Your confusion expressed here highlights the general confusion you have as a unitarian as well as your disrespect for God and scriptures. I guess the surprise is that you openly express it here.
All Claims of The Son's Deity
- Thread starter Johann
- Start date
dwight92070
Active Member
Now you again mocking the truth. As I have said before, this is the spirit of antiChrist.
Peterlag
Active Member
I don't get the disrespectful from @mikesw or the antiChrist from you. It must be that you two can't think out of the box. You assume that God's dog is like your dog. The point is it does not say who "us" is. So my guess is still as good as your guess. And here's some data on the plural...
The word "elohim" in Genesis 1:1 does not prove that Jesus is God or that we should believe or confess that Jesus is God. The word "elohim" is indeed grammatically plural, but in Hebrew it often functions as a singular title, especially when referring to the one true God. This is called a plural of majesty, and not a numerical plural of persons. The verb created "bara" is singular, showing that only one acted. So while "elohim" can function like "police" sometimes singular and sometimes plural the verb form makes it clear: a single God created. The one true God acted alone through His own spiritual body often referred to as His "logos" and not through multiple divine persons. There is no trinity here and no conversation between separate minds. Just one God expressing Himself. Here's how a friend of mine wrote it... The word "elohim" is always found in the plural form and is often called a uniplural noun. A uniplural noun is a word that appears in the plural form, but is used for singular and plural subjects alike. Words like “deer” and “fish” are examples of uniplural nouns in English. The word "elohim" as with many Hebrew words carries more than one definition. When it's being used in a plural sense, it refers to “gods” or “men with authority.” When it's used in its singular sense, it can refer to “God” or “a god” or “a man with authority, such as a judge.”
You may have that interpretation, but the Father Himself said to the Son, "Your throne O God is forever and ever. Won't you believe the Father's words?(Heb 1:8) In reference to Psa 45:6 where classic Jews interpret it as it refer to the Jewish Messiah.
God is a title, not the personal of the Father. Jesus and the Father are one in the nature of being God.(Rom 1:20, Col 2:9)
Jesus had two nature, being human and being God. (Matt 26:63-64)
Runningman
Active Member
I believe it, but the thing is that those very same words are said to a human with a wife/queen in Psalm 45:6, who was most likely king Solomon. We understand that king Solomon is not God, right? So when Psalm 45:6 was transferred to Jesus in Hebrews 1:8, we understand that Jesus isn't being called God. The original word is "elohim" which can mean god, but it can also refer to judges or magistrates, which is what kings are. Context matters.
I am not sure what your argument is this time. Jesus being human, having a divine nature, and being one with God is identical to other true Christians.
2 Peter 1
4Through these He has given us His precious and magnificent promises, so that through them you may become partakers of the divine nature, now that you have escaped the corruption in the world caused by evil desires.
John 17
21that all of them may be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I am in You. May they also be in Us, so that the world may believe that You sent Me.
22I have given them the glory You gave Me, so that they may be one as We are one— 23I in them and You in Me—that they may be perfectly united, so that the world may know that You sent Me and have loved them just as You have loved Me.
1 Corinthians 6
17But he who unites himself with the Lord is one with Him in spirit.
Below is (NAS95) a Bible translation that aims to maintain the highest degree of accuracy to the original languages renders the same with The New Testament in Original Greek by Westcott and Hort, it is not a translation.
(NAS95+)Joh 1:18 R1NoG3762 oneG3762 has seenG3708 GodG2316 at anyG4455 timeG4455; R2the onlyG3439 begottenG3439 GodG2316 who is R3in the bosomG2859 of the FatherG3962, R4He has explainedG1834 Him.
(NT Wescott and Hort+)Joh 1:18 θεονG2316 N-ASM ουδειςG3762 A-NSM-N εωρακενG3708 V-RAI-3S-ATT πωποτεG4455 ADV μονογενηςG3439 A-NSM θεοςG2316 N-NSM οG3588 T-NSM ωνG1510 V-PAP-NSM ειςG1519 PREP τονG3588 T-ASM κολπονG2859 N-ASM τουG3588 T-GSM πατροςG3962 N-GSM εκεινοςG1565 D-NSM εξηγησατοG1834 V-ADI-3S
Yes, context matters, but I believe you did not notice that Psa 45:6 speaks of a throne that is forever and ever. In your interpretation can you cite a verse where that forever and ever throne of king Solomon in the New Testament?
Believers were promised to be renewed from corruptible to incorruptible in the image of God, and having communion with them, so as to dwell in God and God in you.
Joh 1:12 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name,
Joh 1:13 who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of a man, but of God.
Peterlag
Active Member
Behold the Deception of a Trinity mind...
I just saw a post where Matthew 16:16 is quoted where Peter tells us exactly who Jesus was.
Matthew 16:16
And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ (Messiah) the Son of the living God.
A Trinity guy wrote...
"When Peter exclaimed that he knew Jesus was the Son of the living God, he was speaking from a Jewish mindset."
I might add Peter did not have a Jewish mindset. He had an Apostle of Jesus Christ mindset. Now let's look at the deception.
1.) Trinity guy says Peter was speaking from his Jewish mindset.
2.) Jesus said Peter spoke from what God revealed to him.
I just saw a post where Matthew 16:16 is quoted where Peter tells us exactly who Jesus was.
Matthew 16:16
And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ (Messiah) the Son of the living God.
A Trinity guy wrote...
"When Peter exclaimed that he knew Jesus was the Son of the living God, he was speaking from a Jewish mindset."
I might add Peter did not have a Jewish mindset. He had an Apostle of Jesus Christ mindset. Now let's look at the deception.
1.) Trinity guy says Peter was speaking from his Jewish mindset.
2.) Jesus said Peter spoke from what God revealed to him.
Runningman
Active Member
Yes, King Solomon's throne is said to be established forever. It doesn't mean someone is God when they have an eternal throne in the Bible.
2 Samuel 7
12And when your days are fulfilled and you rest with your fathers, I will raise up your descendant after you, who will come from your own body, and I will establish his kingdom. 13He will build a house for My Name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. 14I will be his Father, and he will be My son.b When he does wrong, I will discipline him with the rod of men and with the blows of the sons of men.
15But My loving devotion will never be removed from him as I removed it from Saul, whom I removed from before you. 16Your house and kingdom will endure forever before Me, and your throne will be established forever.”
Agreed. Believers and Jesus are both in the image of God. You're getting closer to realizing something important.
I think we will have to create a list of interpretations of scripture that you get correct or decent. I cannot start that list with this post though.
Obviously Jesus' throne is established forever. Solomon's earthly throne and kingdom obviously ended. Maybe you were not aware of that. Maybe a refresher course on the history of the Israel people could help you.
Runningman
Active Member
The Bible says of Solomon's kingdom and throne "Your house and kingdom will endure forever before Me, and your throne will be established forever.” That isn't an interpretation. I think I am beginning to understand your reasoning. The Bible doesn't match your beliefs, therefore you have come to the false conclusion that Scripture is the interpretation and that you are the authority. You have it completely backwards.
My question to your interpretation of Psa 45:6 is, can you cite a verse where that forever and ever throne of king Solomon in the New Testament?
You quote Old Testament verses, I mean in the NT.
dwight92070
Active Member
So God's dog helped God create man? Stupidity.
Classic Jews interpret the "God" in Psa 45:6 as referred to their Jewish Messiah, but I believe they're still waiting for Him.
While God the Father revealed to Peter that Jesus is the Messiah, the one called "God" in Psa 45:6, Whose throne is forever and ever.
Peterlag
Active Member
I would comment if I knew what your point is.
Peterlag
Active Member
Could be. You assume God's dog is not as smart as you.
Peterlag
Active Member
"The doctrine of the Trinity is not a biblical doctrine... it's the productof theological reflection." - The Christian Doctrine of God Trinitarian. E. Brunner, 1949, p. 236.
“Trinity is not a biblical doctrine" - New Bible Dictionary, J. Douglas, F. Bruce, 1982, p. 1298.
“Scholars generally agree that there is no doctrine of the Trinity as such in either the Old or the New Testament” - The Harper Collins Encyclopedia of Catholicism, 1995, p. 564.
“The Bible has no statements or speculations concerning atrinitary deity." - Encyclopedia Britannica, volume 12, p. 383, 1979.
“Three coequal partners in the Godhead cannot be clearly detected within the confines of the Bible. It's important to avoid reading the Trinity into places where it does not appear." - Oxford Companion to the Bible, Bruce Metzger, M. Coogan, p. 782-3.
“The doctrine of the Trinity is not present in biblical thought... it goes beyond, and even distorts, what the Bible says about God.” - A Contemporary Interpretation of the Trinity - God in Three Persons: Professor M. Erickson, Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary,p. 12, 20.
“The belief (in a Trinity-God) was reached only in the 4th and 5th centuries AD and hence is not explicitly and formally a biblical belief." -Dictionary of the Bible, 1995, (trinitarian) J. Mckenzie, p. 899.
“The doctrine of the Trinity was formulated in the post-biblical period." - Harper’s Bible Dictionary, 1985.
“In the New Testament there is no direct suggestion of a doctrineof the Trinity." - An Encyclopedia of Religion, V. Ferm (ed.), 1945, p. 344.
“No passage of Scripture discusses the threeness of God." - The New International Version. Disciples Study Bible, p. 173, note for Mt. 3:16.
“The Bible does not state that there is one God who exists in three persons” - Basic Theology, Professor C. Ryrie, p. 89.
“The Bible does not teach the doctrine of the Trinity” - Christian Doctrine, Professor S. Guthrie, Columbia Theological Seminary, 1994,p. 92.
“The doctrine of the Trinity cannot be justified on the basis of Scripture. Indeed it's hard to imagine Jesus speaking in such terms" - An Outline of Biblical Theology, Professor M. Burrows, Yale Divinity School, p. 81.
“The doctrine of God as existing in three persons and one substance is not demonstrable by scriptural proofs." - Hastings Dictionary of theBible, 1898.
“There is in the Old Testament no indication of interior distinctions in the God-head. And there is no doctrine of the Trinity in the NewTestament” - The Known Bible and its Defense, Reverend M. Hembre, 1933, p. 25.
The above is from volume one of a two volume paper called...
Sleight Of Mind
by: Steven Blake
“Trinity is not a biblical doctrine" - New Bible Dictionary, J. Douglas, F. Bruce, 1982, p. 1298.
“Scholars generally agree that there is no doctrine of the Trinity as such in either the Old or the New Testament” - The Harper Collins Encyclopedia of Catholicism, 1995, p. 564.
“The Bible has no statements or speculations concerning atrinitary deity." - Encyclopedia Britannica, volume 12, p. 383, 1979.
“Three coequal partners in the Godhead cannot be clearly detected within the confines of the Bible. It's important to avoid reading the Trinity into places where it does not appear." - Oxford Companion to the Bible, Bruce Metzger, M. Coogan, p. 782-3.
“The doctrine of the Trinity is not present in biblical thought... it goes beyond, and even distorts, what the Bible says about God.” - A Contemporary Interpretation of the Trinity - God in Three Persons: Professor M. Erickson, Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary,p. 12, 20.
“The belief (in a Trinity-God) was reached only in the 4th and 5th centuries AD and hence is not explicitly and formally a biblical belief." -Dictionary of the Bible, 1995, (trinitarian) J. Mckenzie, p. 899.
“The doctrine of the Trinity was formulated in the post-biblical period." - Harper’s Bible Dictionary, 1985.
“In the New Testament there is no direct suggestion of a doctrineof the Trinity." - An Encyclopedia of Religion, V. Ferm (ed.), 1945, p. 344.
“No passage of Scripture discusses the threeness of God." - The New International Version. Disciples Study Bible, p. 173, note for Mt. 3:16.
“The Bible does not state that there is one God who exists in three persons” - Basic Theology, Professor C. Ryrie, p. 89.
“The Bible does not teach the doctrine of the Trinity” - Christian Doctrine, Professor S. Guthrie, Columbia Theological Seminary, 1994,p. 92.
“The doctrine of the Trinity cannot be justified on the basis of Scripture. Indeed it's hard to imagine Jesus speaking in such terms" - An Outline of Biblical Theology, Professor M. Burrows, Yale Divinity School, p. 81.
“The doctrine of God as existing in three persons and one substance is not demonstrable by scriptural proofs." - Hastings Dictionary of theBible, 1898.
“There is in the Old Testament no indication of interior distinctions in the God-head. And there is no doctrine of the Trinity in the NewTestament” - The Known Bible and its Defense, Reverend M. Hembre, 1933, p. 25.
The above is from volume one of a two volume paper called...
Sleight Of Mind
by: Steven Blake
