101G
Active Member
the Lord Jesus was ... "LIKE" ... a man with... "BLOOD". and upon his resurrection, "WITHOUT" blood, he, Jesus, God shared in flesh, is the NEW MAN, that is in his OWN IMAGE from Genesis 1:26 that was to come.
101G.
All Claims of The Son's Deity
- Thread starter Johann
- Start date
101G.
Peterlag
Active Member
It should be a huge red flag to all of you if you just stop and think that you believe the same doctrine that the Catholics believe.
Runningman
Active Member
I will also quote from a literal Bible translation, in this case the Smith's Literal Translation, where the same word for "Mighty One" in Psalm 45:3 and Isaiah 9:6 appears in Ezekiel.
Notice closely how they didn't translate it as "Mighty Gods" in the below verse or Psalm 45:3. Therefore the best Biblical consistency is that Jesus is not the Mighty God. Know why? He was never called any such thing in the Bible. Applying Isaiah 9:6 is a common mistake by trinitarians since Isaiah 9:6 is never once applied to Jesus by God, the prophets, Jesus, or the disciples anywhere in the Bible.
Ezekiel 32
21The strong of the mighty shall say to him from the midst of hades with his helpers: they went down; they lay uncircumcised, wounded of the sword.
Yes these all refer to humans. Did you know that "strong and mighty" in Ezekiel 32:21 uses the same Hebrew words as the words you're attempting to deify Jesus with?
Psalm 45 is still about king Solomon. They are calling Solomon a mighty just like they did the other humans in Ezekiel 32:21. You have not provided any convincing argument that would suggest you have soundly divided the Bible. I would also add, word games and semantics of the Bible will never help you as a trinitarian. There are to many words and concepts that trinitarians rely on that are not stated or described in the Bible.
Peterlag
Active Member
You do write well when you say there are to many words and concepts that trinitarians rely on that are not stated or described in the Bible. What they use that you know so well is bits and pieces of words and half verses along with their own human reasoning, imagination, speculation and assumptions as they pick one verse here, and another verse there, a hint here, and a clue there.
Runningman
Active Member
Trinitarianism is a bunch of misleading half-truths built on cherry picking verses and saying it means something that usually is contradicted by the context.
so now the unitarians find the scripture full of irresolvable contradictions instead of pointing to Christ as Lord.
Peterlag
Active Member
You're spinning and twisting again which is what you do most of the time. We did not say the Scripture is full of contradictions. We said the way that you use Scripture is contradicing to the context.
That is your spinning and twisting. Lovely attempt to turn that against the testimony of scripture. I'm not the one disregarding John 1 and the pre-existence of Christ and even the parable in Luke 20:9ff. It seems a difficult existence for you to pretend those do not exist.
Peterlag
Active Member
Trinitarians are impossible to have an intelligent debate with...
because they completely corrupted the language from both ends. Words have meaning everywhere, but not when it comes to the Bible. For example: The word "man" can mean man and sometimes the word "man" cannot mean man. Sometimes the word "man" can mean both man and not man at the same time such as something being 100 percent of two different things at the same time. They leave the English language utterly useless as a tool for communication.
the problem is not the Trinitarian orthodox believers. It is the unitarian inability to recognize metaphor and abstract language in scripture. So they take the biased interpretation that disregards analogies and metaphors. They deny the pre-existence of Jesus and they deny the ability of God to become incarnate among humans. It is a powerless limited god that the unitarians believe in.
Peterlag
Active Member
The supposed “dual nature” of Christ is never stated in the Bible and contradicts the Bible and the laws of nature that God set up. Nothing can be 100% of two different things. Jesus cannot be 100% God and 100%man, and that is not a “mystery” but it's a contradiction and a talk of nonsense. A fatal flaw in the “dual nature” theory is that both natures in Jesus would have had to have known about each other. The Jesus God nature would have known about his human nature, and (according to what the Trinitarians teach) his human nature knew he was God, which explains why Trinitarians say Jesus taught that he was God. The book of Hebrews is wrong when it says Jesus was “made like his brothers in every respect” if Jesus knew he was God (Hebrews 2:17). Jesus was not made like other humans in every way if Jesus was 100% God and 100% human at the same time. In fact, he would have been very different from other humans in many respects.
You just have to neglect John 1 to make your point. That is not good bible study there mr. peterlag.
You will have to explain your sources for the metaphysical restrictions that you are placing on God's ability, as if you were pre-existent to know God's wisdom and ability. You simply whitewash things so you do not have to explain your weak concept of God's ability.
The thing you obviously miss is that to be made like his brothers, he would have to be different otherwise. So you neglect half of the verse so you can deny who Jesus is. It is your constant denial of the obvious elements that makes your theory so far off track.
101G
Active Member
so we can take this as you cannot refute what 101G said? thought so. and by the way, 101G is not Catholic.
101G.
Peterlag
Active Member
It does not matter if you say you're Catholic or not. You believe the same doctrine as the Catholics.
Peterlag
Active Member
Neglect John 1 you say. I have plenty on John 1. Behold...
John 1:1 is not a teaching on the trinity or that we should believe or confess that Jesus is God. It seems difficult for people to understand that John 1:1 is introducing the Gospel of John, and not the Book of Genesis. The topic of John is God (the Father, the only God) at work in the ministry of the man Jesus of Nazareth, not the creation of rocks, trees and stars.
Jesus Christ is not a lexical definition of logos. The verse does not say "In the beginning was Jesus." The "Word" is not synonymous with Jesus, or even the "Messiah." The word logos in John 1:1 refers to God's creative self-expression... His reason, purpose and plans, especially as they are brought into action. It refers to God's self-expression or communication of Himself. This has come to pass through His creation and especially the heavens. It has come through the spoken word of the prophets and through Scripture. Most notably it has come into being through His Son. The logos is the expression of God and is His communication of Himself just as a "word" is an outward expression of a person's thoughts. This outward expression of God has now occurred through His Son and thus it's perfectly understandable why Jesus is called the "Word." Jesus is an outward expression of God's reason, wisdom, purpose and plan. For the same reason we call revelation "a word from God" and the Bible "the Word of God."
If we understand that the logos is God's expression... His plan, purpose, reason and wisdom. Then it's clear they were with Him "in the beginning." Scripture says God's wisdom was "from the beginning" and it was common in Hebrew writing to personify a concept such as wisdom. The fact that the logos "became" flesh shows it did not exist that way before. There is no pre-existence for Jesus in this verse other than his figurative "existence" as the plan, purpose or wisdom of God for the salvation of man. The same is true with the "word" in writing. It had no literal pre-existence as a "spirit-book" somehow in eternity past, but came into being as God gave the revelation to people and they wrote it down.
A friend of mine put it this way... "The word "logos" (Word) denotes (I) "the expression of thought" as embodying a conception or idea. λόγος "logos" is something said (including the thought). So the word "logos" means an expression of thought. It makes perfect sense if we use this understanding everywhere the word "logos" is used. So in John 1:1 the Word is not Jesus, but rather it became flesh, which is God's expression of thought or plan that became flesh with the coming of Jesus Christ."
John 1:3 “Everything came to be through it.” The logos is an “it” not a “him.”
Translators have deliberately chosen to use “him” because they wanted to emphasize that the Word was the male person we know as Jesus. This was a theological choice, not a linguistic one.
"Do not forsake wisdom, and she will protect you; love her, and she will watch over you” (Proverbs 4:6).
Is the Wisdom in Proverbs 4:6 a distinct divine person?
The "Word" is not literally a person for the same reason that "Wisdom" is not literally a person. Both are to be taken metaphorically.
Jesus is the personification of the Word because He speaks the words of God. To listen to Jesus equals listening to the Word of God.
People often say I'm wrong when I post this because they say I looked it up in an Interlinear or Concordance and it shows the word is a "him" and not an "it." Those reference books show how the Bible translates a word and not what the Greek actually means. The pronoun is an "it" when it refers to an inanimate noun like the "Word" because Greek has grammatical gender and the "Word" in John 1 is a thing so the Greek says it's an "it."
John 1:14 is not a teaching on the trinity or that we should believe or confess that Jesus is God. The "Word" is the wisdom, plan or purpose of God and the Word became flesh as Jesus Christ. Thus, Jesus Christ was the Word in the flesh, which is shortened to the Word for ease of speaking. Scripture is also the Word in writing. Everyone agrees that the Word in writing had a beginning. So did the Word in the flesh. In fact, the Greek text of Matthew 1:18 says that very clearly: "Now the beginning of Jesus Christ was in this manner..." The modern Greek texts all read "beginning" in Matthew 1:18. Birth is considered an acceptable translation since the beginning of some things is birth, and so most translations read birth. Nevertheless, the proper understanding of Matthew 1:18 is the beginning of Jesus Christ. In the beginning God had a plan, a purpose, which became flesh when Jesus was conceived.
