All Claims of The Son's Deity

[Runningman]

I try to always quote from literal word for word Bible translations that aims to maintain the highest degree of accuracy to the original languages. Paraphrase translations are the product from translators thoughts and not from the original wordings of the Bible.
No Strong Concordance and cannot be look upon what it means through Bible lexicons that define Bible words from the time it was used.

Unfortunately a "word for word" translation from koine Greek into English isn't coherent. Watch how it goes with Hebrews 1:8. See how the translators have to add their own spin to it for readability and coherency? So they are actually making their best guess. That's why translations can go any number of viable ways. It's why there are hundreds of different Bible versions, too.

So "God is thy throne." is actually a reasonable English translation. They didn't just pull it out of thin air.

Hebrews 1:8
πρὸς δὲ τὸν υἱόν· Ὁ θρόνος σου ὁ θεὸς εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα τοῦ αἰῶνος, καὶ ἡ ῥάβδος τῆς εὐθύτητος ῥάβδος τῆς βασιλείας σου.
“But toward the son: the throne of you the god into the age of the age, and the rod of straightness rod of the kingdom of you.”

 

[Peterlag]

What is Trinity Derangement Syndrome...

John 17:3
And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

1 Corinthians 8:6
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.

John 20:17
Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.

 

[mikesw]

What is Trinity Derangement Syndrome...

John 17:3
And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

1 Corinthians 8:6
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.

John 20:17
Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.

Indeed if trinitarians interpreted the Triune God in the distorted way the unitarians view trinitarianism, there would be a problem. However, Trinitarians interpret scripture recognizing the ambiguity of Christ Jesus's divinity and, contrary to Peterlag's conception, do not see Jesus as a separate god in violation of JOhn 17:3 but recognize Jesus, in the flesh, has put aside his glory he had before incarnation as seen in John 17:5
"And now, O Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was."

I think unitarians get confused thinking that they are denouncing the idea of scripture showing there are three gods. Nah. They are denying scriptures showing Jesus and the Holy Spirit are the same God in the Trinity but three persons therein.

 

[mikesw]

What is Trinity Derangement Syndrome...

John 17:3
And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

1 Corinthians 8:6
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.

John 20:17
Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.

View attachment 2349

if you are going to study unitarian psychiatrists, you might as well exalt Freud.

 

[Peterlag]

Indeed if trinitarians interpreted the Triune God in the distorted way the unitarians view trinitarianism, there would be a problem. However, Trinitarians interpret scripture recognizing the ambiguity of Christ Jesus's divinity and, contrary to Peterlag's conception, do not see Jesus as a separate god in violation of JOhn 17:3 but recognize Jesus, in the flesh, has put aside his glory he had before incarnation as seen in John 17:5
"And now, O Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was."

I think unitarians get confused thinking that they are denouncing the idea of scripture showing there are three gods. Nah. They are denying scriptures showing Jesus and the Holy Spirit are the same God in the Trinity but three persons therein.

Other symptoms include:

1.) Adding unusual and unscriptural terms, words, and phrases.
2.) Confusion of mixing ideas and precepts in place of actual scripture language.
3.) strawmen and equating constructs as doctrine proofs.
4.) fantasy and fanciful imaginations of three God persons co-equally sharing power, glory, and knowledge.
5.) The dreaded affliction is highly infectious around institutional churches, denominations, and Bible Colleges.

 

[mikesw]

Other symptoms include:

1.) Adding unusual and unscriptural terms, words, and phrases.
2.) Confusion of mixing ideas and precepts in place of actual scripture language.
3.) strawmen and equating constructs as doctrine proofs.
4.) fantasy and fanciful imaginations of three God persons co-equally sharing power, glory, and knowledge.
5.) The dreaded affliction is highly infectious around institutional churches, denominations, and Bible Colleges.

so the unitarian advocates using the unitarian pocket dictionary so they can control the discussion to their own beliefs.
The unitarian relies on proof texts taken out of context to establish their doctrines and they deny the passages that point out clearly the divinity of Christ.
The essential problem is the unitarian denies the ambiguity of Christ as both human and divine. Instead of addressing the ambiguity, they just deny the verses that reject their doctrines.

all you need to do to overcome these passages is to make an argument sufficient for the unitarian view. But that will not happen because unitarians do not address the verses that deny their view.

 

[Capbook]

Unfortunately a "word for word" translation from koine Greek into English isn't coherent. Watch how it goes with Hebrews 1:8. See how the translators have to add their own spin to it for readability and coherency? So they are actually making their best guess. That's why translations can go any number of viable ways. It's why there are hundreds of different Bible versions, too.

So "God is thy throne." is actually a reasonable English translation. They didn't just pull it out of thin air.

Hebrews 1:8
πρὸς δὲ τὸν υἱόν· Ὁ θρόνος σου ὁ θεὸς εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα τοῦ αἰῶνος, καὶ ἡ ῥάβδος τῆς εὐθύτητος ῥάβδος τῆς βασιλείας σου.
“But toward the son: the throne of you the god into the age of the age, and the rod of straightness rod of the kingdom of you.”

Yes, the Father to the Son, "Your throne, O God" or any of your interpretation still refer to the Son as "theos."
And one definition of Bible lexicon of "theos" as 2b) Christ, the second person of the trinity.

Heb 1:8 προςG4314 PREP δεG1161 CONJ τονG3588 T-ASM υιονG5207 N-ASM οG3588 T-NSM θρονοςG2362 N-NSM σουG4771 P-2GS οG3588 T-NSM θεοςG2316 N-NSM ειςG1519 PREP τονG3588 T-ASM αιωναG165 N-ASM | [τουG3588 T-GSM αιωνος]G165 N-GSM | τουG3588 T-GSM αιωνοςG165 N-GSM | καιG2532 CONJ ηG3588 T-NSF ραβδοςG4464 N-NSF τηςG3588 T-GSF ευθυτητοςG2118 N-GSF ραβδοςG4464 N-NSF τηςG3588 T-GSF βασιλειαςG932 N-GSF | αυτουG846 P-GSM | σουG4771 P-2GS |

G2316
θεός theos
Thayer Definition:
1) a god or goddess, a general name of deities or divinities
2) the Godhead, trinity
2a) God the Father, the first person in the trinity
2b) Christ, the second person of the trinity
2c) Holy Spirit, the third person in the trinity

 

[Capbook]

I answered you and probably answered you a few times. You (I think) are too far gone to understand the Scriptures. We are under the grace administration and that's what the New Testament is telling you. The whole book of Galatians tells you that. It's all over Ephiesians.

Do you agree that Jesus is God or you just missed the said statement?

 

[101G]

What is Trinity Derangement Syndrome...

John 17:3
And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

1 Corinthians 8:6
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.

John 20:17
Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.

View attachment 2349

do John 1:3 and Isaiah 44:24 is included in your (TDS?)

101G.

 

[Runningman]

Yes, the Father to the Son, "Your throne, O God" or any of your interpretation still refer to the Son as "theos."
And one definition of Bible lexicon of "theos" as 2b) Christ, the second person of the trinity.

Same exact identical thing applies to the human king with a human wife in Psalm 45. That has been my point for several comments with you. The human king with a human wife in Psalm 45 isn't God. That's a reasonable conclusion right? They aren't calling Jesus God when they quote Psalm 45:6,7 in Hebrews 1:8,9. Yes, the word "elohim" is in the passage, but many humans are elohim in the Bible without being God in the same sense Lord God Almighty is. Here are some examples:

Psalm 82
6I have said, ‘You are gods;
you are all sons of the Most High.’
7But like mortals you will die,
and like rulers you will fall.”

Exodus 7
1The LORD answered Moses, “See, I have made you like God to Pharaoh, and your brother Aaron will be your prophet.

Heb 1:8 προςG4314 PREP δεG1161 CONJ τονG3588 T-ASM υιονG5207 N-ASM οG3588 T-NSM θρονοςG2362 N-NSM σουG4771 P-2GS οG3588 T-NSM θεοςG2316 N-NSM ειςG1519 PREP τονG3588 T-ASM αιωναG165 N-ASM | [τουG3588 T-GSM αιωνος]G165 N-GSM | τουG3588 T-GSM αιωνοςG165 N-GSM | καιG2532 CONJ ηG3588 T-NSF ραβδοςG4464 N-NSF τηςG3588 T-GSF ευθυτητοςG2118 N-GSF ραβδοςG4464 N-NSF τηςG3588 T-GSF βασιλειαςG932 N-GSF | αυτουG846 P-GSM | σουG4771 P-2GS |

G2316
θεός theos
Thayer Definition:
1) a god or goddess, a general name of deities or divinities
2) the Godhead, trinity
2a) God the Father, the first person in the trinity
2b) Christ, the second person of the trinity
2c) Holy Spirit, the third person in the trinity

In this case it was translated from Hebrew. The equivalent for elohim in Psalm 45:6 in Greek is a singular person, not a compound or multi-person plural God. The language of the Bible disproves your many theories.

 

[Peterlag]

do John 1:3 and Isaiah 44:24 is included in your (TDS?)

101G.

John 1:3... yep I have detailed files on that verse. Behold...

“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."

 

[Peterlag]

so the unitarian advocates using the unitarian pocket dictionary so they can control the discussion to their own beliefs.
The unitarian relies on proof texts taken out of context to establish their doctrines and they deny the passages that point out clearly the divinity of Christ.
The essential problem is the unitarian denies the ambiguity of Christ as both human and divine. Instead of addressing the ambiguity, they just deny the verses that reject their doctrines.

all you need to do to overcome these passages is to make an argument sufficient for the unitarian view. But that will not happen because unitarians do not address the verses that deny their view.

There are no verses that point out clearly the divinity of Christ.

 

[mikesw]

There are no verses that point out clearly the divinity of Christ.

that point maybe be possible but it means that the basic text of scripture is not being comprehended. That is why it is good that you reveal your weaknesses of interpretation that then can be corrected. I help toward that goal by noting how the unitarians are hyperliteralists, who take a few verses to restrict what all other verses can mean. They end up denying the power of God to intervene in humanity in the way he sees fit.

 

[Runningman]

that point maybe be possible but it means that the basic text of scripture is not being comprehended. That is why it is good that you reveal your weaknesses of interpretation that then can be corrected. I help toward that goal by noting how the unitarians are hyperliteralists, who take a few verses to restrict what all other verses can mean. They end up denying the power of God to intervene in humanity in the way he sees fit.

So your premise is that hyper literalism is bad except for where you decide it's not. Ok, so the Word is not literally God in John 1:1. 1 John 1:1-3 calls the Word a thing. Now your turn to make a hyper literalist's argument. The issue is actually you you don't understand the broad scope of Scripture and the guardrails that it provides in the way to understand God. For starters, God is a singular person, not more than one person (John 17:1-3, 1 Corinthians 8:4-6, Ephesians 4:6) so you can't reinterpret the Bible in ways that contradict this very basic and fundamental fact, yet you do. Pot, meet kettle.

 

[mikesw]

So your premise is that hyper literalism is bad except for where you decide it's not. Ok, so the Word is not literally God in John 1:1. 1 John 1:1-3 calls the Word a thing. Now your turn to make a hyper literalist's argument. The issue is actually you you don't understand the broad scope of Scripture and the guardrails that it provides in the way to understand God. For starters, God is a singular person, not more than one person (John 17:1-3, 1 Corinthians 8:4-6, Ephesians 4:6) so you can't reinterpret the Bible in ways that contradict this very basic and fundamental fact, yet you do. Pot, meet kettle.

again you reemphasize your one-verse hyperliteralism. You use John 17:3 to deny v5 and to deny John 1:18 and reject Thomas recognizing the divinity of God. That is the problem that you never get beyond. It is like a block wall that keeps you trapped into an incorrect way of thinking. I'm here to show you that God challenges people to look deeper and seek out what God actually shows -- and really it is shown in the open as in John 1 about the divinity of Christ, explaining Jesus as the logos to Philo's philosophical approach. This is not some deeply hidden truth.

 

[101G]

John 1:3... yep I have detailed files on that verse. Behold...

“Everything came to be through it.” The logos is an “it” not a “him.”

using your quote, "is not the it (as you say), is God's voice", yes or no?

if the "it" is not God's voice ..... then please state your fact as to who the "it" is, looking to hear your answer.

101G.

 

[Runningman]

again you reemphasize your one-verse hyperliteralism. You use John 17:3 to deny v5 and to deny John 1:18 and reject Thomas recognizing the divinity of God. That is the problem that you never get beyond. It is like a block wall that keeps you trapped into an incorrect way of thinking. I'm here to show you that God challenges people to look deeper and seek out what God actually shows -- and really it is shown in the open as in John 1 about the divinity of Christ, explaining Jesus as the logos to Philo's philosophical approach. This is not some deeply hidden truth.

There are over 6,000 examples of God being referred to as a singular person with a singular personal name in the Old Testament alone. God is called a He, Him, His and never a they or them in all of Scripture. He is said to have created alone and there are no others beside Him. Jesus and the apostles got even more explicit and identified the one and only God as the Father. This isn't a one-verse-wonder or some fringe interpretation. The broad description of God in all of Scripture is as a singular person called YHWH the Father.

Again, the issue is actually you don't understand the broad scope of Scripture and the guardrails that it provides in the way to understand God. For starters, God is a singular person, not more than one person (John 17:1-3, 1 Corinthians 8:4-6, Ephesians 4:6) so you can't reinterpret the Bible in ways that contradict this very basic and fundamental fact, yet you do.

 

[Peterlag]

using your quote, "is not the it (as you say), is God's voice", yes or no?

if the "it" is not God's voice ..... then please state your fact as to who the "it" is, looking to hear your answer.

101G.

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.

 

[mikesw]

There are over 6,000 examples of God being referred to as a singular person with a singular personal name in the Old Testament alone. God is called a He, Him, His and never a they or them in all of Scripture. He is said to have created alone and there are no others beside Him. Jesus and the apostles got even more explicit and identified the one and only God as the Father. This isn't a one-verse-wonder or some fringe interpretation. The broad description of God in all of Scripture is as a singular person called YHWH the Father.

Statistics and rotten lies. You can even use statistics to deny Christ's divinity. Is that a special ability? Maybe you do not remember where it is noted that Trinitarians do not say Jesus is a separate god. Maybe someone with an LDS background would think that as the backdrop for interpretation, but Trinatarian orthodox Christians do not start with the background.

Again, the issue is actually you don't understand the broad scope of Scripture and the guardrails that it provides in the way to understand God. For starters, God is a singular person, not more than one person (John 17:1-3, 1 Corinthians 8:4-6, Ephesians 4:6) so you can't reinterpret the Bible in ways that contradict this very basic and fundamental fact, yet you do.

Okay we might call you a three-verse unitarian who denies the rest of scripture, even John 17:5 that shows Jesus' preexistence and having glory with the Father. We hope to expand your range of scripture that you rely upon.

 

[Runningman]

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.

All of the concordances and lexicons say logos means words, something said, reasoning, a motive, an expression of thought, etc. They think a thing is God. I feel like there may have been some misunderstandings of what John said in his poem in John 1:1. So he wrote 1John 1:1-3 where he explicitly called the Word a thing that was revealed or manifested in Jesus, not something that is Jesus.