which is why you sound like one. but the JWs' view of Jesus is nearly identical to yours. they may have some other false beliefs, but some of the more intelligent JWs believe nearly exactly what you do regarding Jesus. maybe YOU don't understand very well what the JWs believe about Jesus.

The fact you have refused to actually address those Scriptures that show your "intepretation" is wrong only shows your attitude is more cultish than correct.

you can keep sayin' that all you want. i've addressed EVERYTHING you've said to me, and yet, you haven't done the same to me. you didn't even answer everything i just asked you!

"Elohiym" does not indicate a compound unity as God's word clearly shows to those who are willing to take God at His word. Also your continued insistance that "one flesh", which is only a temporary union disolved by death, supports the Trinity is ludicrous.

why not? you keep charging that the verse that says "Is it not written in your laws, 'I have said that ye are like gods'" uses the word "elohiym". is THAT not compound?

you're horribly inconsistent. and since you keep misunderstanding my application of the verse "one flesh", it's no wonder you're running into confusion. i'm not talking about the eternal state of that union of man and wife. i'm talking about the TERMS USED TO DESCRIBE THEIR STATE HERE ON EARTH. it's talking about ONE FLESH, and yet TWO PEOPLE are involved in that term. whether they be separated or not later by death or whatever is NUGATORY. for this TEMPORARY existence, the couple is TWO, and yet ONE. you can't escape that. calling it ludicrous is not good enough. argue better. think more clearly.

Now, since you want to believe that we have to interpret Scripture then I reject your interpretation based on the whole word of God and every word that procedes from the mouth of God who tells us that He is one, not three. I also reject your interpretation since Paul wrote there is but one God, the Father and Jesus said the Father is the only true God.

good. so you finally agree that we ALL interpret Scripture. don't you wonder what else you might be wrong about?

Now, since I write my posts you are not in a position to interpret my posts.

i'm glad you realize that. i can't wrongly interpret your posts because you're the one that writes them. but if i get the interpretation right, i doubt you would still reserve that same dissatisfaction with my understanding of what you're saying. same with the Bible. the only way i could know what you mean by something is to have you explain it to me, or BE you. much of what you say proves my points. it's like me and you are arguing against you.

I posted that you and Catholics ignore and reject the plain meaning of words. I did not post you reject Scripture.

you my friend are a liar. what you said was:

As to how you deny Scripture

then you tried to qualify it by saying:

since you (as do Catholics) ignore and reject the plain language meaning of words and Scriptures that prove their doctrines to be false you reject the authority of God's word.

you know good and well i don't do that, and have adequately responded to all that you've said.

If your reply to me is how you "interpret" plain English then your cognative ability is in question.

your belief system is in question, and you haven't been able to demonstrate anything other than a heresy that was rejected early on in church history.

[Aineo]

You have not addressed every thing I have posted. Go back to the Messianic Prophesies vs. Trinity thread where you rejected that those Scriptures apply to Christ, this is not addressing what I post, it is refusing to address Scripture.

Now, lets put Revelation 1:7 in context, something you never do.

Revelation 1:1-8
1:1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show to His bond-servants, the things which must shortly take place; and He sent and communicated it by His angel to His bond-servant John, 2 who bore witness to the word of God and to the testimony of Jesus Christ, even to all that he saw. 3 Blessed is he who reads and those who hear the words of the prophecy, and heed the things which are written in it; for the time is near.

4 John to the seven churches that are in Asia: Grace to you and peace, from Him who is and who was and who is to come; and from the seven Spirits who are before His throne; 5 and from Jesus Christ, the faithful witness, the first-born of the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth. To Him who loves us, and released us from our sins by His blood, 6 and He has made us to be a kingdom, priests to His God and Father; to Him be the glory and the dominion forever and ever. Amen. 7 Behold, He is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see Him, even those who pierced Him; and all the tribes of the earth will mourn over Him. Even so. Amen.

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

God gave John the visions of Revelation. Vs. 4-7 apply to the Lord, vs. 8 applies to God as do all the other uses of Alpha and Omega. Jesus is the first and the last in God's plan for the redemption of mankind.

Elohiym is an irregular Hebrew noun and can be both plural and singular. If you took the time to actually read the Scriptures I posted you would have read the "elohiym" is not always plural. BTW, I have not denied that elohiym can be a plural noun. What I have shown you is that elohiym does not indicate a compound unity.

As to JW's and Islam the only similarity to what they believe and what I believe involves there is only one God, the Father. And you can deny God's word all you want but Jesus tells us this in John 17:3. Jesus did not preexist creation, God's word, which is God's creative power and became flesh preexisted creation.

Now, when are you going to discuss Peter's sermon in Acts 2?

[absolutetruth]

Aineo wrote:

You have not addressed every thing I have posted. Go back to the Messianic Prophesies vs. Trinity thread where you rejected that those Scriptures apply to Christ, this is not addressing what I post, it is refusing to address Scripture.

I told you several times already. I don't disagree with the Messianic Prophecies (except Proverbs 8 which is not talking of Christ). So stop sayin' that. I agree with the messianic prophecies. Now that we've got that cleared up finally, maybe we can move forward.

Now, lets put Revelation 1:7 in context, something you never do.

oh, come now. let's not be silly here.

Revelation 1:1-8
1:1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show to His bond-servants, the things which must shortly take place; and He sent and communicated it by His angel to His bond-servant John, 2 who bore witness to the word of God and to the testimony of Jesus Christ, even to all that he saw. 3 Blessed is he who reads and those who hear the words of the prophecy, and heed the things which are written in it; for the time is near.

4 John to the seven churches that are in Asia: Grace to you and peace, from Him who is and who was and who is to come; and from the seven Spirits who are before His throne; 5 and from Jesus Christ, the faithful witness, the first-born of the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth. To Him who loves us, and released us from our sins by His blood, 6 and He has made us to be a kingdom, priests to His God and Father; to Him be the glory and the dominion forever and ever. Amen. 7 Behold, He is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see Him, even those who pierced Him; and all the tribes of the earth will mourn over Him. Even so. Amen.

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

God gave John the visions of Revelation. Vs. 4-7 apply to the Lord, vs. 8 applies to God as do all the other uses of Alpha and Omega. Jesus is the first and the last in God's plan for the redemption of mankind.

and yet we see in verses 10-11:

I was in the Spirit on the Lord’s Day, and I heard behind me a loud voice, as of a trumpet, 11 saying, “I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last,” and, “What you see, write in a book and send it to the seven churches which are in Asia: to Ephesus, to Smyrna, to Pergamos, to Thyatira, to Sardis, to Philadelphia, and to Laodicea.”

John hears a voice say those words (that you said only God uses), and when he turns around to see who it is, verses 12-18 explain who is speaking:

12 Then I turned to see the voice that spoke with me. And having turned I saw seven golden lampstands, 13 and in the midst of the seven lampstands One like the Son of Man, clothed with a garment down to the feet and girded about the chest with a golden band. 14 His head and hair were white like wool, as white as snow, and His eyes like a flame of fire; 15 His feet were like fine brass, as if refined in a furnace, and His voice as the sound of many waters; 16 He had in His right hand seven stars, out of His mouth went a sharp two-edged sword, and His countenance was like the sun shining in its strength. 17 And when I saw Him, I fell at His feet as dead. But He laid His right hand on me, saying to me, “Do not be afraid; I am the First and the Last. 18 I am He who lives, and was dead, and behold, I am alive forevermore. Amen. And I have the keys of Hades and of Death.

on the basis of these clear verses, you must concede your stance.

This also makes perfect sense with Zechariah 12:10:

10 “And I will pour on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem the Spirit of grace and supplication; then they will look on Me whom they pierced. Yes, they will mourn for Him as one mourns for his only son, and grieve for Him as one grieves for a firstborn.

Jesus was "pierced", not the Father. But yet here God is saying "Me, whom they have pierced."

Elohiym is an irregular Hebrew noun and can be both plural and singular. If you took the time to actually read the Scriptures I posted you would have read the "elohiym" is not always plural. BTW, I have not denied that elohiym can be a plural noun. What I have shown you is that elohiym does not indicate a compound unity.

i'm tired of your attempts at appealing to this. one is one, we agree. saying that "it does not indicate a compound unity" is just something that you're saying on the basis of what you already believe. It could mean compound if it's qualified. However, when we accept what you say we run into problems. For instance, "One Body" does not mean a compound unity either, UNLESS IT'S QUALIFIED, however we see in these verses:

1 Corinthians 12:12
For as the body is one and has many members, but all the members of that one body, being many, are one body, so also is Christ.

1 Corinthians 12:20
But now indeed there are many members, yet one body.

"One Body" doesn't mean a compound unity, BUT IT DOES HERE. which is what i'm saying. while Elohiym doesn't necessarily mean "Compound Unity", if it's QUALIFIED, as clearly the Scriptures teach, then it most certainly can mean that. you fail to understand that.

As to JW's and Islam the only similarity to what they believe and what I believe involves there is only one God, the Father.

you guys use all the same verses and the same arguments, which is what i was saying.

And you can deny God's word all you want but Jesus tells us this in John 17:3. Jesus did not preexist creation, God's word, which is God's creative power and became flesh preexisted creation.

how is that saying that He didn't preexist the Creation???

Now, when are you going to discuss Peter's sermon in Acts 2?

let's see:

ok. what about it? Jesus became submissive to the will of the father. you're still stuck with the dilemma that Jesus claimed things that only God can claim. our position makes sense, because Jesus could become submissive to the will of the Father and still be one with Him. while clearly your position is blasphemy. because Isaiah says in 42:8:

I am the LORD, that is My name;
And My glory I will not give to another,
Nor My praise to carved images.

if you believe that it's ok to Honor the Son as the Father, and that you also accept this verse, but you deny that Christ is One with the Father, then you're saying that God says to give honor and glory to someone else other than Him. how does that make sense?

[Aineo]

Aineo wrote:

You have not addressed every thing I have posted. Go back to the Messianic Prophesies vs. Trinity thread where you rejected that those Scriptures apply to Christ, this is not addressing what I post, it is refusing to address Scripture.

I told you several times already. I don't disagree with the Messianic Prophecies (except Proverbs 8 which is not talking of Christ). So stop sayin' that. I agree with the messianic prophecies. Now that we've got that cleared up finally, maybe we can move forward.

I quoted your post from the Messianic Prophesies vs. Trinity thread where you posted you reject those prophesies as applying to the Lord. You are contradicting yourself.

and yet we see in verses 10-11:

I was in the Spirit on the Lord’s Day, and [b]I heard behind me a loud voice, as of a trumpet, 11 saying, “I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last,” and, “What you see, write in a book and send it to the seven churches which are in Asia: to Ephesus, to Smyrna, to Pergamos, to Thyatira, to Sardis, to Philadelphia, and to Laodicea.”

John hears a voice say those words (that you said only God uses), and when he turns around to see who it is, verses 12-18 explain who is speaking:

12 Then I turned to see the voice that spoke with me. And having turned I saw seven golden lampstands, 13 and in the midst of the seven lampstands One like the Son of Man, clothed with a garment down to the feet and girded about the chest with a golden band. 14 His head and hair were white like wool, as white as snow, and His eyes like a flame of fire; 15 His feet were like fine brass, as if refined in a furnace, and His voice as the sound of many waters; 16 He had in His right hand seven stars, out of His mouth went a sharp two-edged sword, and His countenance was like the sun shining in its strength. 17 And when I saw Him, I fell at His feet as dead. But He laid His right hand on me, saying to me, “Do not be afraid; I am the First and the Last. 18 I am He who lives, and was dead, and behold, I am alive forevermore. Amen. And I have the keys of Hades and of Death.

on the basis of these clear verses, you must concede your stance.

Like I posted above you never put Scripture in context. Who gave John the vision? God through His servant, which is found in these verses:

Revelation 1:1-2
1:1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show to His bond-servants, the things which must shortly take place; and He sent and communicated it by His angel to His bond-servant John, 2 who bore witness to the word of God and to the testimony of Jesus Christ, even to all that he saw. NAS

The servant who God used to give John the vision was the Lord who is speaking in verses 11 and 17-20.

As to you getting tired of my showing you that elohiym never refers to a compound unity that is your problem. “Elohiym” is an irregular Hebrew noun and is never used in the OT to indicate a compound unity. Your appeal to the Greek phrase “one church” is begging the question since the word “church” is the translation of the Greek “ekklesia”.

NT:1577

ekkleesia, ekklesias, hee

a gathering of citizens called out from their homes into some public place; an assembly

1. an assembly of the people convened at the public place of council for the purpose of deliberating: Acts 19:39
2. the assembly of the Israelites, Acts 7:38; Hebrews 2:12
3. any gathering or throng of men assembled by chance or tumultuously: Acts 19:32,41
4. in the Christian sense,
a. an assembly of Christians gathered for worship: 1 Corinthians 14:19,35
b. a company of Christians,

aa. those who anywhere, in city or village, constitute such a company and are united into one body: Acts 5:11

bb. the whole body of Christians scattered throughout the earth; Matthew 16:18

cc. the name is transferred to the assembly of faithful Christians already dead and received into heaven: Hebrews 12:23
(from Thayer's Greek Lexicon, Electronic Database. Copyright (c) 2000 by Biblesoft)

As to JW's and Islam the only similarity to what they believe and what I believe involves there is only one God, the Father.

you guys use all the same verses and the same arguments, which is what i was saying.

And if you take the time to read Catholic apologists you use the same tactics they use to defend their Marian doctrines, transubstantiation, purgatory, and etc. Catholicism takes Scripture out of context, appeals to non-canonical books, and Greek philosophy. Most cults and false religions do get some concepts correct, what make them false religions and cults is they do not get it all correct.

And you can deny God's word all you want but Jesus tells us this in John 17:3. Jesus did not preexist creation, God's word, which is God's creative power and became flesh preexisted creation.

how is that saying that He didn't preexist the Creation???

Your understanding of what I have posted in skewed by how you interpret what I post. My point is there is only one God, which is what Jesus said in John 17:3. The Son preexisted creation as God’s predetermined plan for mankind, which is what Peter said in Acts 2.

Jesus rightly claimed to be the Son of God, Jesus never claimed to have the attributes of God. In fact the Lord plainly states He is not omniscient.

Matthew 24:36
36 "But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone. NAS

Jesus never states He has God’s glory, what Jesus said is that He had glory with the Father, not that He had the Father’s glory so your appeal to Isaiah is begging the question.

As to the Son receiving honor that properly belongs to the Father, since Jesus is the only begotten Son of the Father and His heir then in accordance with Hebrew custom and the Law of Agency the eldest Son is due the same honor as His Father.

The foundation of Christianity is the apostles and the prophets, all of whom were Jews. In order to understand the Bible one must understand the foundation of the Bible. Greek philosophy is the antithesis of our Hebraic roots. As to my stance being blasphemy, I can say the same thing about the Trinity since God has made it clear He is the only true God and that He is not a man or the son of man. Jesus was and remains a man and the Son of Man as well as being the only begotten Son of God.

[Believer]

Your understanding of what I have posted in skewed by how you interpret what I post. My point is there is only one God, which is what Jesus said in John 17:3. The Son preexisted creation as God’s predetermined plan for mankind, which is what Peter said in Acts 2.

The Son is an actual person, one in being with the Father, and is called by the Father, "God".

Hebrews 1:1-10
In times past, God spoke in partial and various ways to our ancestors through the prophets;
in these last days, he spoke to us through a son, whom he made heir of all things and through whom he created the universe,
3 who is the refulgence of his glory, the very imprint of his being, and who sustains all things by his mighty word. When he had accomplished purification from sins, he took his seat at the right hand of the Majesty on high,
4 as far superior to the angels as the name he has inherited is more excellent than theirs.
5 For to which of the angels did God ever say: "You are my son; this day I have begotten you"? Or again: "I will be a father to him, and he shall be a son to me"?
6 And again, when he leads the first-born into the world, he says: "Let all the angels of God worship him."
7 Of the angels he says: "He makes his angels winds and his ministers a fiery flame";
8 but of the Son: "Your throne, O God, stands forever and ever; and a righteous scepter is the scepter of your kingdom.
9 You loved justice and hated wickedness; therefore God, your God, anointed you with the oil of gladness above your companions";
10 and: "At the beginning, O Lord, you established the earth, and the heavens are the works of your hands.

Jesus never states He has God’s glory, what Jesus said is that He had glory with the Father, not that He had the Father’s glory so your appeal to Isaiah is begging the question.

Matthew 24:36
36 "But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone. NAS

All Jesus is saying in this verse is that the end of the world could happen at any time. It's a variable thing, it's not a set time. It all depends on how mankind will act in the future. When the Father turns to the Son and says "Now", that's the end of the world. That is based on us. We can ultimately postpone our fate by millenia if we stop our evil doing and turn to Jesus.

[Aineo]

God is omniscient, the Son by His own words is not or He would know the time He would return. We are one with the Father through faith in Jesus Christ. This fact does not make us god.

I think it was you who said that early authors did not always quote an entire statement when I showed you that your ECF's disagreed concerning the actual wording of Matthew 28:19, so why don't you check out the OT Scriptures quoted in Hebrews 1?

Hebrews 1:5
5 For to which of the angels did He ever say,

"Thou art My Son,
Today I have begotten Thee"? NAS

This is a partial quote from Psalms 2.

Psalms 2
1
Why are the nations in an uproar,
And the peoples devising a vain thing?
2 The kings of the earth take their stand,
And the rulers take counsel together
Against the LORD and against His
Anointed:
3 "Let us tear their fetters apart,
And cast away their cords from us!"
4 He who sits in the heavens laughs,
The Lord scoffs at them.
5 Then He will speak to them in His anger
And terrify them in His fury:
6 "But as for Me, I have installed My King
Upon Zion, My holy mountain."
7 "I will surely tell of the decree of the LORD:
He said to Me, 'Thou art My Son,
Today I have begotten Thee.
8 'Ask of Me, and I will surely give the nations as Thine inheritance,
And the very ends of the earth as Thy possession.
9 'Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron,
Thou shalt shatter them like earthenware.' "
10 Now therefore, O kings, show discernment;
Take warning, O judges of the earth.
11 Worship the LORD with reverence,
And rejoice with trembling.
12 Do homage to the Son, lest He become angry, and you perish in the way,
For His wrath may soon be kindled.
How blessed are all who take refuge in Him! NAS

Vs. 7 quotes Psalm 104, vs. 8 quotes Psalm 45, and etc. The Hebrews concerts to Christianity would have understood that the author of Hebrews was showing them Jesus had fulfilled the OT prophesies concerning the Messiah, who was to be a man from the seed of Eve and the seed of Abraham and is not God.

Did you read that article on John 1:1 I linked to on the other thread? If not then I suggest you read it, since it is a great apologetic on why John used the word "logos" in his gospel and is also the explanation of how a man born in the 1 B.C. is the word of God and how God created all that is created through Him.

[Believer]

God is omniscient, the Son by His own words is not or He would know the time He would return. We are one with the Father through faith in Jesus Christ. This fact does not make us god.

We both have an explanation for this.

Vs. 7 quotes Psalm 104, vs. 8 quotes Psalm 45, and etc. The Hebrews concerts to Christianity would have understood that the author of Hebrews was showing them Jesus had fulfilled the OT prophesies concerning the Messiah, who was to be a man from the seed of Eve and the seed of Abraham and is not God.

Then you tell me, if you are more spiritually enlightened than me, why the Father calls His Son "God" in Hebrews 1:8, or why the Son is a personality, not a concept. If He is a person and created the universe and is higher than angels, is called God, and if He is an exact representation of the Father in being, then His divine nature is God.

Did you read that article on John 1:1 I linked to on the other thread? If not then I suggest you read it, since it is a great apologetic on why John used the word "logos" in his gospel and is also the explanation of how a man born in the 1 B.C. is the word of God and how God created all that is created through Him.

If you read the first chapter of Hebrews among other places in scripture, the ideas presented in your site are not supported and are very unorthodox. The Son is clearly a personality, not a concept, whom it's stated is one in being with the Father. You're site is based on interpretations by men, who like you, have some unusual fear about excepting Jesus as Lord and God. If the Bible states that the Son is God, then I just don't see a point to that fear. If the Bible says the Son is God, and if the Nicene Creed is derived from scripture, how could it be pagan influenced?

[absolutetruth]

Aineo wrote:

I quoted your post from the Messianic Prophesies vs. Trinity thread where you posted you reject those prophesies as applying to the Lord. You are contradicting yourself.

how old are you? i think your memory may be failing you. very little of what you're saying is making sense anymore. you posted where i said i disagree with some "Trinitarians". AND??? if their ideas are wrong, then i reject them. simple as that. now that ties into what i JUST NOW SAID: "Proverbs 8 is not speaking of Christ". that's not rejecting a "Messianic Prophecy". that's rejecting what YOU and many other false thinkers call a "Messianic Prophecy". so please explain to me how i'm contradicting myself. is it because i'm saying that i don't reject the "Messianic Prophecies", and yet i reject Proverbs 8 as a "Messianic Prophecy"? it's only a contradiction if Proverbs 8 really IS a Messianic Prophecy. it's not, so there's no contradiction there. so put that argument AWAY. it's just wasting time.

Like I posted above you never put Scripture in context. Who gave John the vision? God through His servant, which is found in these verses:

sure i do. please stop your lying.

God gave John the vision. easy question.

what you ignore is that IN THE VISION Jesus calls Himself the Alpha and Omega, a title that YOU said only God has or uses for Himself. John turns around when he hears the voice and sees Christ. Who gave Him the vision is not the point here. the point is that IN THE VISION, Jesus is talking to John, and He calls Himself the Alpha and Omega.

the fact that God is giving the vision is even MORE evidence that Jesus is calling Himself the Alpha and Omega. Who's in the Vision? Jesus and John. this supports our belief. this clinches it. there's nothing else you can say here aside from sheer desparation. you said only the Father is called the Alpha and Omega. if Jesus uses that title for Himself, then you're wrong. He does here, so you're wrong.

The servant who God used to give John the vision was the Lord who is speaking in verses 11 and 17-20.

As to you getting tired of my showing you that elohiym never refers to a compound unity that is your problem. “Elohiym” is an irregular Hebrew noun and is never used in the OT to indicate a compound unity. Your appeal to the Greek phrase “one church” is begging the question since the word “church” is the translation of the Greek “ekklesia”.

dude, memory again man. where did i say "One Church"? i said "One Body". why don't you argue with what i ACTUALLY say, instead of what i DON'T say. stop settin' up strawmen. of course "Church" is compound. a church is an assembly or gathering of people. the word itself is compound. but the words "One Body" isn't necessarily compound, and neither is "One Flesh", but it is in Scripture. i wonder when you're actually gonna accept that and stop trying to find backdoors of escape.

And if you take the time to read Catholic apologists you use the same tactics they use to defend their Marian doctrines, transubstantiation, purgatory, and etc. Catholicism takes Scripture out of context, appeals to non-canonical books, and Greek philosophy.

and i've done NONE of that.

Most cults and false religions do get some concepts correct, what make them false religions and cults is they do not get it all correct.

right. like i said, you seem to be orthodox on everything else that you're saying, except this crucial issue.

Your understanding of what I have posted in skewed by how you interpret what I post. My point is there is only one God, which is what Jesus said in John 17:3.

if Jesus is the Word then He DID preexist creation (John 1:1). not to mention:

John 17:5
And now, O Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was.

and

Hebrews 1:2
has in these last days spoken to us by His Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the worlds;

you seem to be trying so hard to argue against me, that you're making a mockery of what the Bible teaches. you're trying so hard to support your ideas that you're making simple mistakes now.

all the verses that talk about the Creation say that everything was made through HIM.

The Son preexisted creation as God’s predetermined plan for mankind, which is what Peter said in Acts 2.

Jesus rightly claimed to be the Son of God, Jesus never claimed to have the attributes of God. In fact the Lord plainly states He is not omniscient.

and in John 21:17, He does know all things. you misunderstand what it means that Jesus was fully human and emptied Himself to become human. it wasn't until after his resurrection that He was attributed omniscience again. in Luke 2:52 we see that Jesus kept increasing in knowledge and wisdom. He was human.

Jesus never states He has God’s glory, what Jesus said is that He had glory with the Father, not that He had the Father’s glory so your appeal to Isaiah is begging the question.

clearly you don't understand the term "Begging the question". i didn't presuppose what i was trying to prove. you believe i misapplied my application. get it right. however, i wasn't referring to that verse. i was referring to the verse in John where Jesus says to honor Him as we Honor the Father. if God won't give His glory to another, how can Jesus get the same honor and glory?

As to the Son receiving honor that properly belongs to the Father, since Jesus is the only begotten Son of the Father and His heir then in accordance with Hebrew custom and the Law of Agency the eldest Son is due the same honor as His Father.

we're talking about GOD, not MAN. no one gets the same honor and glory as God except GOD.

The foundation of Christianity is the apostles and the prophets, all of whom were Jews. In order to understand the Bible one must understand the foundation of the Bible. Greek philosophy is the antithesis of our Hebraic roots.

which is why it seems so unlikely that these committed Jews would borrow ideas from Pagan Greek society and thinking, like you believe John does in John 1:1. you're inconsistent.

As to my stance being blasphemy, I can say the same thing about the Trinity since God has made it clear He is the only true God and that He is not a man or the son of man. Jesus was and remains a man and the Son of Man as well as being the only begotten Son of God.

clearly you don't fully understand the Trinity concept. God coming to earth as a man to save those He loves and shows mercy for is not blasphemy. exalting a created being to the status of God, or giving him similar praise and honor and worship and glory IS.

[Aineo]

Paul uses the word "body" as an allegory of the "church", which is made up of many "members". Now, in the OT where "elohiym" is used to refer to God it is never a compound unity.

As to what you posted concerning the OT Messianic prophecies you reject was not qualified to mean you reject Proverbs 8, you reject most of the Scriptures I posted in the OP, which did not include Proverbs 8 but does include Psalms 2, 45, and other prophesies that show the Son is a human being that was born of the seed of the woman and the seed of Abraham, but not the seed of God.

As to the NT Scriptures that tell us God created through the Son, I do not disagree with those Scriptures since the Son is God's predetermined plan for the salvation of mankind based on God's foreknowledge. God spoke all that is into existence and since Jesus is the "logos" what I believe is backed up by Scripture. God's word was the first-born (first to come into existence) of all creation (Colossians 1:15) or God's used His spoken logos to create. This logos became flesh and dwelled among us. Jesus the man who fulfilled all the OT prophesies was born of the seed of the woman Mary, who was a descendent of Abraham to whom all the Messianic prophesies apply to.

As to Revelation, Revelation 1:1 tells us that God gave Revelation to Jesus Christ to pass on to John. So the opening verse of Revelation tells us that Jesus Christ is not omniscient, which precludes His being God who is omniscient. Like I posted you take Scripture out of context.

[absolutetruth]

Aineo wrote:

Paul uses the word "body" as an allegory of the "church", which is made up of many "members". Now, in the OT where "elohiym" is used to refer to God it is never a compound unity.

ahhh..."analogy". ok. STILL doesn't answer how "One Flesh" is used. there are several examples of this in the Bible, and indeed in our regular everyday experience. you can't really argue against it. it's there for everyone to see. you're being obtuse by trying so hard to get away from this. just stop. that's what it says and that's it. face it.

As to what you posted concerning the OT Messianic prophecies you reject was not qualified to mean you reject Proverbs 8,

it most certainly was. the couple times you challenged me, i told you that i accepted the MP except Proverbs 8. i told you that specifically. quit makin' stuff up.

you reject most of the Scriptures I posted in the OP, which did not include Proverbs 8 but does include Psalms 2, 45,

i did no such thing. here, let me look at 'em real quick. be right back...

alright, i'm back. no disagreement there. next?

and other prophesies that show the Son is a human being that was born of the seed of the woman and the seed of Abraham, but not the seed of God.

i don't disagree with that either (except the last part). Jesus was FULLY human. how many times do i have to say that? and the last part was added by you. show me where it says He was the seed of a woman and NOT the see of God in the same passage or few passages.

As to the NT Scriptures that tell us God created through the Son, I do not disagree with those Scriptures since the Son is God's predetermined plan for the salvation of mankind based on God's foreknowledge. God spoke all that is into existence and since Jesus is the "logos" what I believe is backed up by Scripture. God's word was the first-born (first to come into existence) of all creation (Colossians 1:15) or God's used His spoken logos to create.

whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, wait a minute. when we talked about John 1:1, YOU said that the Word (logos) WAS God because it was God's Divine Plan and "thought" and that you can't separate a man's (God's) thoughts from that person. NOW YOU'RE TELLING ME THAT THE WORD WAS CREATED FIRST????????????????? and if you're saying that, then how can ALL THINGS be created through the Word, if the Word was created too? if Jesus was created, and yet was the instrument of Creation, then that means that at least one thing (Jesus) wasn't created through Him. are you saying that John 1:1-3 is teaching lies??? the more you argue, the more problems you run into. fascinating.

This logos became flesh and dwelled among us. Jesus the man who fulfilled all the OT prophesies was born of the seed of the woman Mary, who was a descendent of Abraham to whom all the Messianic prophesies apply to.

right, but you just horribly contradicted yourself just now. (i know you're gonna find some quirk of argument to get out of it though, you're pretty resourceful in that area). you need to be more consistent with your ideas.

As to Revelation, Revelation 1:1 tells us that God gave Revelation to Jesus Christ to pass on to John. So the opening verse of Revelation tells us that Jesus Christ is not omniscient, which precludes His being God who is omniscient. Like I posted you take Scripture out of context.

where in that passage does it say "Jesus didn't know what the Father was planning to reveal to John, so He waited for the Father to give Him the Revelation to give to John." where does it say that? what you've done it made a kind of an argument ad ignorantium. you've merely stated what it DOESN'T say (i.e. that Jesus is omniscient) and proceed to make your conclusion. forgetting all the while that i showed you that Jesus Himself says "I am the Alpha and the Omega". words which YOU said are only used of the Father.

[Aineo]

You really need to read what I post. I addressed your "one flesh" argument. A married couple is "one flesh" until they divorce or die. It is a temporary "compound unity" and is also an analogy of what marriage is all about. As to Proverbs 8 and what I posted here is your response:

Aineo wrote:

It is time you take the time to actually read what I post. What you assume I posted was quoted from Adam Clarkes' commentary to show you that commentators view Proverbs 8 as the Lord. Don't jump to conclusions.

As I posted you need to read, not assume.

you're right. i apologize. i didn't really read what you wrote, and i came to a hasty decision. i hadn't really grasped what you posted. my apologies.

As to the Son being the "logos" if you have read all the threads dealing with the Trinity I have posted more than once that the "logos" is the verbalization of God's predetermined plan for the salvation of mankind. Since thoughts precede words what you see as a contradiction in my pasts is simply your interpretation of what I post.

Now as to your response concerning Jesus being the seed of the woman see Genesis 3:15 and the seed of Abraham see Genesis 22:18. There is not one Scripture that states the Messiah is to be from the "seed" of God. Mary was not impregnated with a human "seed", she was impregnated by the power of God when she was overshadowed by the Holy Spirit.

I am pleased you agree that Jesus was FULLY HUMAN since that is what Scripture makes clear. However, Scripture never even alludes to Jesus being God. In fact if you accept the word "one" to mean "one" then Scripture is clear there is but one God, the Father. Other than Thomas' excited utterance in John 20:28 no other verse states Jesus is God. And when you understand Hebrew culture you would understand that Thomas' utterance can be understood as the Son being honored as the Father's anointed King and heir. What Scripture does tell us is the Son is the image of the invisible God and the exact representation of God's nature, not His substance.

You and Believer keep posting I do not understand the Trinity, which is false. I do understand the Trinity and have come to reject this traditional doctrine based on every word that procedes from the mouth of God. You both keep appealing to the majority of professed Christians as proof this doctrine is true. But if the majority ruled then we would all be Catholics since Catholicism is by far the largest group of professed Christians. If you believe in a pre-trib rapture, OSAS, Calvin's 5 points, and all other non-Catholic doctrines you are in the minority.

From Matthew through Revelation the Son is portrayed as subject to God and God's servant. The Son is not omniscient, which is just one of the attributes of God not shared with the Son.

Acts 2:22-36

22 "Men of Israel, listen to these words: Jesus the Nazarene, a man attested to you by God with miracles and wonders and signs which God performed through Him in your midst, just as you yourselves know-- 23 this Man, delivered up by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God, you nailed to a cross by the hands of godless men and put Him to death. 24 "And God raised Him up again, putting an end to the agony of death, since it was impossible for Him to be held in its power. 25 "For David says of Him,

'I was always beholding the Lord in my presence; For He is at my right hand, that I may not be shaken. 26'Therefore my heart was glad and my tongue exulted; Moreover my flesh also will abide in hope; 27 Because Thou wilt not abandon my soul to Hades, Nor allow Thy Holy One to undergo decay. 28'Thou hast made known to me the ways of life; Thou wilt make me full of gladness with Thy presence.'

29 "Brethren, I may confidently say to you regarding the patriarch David that he both died and was buried, and his tomb is with us to this day. 30 "And so, because he was a prophet, and knew that God had sworn to him with an oath to seat one of his descendants upon his throne, 31 he looked ahead and spoke of the resurrection of the Christ, that He was neither abandoned to Hades, nor did His flesh suffer decay. 32 "This Jesus God raised up again, to which we are all witnesses. 33 "Therefore having been exalted to the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, He has poured forth this which you both see and hear. 34 "For it was not David who ascended into heaven, but he himself says:

'The Lord said to my Lord,"Sit at My right hand, 35 Until I make Thine enemies a footstool for Thy feet. "'

36 "Therefore let all the house of Israel know for certain that God has made Him both Lord and Christ-- this Jesus whom you crucified."
NAS

Neither Peter, John, Paul, James, or Jude disagrees with the above. None of the NT authors refers to Jesus as God. Men from the 2nd century forward have interpreted select Scriptures and tried to redefine some words to come up with the doctrine of the Trinity.

[Believer]

I am pleased you agree that Jesus was FULLY HUMAN since that is what Scripture makes clear. However, Scripture never even alludes to Jesus being God. In fact if you accept the word "one" to mean "one" then Scripture is clear there is but one God, the Father. Other than Thomas' excited utterance in John 20:28 no other verse states Jesus is God. And when you understand Hebrew culture you would understand that Thomas' utterance can be understood as the Son being honored as the Father's anointed King and heir. What Scripture does tell us is the Son is the image of the invisible God and the exact representation of God's nature, not His substance.

You and Believer keep posting I do not understand the Trinity, which is false. I do understand the Trinity and have come to reject this traditional doctrine based on every word that procedes from the mouth of God. You both keep appealing to the majority of professed Christians as proof this doctrine is true. But if the majority ruled then we would all be Catholics since Catholicism is by far the largest group of professed Christians. If you believe in a pre-trib rapture, OSAS, Calvin's 5 points, and all other non-Catholic doctrines you are in the minority.

Scripture alludes to Jesus's Godhood in many places. We're not done with discussing Hebrews 1:8, which pertains to Jesus being the very imprint of the Father's being, a rather strong allusion, and Jesus sustains all things. This is only one of many examples.

Jesus never condemned Thomas's utterance. The Jews at the time did strongly feel that Jesus calling Himself the Son equated Him to the level of God. Do you think Jesus would have made it clear that He wasn't God? What would Elijah or Moses say if people thought they were God?

Also Jesus was a humble servant. He wasn't going to boast that He is God, and that He's going to rule us all as the King. Note in scripture the "King" refers to the Son and to God. I think the Bible is flooded with allusions, which is why so many Christians believe that Jesus is Lord and God. The Holy Spirit is also shown personality by Jesus.

What is questionable is the Unitarian beliefs that you adhere to. That stuff is the theories and interpretations of man. The Son is a concept? The Son is a person, and his nature isn't man before man existed or before the Son took the likeness and nature of man and became we know as the man Jesus. before assuming a human nature, Jesus "emptied" Himself of His Lordly glory and power He resided in already for an eternity.

[Aineo]

As to Hebrews 1:8 and all the other quotes contained in Hebrews 1 from the OT, have you read the OT verses in there full context? If your answer is no, then you have accepted an interpretation of Hebrews 1 based on the traditions of men and not by the use of every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.

Saul, David, Solomon and 45 other men were kings over Judah/Israel. So if I use your logic all those kings are also God. Scripture does not allude to the deity of Jesus Christ unless you interpret "one God, the Father", and "only true God" as lies perpetrated by Jesus and Paul to deceive the gullible.

My Unitarian belief is supported by the entire word of God, which you cannot say for the Trinity. Also since you have not addressed the fact the Son is not omniscient, which is an attribute of God you are demonstrating the weakness of your position.

As to why some of the Jews equated Jesus' statement that He is the Son of God as Jesus saying He is equal with God, you refuse to address how Jews view the status of the elder son. However, when the Jews accused Jesus of claiming equality with God, He corrected them by quoting the OT statement that the Jews were gods and then Jesus said He was the Son of God. Jesus never claimed to be God, the apostles never wrote that Jesus is God. Scripture does not tell us Jesus is God. Men have interpreted a select few verses to mean Jesus is God, but in order to maintain this stance you have to ignore all the unequivacle statements that there is but one God, the Father.

Now, when are you going to comment on this: But What About John 1:1?

[Believer]

As to Hebrews 1:8 and all the other quotes contained in Hebrews 1 from the OT, have you read the OT verses in there full context? If your answer is no, then you have accepted an interpretation of Hebrews 1 based on the traditions of men and not by the use of every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.

You never answered my questions or directly handled my points. This further fortifies my position

Your site says nothing of the different places in scripture where the Son is personified, or where it's stated Jesus "emptied" Himself, as if He were a preexistent heavenly King, and took the likeness of a man. The first chapter of Hebrews shows that the Son is very much a person, not some ideal.

Saul, David, Solomon and 45 other men were kings over Judah/Israel. So if I use your logic all those kings are also God. Scripture does not allude to the deity of Jesus Christ unless you interpret "one God, the Father", and "only true God" as lies perpetrated by Jesus and Paul to deceive the gullible.

Check that thread of mine you locked away somewhere. God declares that He alone is the "King". The Son is also called the "King".

My Unitarian belief is supported by the entire word of God, which you cannot say for the Trinity. Also since you have not addressed the fact the Son is not omniscient, which is an attribute of God you are demonstrating the weakness of your position.

Then you shouldn't avoid answering questions and points I bring up.

As to why some of the Jews equated Jesus' statement that He is the Son of God as Jesus saying He is equal with God, you refuse to address how Jews view the status of the elder son. However, when the Jews accused Jesus of claiming equality with God, He corrected them by quoting the OT statement that the Jews were gods and then Jesus said He was the Son of God. Jesus never claimed to be God, the apostles never wrote that Jesus is God. Scripture does not tell us Jesus is God. Men have interpreted a select few verses to mean Jesus is God, but in order to maintain this stance you have to ignore all the unequivacle statements that there is but one God, the Father.

That verse you alluded to youshould research more. So why didn't Jesus condemn Thomas's proclamation of Him as Lord and God? It looks like a prophecy to me, because "Lord and God" is used a few times in the Pslams. Jesus said He had to fulfill what was in Psalms.

Now, when are you going to comment on this: But What About John 1:1?

I've been commenting on it. You need to read people's threads.

We trust that by now the reader knows that Jesus did not pre-exist his birth and that he was not with God in Genesis 1:1.

No, because the Bible shows that the preexistent Son was an actual person. Maybe you can provide how the Son isn't a preexistent being after reading these verses:

John 3:12-13;31
If I tell you about earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you about heavenly things?
No one has gone up to heaven except the one who has come down from heaven, the Son of Man.
The one who comes from above is above all. The one who is of the earth is earthly and speaks of earthly things. But the one who comes from heaven (is above all).

John 5:21
For just as the Father raises the dead and gives life, so also does the Son give life to whomever he wishes.

Hebrews 1:1-3
In times past, God spoke in partial and various ways to our ancestors through the prophets;
in these last days, he spoke to us through a son, whom he made heir of all things and through whom he created the universe,
who is the refulgence of his glory, the very imprint of his being, and who sustains all things by his mighty word. When he had accomplished purification from sins, he took his seat at the right hand of the Majesty on high,

Clearly Jesus was a preexistent person to have came down from Heaven and to have knowledge of Heavenly things. There are more examples, Aineo. Jesus is a person and speaks of His preeexistent self many times. The Transfiguration in fact shows Jesus transfiguring into his former prexistent glory.

In Hebrews, "he" is definitely not an it. This is taking about the prexistent Jesus. Some things you'be got to accept.
Phillipians 2:6 Jesus "emptied" Himself of his preexistent glory and took the likeness of a man. His adopted a human nature, but He already had a nature. What are you going to say now? You and your site pick a few verses here and there, and from it derive an entire doctrine. You can't pull water from rocks. John 1:1 only says that Jesus is the Word, implying all that Jesus said was the exact Word of God because He was God. Every word that comes from my mouth is the word of Believer because that's what I am.


Acts 2:23
This man, delivered up by the set plan and foreknowledge of God, you killed, using lawless men to crucify him.

This verse just doesn't say anything about the preexistent Son, only that God has a plan and it was completed. You can't sqeeze blood from a turnip.

It's interesting to note that you wanted me to read your site, but when I gave you a site that explains the Trinity you didn't read it and said it was the ramblings of men. I read your site and I say it's the rambings of men, but I wasn't afraid to read it. One thing about myself is that I know what I believe is true and I don't hide or avoid things, what we Christians believe about Jesus is so ingrained in scripture. you'd have to not want to believe that Jesus is a preexistent being and is God. you know, at least the Arians and the other heresies believed Jesus was a preexistent being.

[GOD OF DEBATE]

Alright, lets see how well you Trinitarians know your God ok?

Jesus=God (person)
Holy Spirit=God (person)
Father=God (person)

If each person in itself is God then that would make 3 Gods!!!
And if each person is part of God, then each person is less than God!!!

COMMON SENSE!

Now without trying to worm your way by turning to passages which supposedly proves the Trinity, try and refute this logic which I posted.

[Aineo]

As to Hebrews 1:8 and all the other quotes contained in Hebrews 1 from the OT, have you read the OT verses in there full context? If your answer is no, then you have accepted an interpretation of Hebrews 1 based on the traditions of men and not by the use of every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.

You never answered my questions or directly handled my points. This further fortifies my position

Your site says nothing of the different places in scripture where the Son is personified, or where it's stated Jesus "emptied" Himself, as if He were a preexistent heavenly King, and took the likeness of a man. The first chapter of Hebrews shows that the Son is very much a person, not some ideal.

Really? Then you did not check out the whole site. Here is a link that addresses all of the Trinitarian "proofs".

http://www.biblicalunitarian.com/module ... le&sid=109

As to your points, I am not going to take the time to post all the OT Scriptures quoted in Hebrews 1 since many of them can be found in this thread, the thread you tried to take off topic:

Messianic Prophesies Vs. the Trinity

Saul, David, Solomon and 45 other men were kings over Judah/Israel. So if I use your logic all those kings are also God. Scripture does not allude to the deity of Jesus Christ unless you interpret "one God, the Father", and "only true God" as lies perpetrated by Jesus and Paul to deceive the gullible.

Check that thread of mine you locked away somewhere. God declares that He alone is the "King". The Son is also called the "King".

You are simply begging the question since God commanded Samuel to anoint both Saul and David King over Israel.

My Unitarian belief is supported by the entire word of God, which you cannot say for the Trinity. Also since you have not addressed the fact the Son is not omniscient, which is an attribute of God you are demonstrating the weakness of your position.

Then you shouldn't avoid answering questions and points I bring up.

I have not avoided answering your questions or points.

That verse you alluded to youshould research more. So why didn't Jesus condemn Thomas's proclamation of Him as Lord and God? It looks like a prophecy to me, because "Lord and God" is used a few times in the Pslams. Jesus said He had to fulfill what was in Psalms.

You must take me for a complete fool. The Psalms never refer to the Messiah as God. In the Psalms "LORD", "Lord God", and "Lord and God" refer to Yehovah. You need to study Scripture instead of Catholicism.

Now, when are you going to comment on this: But What About John 1:1?

I've been commenting on it. You need to read people's threads.

Most of what is found on the link you refuse to comment on I have shared on this and other threads. The link goes into more detail that I choose not to plagarize. Just how long will it take you to read 13 pages? Or is it you have read it and cannot refute the scholarship found in the Biblical Unitarian site?

We trust that by now the reader knows that Jesus did not pre-exist his birth and that he was not with God in Genesis 1:1.

No, because the Bible shows that the preexistent Son was an actual person. Maybe you can provide how the Son isn't a preexistent being after reading these verses:

John 3:12-13;31
If I tell you about earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you about heavenly things?
No one has gone up to heaven except the one who has come down from heaven, the Son of Man.
The one who comes from above is above all. The one who is of the earth is earthly and speaks of earthly things. But the one who comes from heaven (is above all).

John 5:21
For just as the Father raises the dead and gives life, so also does the Son give life to whomever he wishes.

Hebrews 1:1-3
In times past, God spoke in partial and various ways to our ancestors through the prophets;
in these last days, he spoke to us through a son, whom he made heir of all things and through whom he created the universe,
who is the refulgence of his glory, the very imprint of his being, and who sustains all things by his mighty word. When he had accomplished purification from sins, he took his seat at the right hand of the Majesty on high,

Clearly Jesus was a preexistent person to have came down from Heaven and to have knowledge of Heavenly things. There are more examples, Aineo. Jesus is a person and speaks of His preeexistent self many times. The Transfiguration in fact shows Jesus transfiguring into his former prexistent glory.

Clearly you refuse to understand how John and 1st century Jews and Greeks understood "logos". As the site points out "logos" was more than a word, it was a philosophical concept that encapsulates all that a person is as expressed by their words that originate as thoughts.

In Hebrews, "he" is definitely not an it. This is taking about the prexistent Jesus. Some things you'be got to accept.
Phillipians 2:6 Jesus "emptied" Himself of his preexistent glory and took the likeness of a man. His adopted a human nature, but He already had a nature. What are you going to say now? You and your site pick a few verses here and there, and from it derive an entire doctrine. You can't pull water from rocks. John 1:1 only says that Jesus is the Word, implying all that Jesus said was the exact Word of God because He was God. Every word that comes from my mouth is the word of Believer because that's what I am.

I dont believe Biblical Unitarian ever hints at Jesus being an it. What it does address is how Greek asigns gender to nouns and that the gender of all pronouns agree with the noun. However, in English this is not the case. Tables are not he or she, tables are its since tables are inanimate. I will leave it to those read this thread to read the site I linked to as you are trying to obfusate reality.

As to Philippians 2:6, Paul did not write that Jesus emptied Himself of His preexistant glory and took on the likeness of a man. Jesus was a man born of Mary and to deny this is to appeal to fairy tales. Jesus emptied Himself of His human ego and self-determination and took on the form of a servant. Jesus was born a free man. His parents did not sell Him to anyone and He did not sell Himself, He freely gave of Himself to be God's servant.

Acts 2:23
This man, delivered up by the set plan and foreknowledge of God, you killed, using lawless men to crucify him.

This verse just doesn't say anything about the preexistent Son, only that God has a plan and it was completed. You can't sqeeze blood from a turnip.

What this verse tells us is that the Son did not preexist His birth, this verse verifies that Jesus is the predetermined plan for the salvation of mankind.

It's interesting to note that you wanted me to read your site, but when I gave you a site that explains the Trinity you didn't read it and said it was the ramblings of men. I read your site and I say it's the rambings of men, but I wasn't afraid to read it. One thing about myself is that I know what I believe is true and I don't hide or avoid things, what we Christians believe about Jesus is so ingrained in scripture. you'd have to not want to believe that Jesus is a preexistent being and is God. you know, at least the Arians and the other heresies believed Jesus was a preexistent being.

I have read sites dealing with the Trinity for years and supported them. Need I remind you I was raised to believe in the Trinity and actively defended the Trinity until fairly recently when I decided to take God at His word. It was after I changed my position I found Biblical Unitarians, which has helped me clarify what I had already found from God's word. However, what you have shared from that site is ludicrous as you have taken one or two sentences totally out of context, just like you do Scripture to support your herertical beliefs like purgatory, the Marian Doctrines, and etc.

Jesus did not preexist creation as God. Jesus preexisted creation as God's plan for the salvation of mankind. This plan became flesh and dwelled among us.

[Believer]

Really? Then you did not check out the whole site. Here is a link that addresses all of the Trinitarian "proofs".

http://www.biblicalunitarian.com/module ... le&sid=109

As to your points, I am not going to take the time to post all the OT Scriptures quoted in Hebrews 1 since many of them can be found in this thread, the thread you tried to take off topic:

If people are so determined to believe something different, they'll say anything to prove their points.

You are simply begging the question since God commanded Samuel to anoint both Saul and David King over Israel.

God also declares that He is the Savior and Redeemer of man, and other titles the Son also holds.

You must take me for a complete fool. The Psalms never refer to the Messiah as God. In the Psalms "LORD", "Lord God", and "Lord and God" refer to Yehovah. You need to study Scripture instead of Catholicism.

So why didn't Jesus correct Thomas? If someone called you "God", and you weren't God, you'd correct them, right.

Most of what is found on the link you refuse to comment on I have shared on this and other threads. The link goes into more detail that I choose not to plagarize. Just how long will it take you to read 13 pages? Or is it you have read it and cannot refute the scholarship found in the Biblical Unitarian site?

I choose to comment on the gist of the thread, that the Son wasn't a preexistent being.

Clearly you refuse to understand how John and 1st century Jews and Greeks understood "logos". As the site points out "logos" was more than a word, it was a philosophical concept that encapsulates all that a person is as expressed by their words that originate as thoughts.

I wasn't talking about Logos, nor were the verses. Jesus shows us that He was a preexistent being. Unless you comment on those verses directly, you just haven't answered the question. Jesus reveals to us that He was a person who knows of Heavenly things

No one has gone up to heaven except the one who has come down from heaven, the Son of Man.
The one who comes from above is above all. The one who is of the earth is earthly and speaks of earthly things. But the one who comes from heaven (is above all).

These verses are self-explanatory. Jesus came from Heaven. He is a Heavenly being, to say the very least. His seed was created miraculously as a perfect uncorrupted human body for the divine Jesus.

As to Philippians 2:6, Paul did not write that Jesus emptied Himself of His preexistant glory and took on the likeness of a man. Jesus was a man born of Mary and to deny this is to appeal to fairy tales. Jesus emptied Himself of His human ego and self-determination and took on the form of a servant. Jesus was born a free man. His parents did not sell Him to anyone and He did not sell Himself, He freely gave of Himself to be God's servant.

Now that is an interpretation of men, like your Unitarian buddies.
Observe the verse again.
Phillipians 2:7
Rather, he emptied himself, taking the form of a slave, coming in human likeness; and found human in appearance

This verse is also self explanatory. Intense obfuscating must be done to turn this into something else. Jesus was a divine person and emptied himself of His preexistent Lordliness and came to earth as a humble servant, taking on human likeness and appearance. Everyone believes that! C'mon.

What do you say about the Transfiguration? Jesus transfigured Himself into His preexistent glory. He is a divine being of pure light and power, far higher than the angels. Hebrews 1 states that. In Hebrews 2, it's stated that temporarily Jesus was lower than the angels. This correlates to Jesus emptying Himseld and taking the form of a man. Man is lower than the angels. God is higher than the angels.

I have read sites dealing with the Trinity for years and supported them. Need I remind you I was raised to believe in the Trinity and actively defended the Trinity until fairly recently when I decided to take God at His word. It was after I changed my position I found Biblical Unitarians, which has helped me clarify what I had already found from God's word. However, what you have shared from that site is ludicrous as you have taken one or two sentences totally out of context, just like you do Scripture to support your herertical beliefs like purgatory, the Marian Doctrines, and etc.

Some seeds fall on shallow soil, where they grow for a time but die. Their faith isn't deep enough. I don't see a reason to batter around God's word and squeeze from it my own beliefs. So Jesus is a preexistent being and is "the very imprint of the Father's being", He proceeds from the Father and is like Him in God nature. The Nicene Creed is so based in scripture that when you say it's polluted with paganism, this is a major turn off to me. You're closeminded to my explanations of Catholic beliefs, which indicates to me you could be equally closeminded to God's truth. I find it logically impossible for you to be open to God's truth and be closed to other truths I present you with about my Catholic beliefs. You are a walking paradox!

Jesus did not preexist creation as God. Jesus preexisted creation as God's plan for the salvation of mankind. This plan became flesh and dwelled among us.

Some things in scripture that I said were self explanatory need some more explaining on your part before you can make an outrageous claim like this.

[absolutetruth]

Alright, lets see how well you Trinitarians know your God ok?

Jesus=God (person)
Holy Spirit=God (person)
Father=God (person)

If each person in itself is God then that would make 3 Gods!!!
And if each person is part of God, then each person is less than God!!!

COMMON SENSE!

Now without trying to worm your way by turning to passages which supposedly proves the Trinity, try and refute this logic which I posted.

well, your challenge is incorrectly stated, so you're search for an answer is wrongheaded. you've set up a strawman. it's like saying to a person "When did you quit beating your wife?" if the person never beat his wife, but is expected to answer the question on the terms of the inquiry presented, then he runs into problems either way he answers. be it the affirmative or the negative.

the CORRECT way to state your challenge is to first understand what the Trinity Doctrine is. it says that each "Person" is Divine. not that each person is "a" God. so we have:

Father (Divine) and a distinct Person
Jesus (Divine) and a distinct Person
Holy Spirit (Divine) and a distinct Person

they're each distinct (Persons), but part of the same nature (Divine).

you're making a fallacy in logic when you charge them with being one and three in the same sense. they're ONE in one sense, and THREE in another.

your challenge falls apart when actually scrutinized.

[absolutetruth]

Aineo wrote:

You really need to read what I post. I addressed your "one flesh" argument. A married couple is "one flesh" until they divorce or die. It is a temporary "compound unity" and is also an analogy of what marriage is all about.

i can't believe you're still arguing this. please answer this for me: in God's sight are the two "One Flesh" while here on earth?

As to Proverbs 8 and what I posted here is your response

i said i hastily responded for ASSUMING that you were trying to say that Proverbs 8 was talking about Christ being wisdom. i never said i accept Proverbs 8 as an MP. please stop misunderstanding everything. it's making dialogue difficult.

As to the Son being the "logos" if you have read all the threads dealing with the Trinity I have posted more than once that the "logos" is the verbalization of God's predetermined plan for the salvation of mankind. Since thoughts precede words what you see as a contradiction in my pasts is simply your interpretation of what I post.

no it's not. this is what you just said:

God's word was the first-born (first to come into existence) of all creation (Colossians 1:15) or God's used His spoken logos to create.

see? before you agreed that the Logos could be called God because it was His plan or "thought" and that the thoughts of someone are pretty much that person (which means in God's case that THAT thought of God's would have existed from all eternity, i.e. would NOT have "come into existence"). you're inconsistent.

Now as to your response concerning Jesus being the seed of the woman see Genesis 3:15 and the seed of Abraham see Genesis 22:18. There is not one Scripture that states the Messiah is to be from the "seed" of God. Mary was not impregnated with a human "seed", she was impregnated by the power of God when she was overshadowed by the Holy Spirit.

once again, an argument ad ignorantium. however, God overshadowing Mary and impregnating her, sounds like His "seed" to me.

I am pleased you agree that Jesus was FULLY HUMAN since that is what Scripture makes clear.

i've said that a bunch of times before. why are you so pleased this time?

However, Scripture never even alludes to Jesus being God.

i just demonstrated how Revelations does. i've also mentioned Isaiah 9:6, Zechariah 10:12, John 1:1, John 10:30, Philipians 2:6-8, Hebrews 1:8 and others. you just desparately misinterpet their plain meaning because of what you already believe.

In fact if you accept the word "one" to mean "one" then Scripture is clear there is but one God, the Father.

one DOES mean one. but in what sense? your question-begging. you assume automatically your position (that "one" precludes plurality) and then say it CAN'T include a plurality within that "one". THAT'S question-begging.

Other than Thomas' excited utterance in John 20:28 no other verse states Jesus is God.

look how you even expalain that away: "excited utterance". the very fact that you have to qualify that statement in such a way is proof of what the verse clearly is saying. did Thomas make a mistake? he wasn't rebuked for it. what would you do if someone called you Lord and God? would you correct them?

And when you understand Hebrew culture you would understand that Thomas' utterance can be understood as the Son being honored as the Father's anointed King and heir.

you tell me my interpretations are wrong, but then come with crazy stretches like that???

What Scripture does tell us is the Son is the image of the invisible God and the exact representation of God's nature, not His substance.

John 1:1. "The Word WAS God."

You and Believer keep posting I do not understand the Trinity, which is false.

then why do you keep misrepresenting it?

I do understand the Trinity and have come to reject this traditional doctrine based on every word that procedes from the mouth of God. You both keep appealing to the majority of professed Christians as proof this doctrine is true.

once again i have to call you a liar. i don't appeal to authority. i know it's a foolish argument and proves nothing. don't put me into the same category as Believer. don't confuse his/her arguments with mine.

But if the majority ruled then we would all be Catholics since Catholicism is by far the largest group of professed Christians. If you believe in a pre-trib rapture, OSAS, Calvin's 5 points, and all other non-Catholic doctrines you are in the minority.

this is a misnomer because i don't use the argument. you're setting up strawmen again. please quit.

From Matthew through Revelation the Son is portrayed as subject to God and God's servant.

correct. He became obedient to the will of the Father. see? you don't understand the Trinity and all that it entails.

The Son is not omniscient, which is just one of the attributes of God not shared with the Son.

yes He is. i showed that He was, and under what CONDITIONS (His earthly manifestation) He wasn't.

Neither Peter, John, Paul, James, or Jude disagrees with the above. None of the NT authors refers to Jesus as God.

John 1:1, ; Philipians 2:6-8, Hebrews 1:8; Revelations 1.

Men from the 2nd century forward have interpreted select Scriptures and tried to redefine some words to come up with the doctrine of the Trinity.

nah. the Bible teaches that Jesus is Divine.

[absolutetruth]

Aineo wrote to Believer:

As to Hebrews 1:8 and all the other quotes contained in Hebrews 1 from the OT, have you read the OT verses in there full context? If your answer is no, then you have accepted an interpretation of Hebrews 1 based on the traditions of men and not by the use of every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.

I have. you're still wrong. Hebrews 1:8 is clear.

Saul, David, Solomon and 45 other men were kings over Judah/Israel. So if I use your logic all those kings are also God.

here's something that i've said repeatedly that you've NEVER responded to. Jesus was sinless. all the people you mentioned WERE NOT. now they COULD NOT BE CALLED GOD in that same sense. they are excluded from the start. BUT, Jesus, being sinless, isn't excluded. He's in a category all by Himself. so NO. your challenge is incorrect. come up with better arguments.

Scripture does not allude to the deity of Jesus Christ unless you interpret "one God, the Father", and "only true God" as lies perpetrated by Jesus and Paul to deceive the gullible.

nope. just adaptation to human finitude. and why only use those verses? there are others that clearly show Christ's Divinity. why don't you include those? and since your position is an absolute negation with a blaspemous conclusion of the contrary, then if both are taught, yours must be wrong. simple logic.

My Unitarian belief is supported by the entire word of God, which you cannot say for the Trinity.

sure we can, and we have, time and time again. and we've demonstrated it as well.

Also since you have not addressed the fact the Son is not omniscient, which is an attribute of God you are demonstrating the weakness of your position.

i have. can i continue?

As to why some of the Jews equated Jesus' statement that He is the Son of God as Jesus saying He is equal with God, you refuse to address how Jews view the status of the elder son. However, when the Jews accused Jesus of claiming equality with God, He corrected them by quoting the OT statement that the Jews were gods and then Jesus said He was the Son of God.

notice how He qualified that though. He said to believe on Him if He does the miracles to demonstrate His claim. Psalm 82 says that the "gods" will die as men, NOT demonstrating any special authority in this world.

This is also demonstrated by the fact that AFTER He explained this to them, they STILL tried to seize Him. why? didn't He just explain it to them? He was demonstrating to them that He was no ordinary "god" as they might've been referred to as. He was reinforcing the fact that He was different. which is why they still tried to kill Him.

Jesus never claimed to be God, the apostles never wrote that Jesus is God. Scripture does not tell us Jesus is God. Men have interpreted a select few verses to mean Jesus is God, but in order to maintain this stance you have to ignore all the unequivacle statements that there is but one God, the Father.

i've shown you the contrary from both the OT and the NT.

[Aineo]

First of all you are the one who brought Proverbs 8 into this thread, not me. All I did was show you what you posted on the other thread.

Second, I do not deny what I posted on this thread and if you read my post carefully I posted that on other threads I posted that Jesus is God's predetermined plan and that since thoughts are verbalized as spoken words then Jesus is God's word made flesh.

As to two becoming one flesh, again if you have read my posts carefully I have acknowledged this is true "until death do they part". This union is a temporary "compound unity" and has no bearing on how you are trying to define "echad elohiym" as a compound unity from eternity past.

Now, you don't seriously expect anyone to believe that God transferred sperm to Mary do you? God is spirit and unless you are going to try to define spirit as having a body with reproductive organs your interpretation of the Lord's inception is ludicrous.

i just demonstrated how Revelations does. i've also mentioned Isaiah 9:6, Zechariah 10:12, John 1:1, John 10:30, Philipians 2:6-8, Hebrews 1:8 and others. you just desparately misinterpet their plain meaning because of what you already believe.

You interpreted those Scriptures based on a preconcieved conclusion. This is known as circular reasoning. Isaiah 9:6 does not tell us the Messiah is God, it tells us His name will be the adjectives that belong to God. BTW, the Lord's name is not Immanuel, it is Yehoshuah or God is Salvation. So your Isaiah 9:6 reference is misapplied by Trinitarians.

Zechariah 10:12
"And I shall strengthen them in the LORD,
And in His name they will walk," declares the LORD. NAS

How does this prove your point? The Hebrew word translated LORD is YHWH, or the Jews covenant name for God. Replace "the LORD" with Yehovah to get the actual meaning of this verse.

As to the rest of your post I have covered it all before on this thread and others and I am not going to rehash the same arguments that are based on your interpretations that deny the balance of Scritpure.

Now since your only defense of the Trinity is personal attacks this thread is closed and your account is terminated. I have put up with your violation of our Forum Rules longs enough.