All Claims of The Son's Deity
- Thread starter Johann
- Start date
By every chart a unitarian creates, he shall live by those charts alone. No discussion is needed.
Victoria
Active Member
The Alexandrian Text used as a retaliation method towards the Traditional Text the Protestants use.
Rome just can't let Bible believing Christians be.
You have a misunderstanding of what the meaning behind begotten is then. God has many sons, Jesus alone holds the title begotten as a stand-out... His deity. To say God's only son, or one & only son = makes God a liar.
This is the problem I have w/ the modern translations.
That contradicted each other? Had errors in it? NO
Are there any areas w/in the Byzantine Text that attacks the Godhead, the Gospels, salvation, etc.?
Especially 2 Timothy 2:15
If you could show me any examples, I'm open to hearing you out.Yes, Paul did warn against philosophy and human tradition that would lead away from Christ.
Yes, in Acts 8, Simon selfishly thought he could purchase the ability of laying on hands to give the holy spirit, aka the gift of God with money.
Where does 2 Peter 1:20 say anything about Gnostics 'figuratively interpreting prophecy'? I do agree that the Gnostics were 'bothersome'I think more in the thought process that Christ couldn't have come in the flesh because NOTHING good could come from the flesh which, I believe, is why John kept reiterating the fact the one must confess that Jesus Christ came in the flesh. (1 John & 2 John)
Yea, and there were the Saduccees who didn't believe in the resurrection . . . the early Christians always had people around who carried their own philosophies and traditions.
I believe that some transcribers, being men, transcribed with bias but I don't believe any of the references above had anything to do with the transcription of scripture.
Victoria
Active Member
Regarding 2 Timothy 2:15, Traditional Text, as one example, seems pretty consistent to me.
Why was this verse changed? It's not an error.
John Wycliffe Bible (1382)
Bisili kepe to yyue thi silf a preued preisable werkman to God, with oute schame, riytli tretinge the word of treuthe.
Tyndale Bible (1534)
Study to shewe thy silfe laudable vnto god a workman yt nedeth not to be a shamed dividynge the worde of trueth iustly
Geneva Bible (1560/1599)
Studie to shewe thy selfe approued vnto God, a workeman that needeth not to be ashamed, diuiding the worde of trueth aright.
Bishops Bible (1568)
Studie to shewe thy selfe approued vnto God, a workman not to be ashamed, rightlie deuidyng the worde of trueth.
Why was this verse changed? It's not an error.
John Wycliffe Bible (1382)
Bisili kepe to yyue thi silf a preued preisable werkman to God, with oute schame, riytli tretinge the word of treuthe.
Tyndale Bible (1534)
Study to shewe thy silfe laudable vnto god a workman yt nedeth not to be a shamed dividynge the worde of trueth iustly
Geneva Bible (1560/1599)
Studie to shewe thy selfe approued vnto God, a workeman that needeth not to be ashamed, diuiding the worde of trueth aright.
Bishops Bible (1568)
Studie to shewe thy selfe approued vnto God, a workman not to be ashamed, rightlie deuidyng the worde of trueth.
Runningman
Active Member
There is some evidence that Matthew 28:19 doesn't belong there, but not enough to outright deny it such as is the case with 1 John 5:7 in the received text. Also, the way doctrines are made are with supporting verses. For example, if Matthew 28:19 refers to a triune god then we should expect to see that same idea somewhere else in the Bible or God defined as anyone else other than the Father. Support for the trinity is very sparse and disconnected in scripture.
Victoria
Active Member
The law was only meant to show their fallen nature, their need of Him, & that it's impossible to keep the entire law perfectly b/c only God is perfect, we're not. It's impossible to please God w/out faith (Hebrews 11:6; Romans 4:3; Galatians 3:6). The law was a schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, Paul later reveals to us Gentiles. So no, they were never expected to keep the entire law perfectly. However, the religious have a self-righteous problem due to their sin nature.
Son w/ a capital S, Messiah meaning Saviour... YES!!!
Ooo, also... Jesus Christ was God the Father's BEGOTTEN Son. Begotten = deity, baby!
My Lord, & My God! Best rendition of "How Great Thou Art" I've ever heard
How Great Thou Art
Last edited:
Runningman
Active Member
There isn't any clear reason why the same argument couldn't apply to Jesus. So you have provided a powerful argument against what your thesis is. This is why Jesus was tempted in all ways as we are and made exactly like his brothers. He's a human who showed us what is possible.
Did you know Jesus is called "a Son of God" and not always "the Son of God" in the New Testament several times?Son w/ a capital S, Messiah meaning saviour... YES!!!
My Lord, & My God! Best rendition of "How Great Thou Art" I've ever heard
How Great Thou Art
Victoria
Active Member
How many have actually been called begotten? Only One
Dude. If any of what you said were true, I would not be finding the Trinity evidence. There are too many points of evidence but you just re-interpret the evidence so you do not have to follow the true Christ. I heard you Schoenheits have a book you follow for your arguments. Do you think that is convincing enough to dissuade Trinitarians from the evidence in scripture?
What you have shared is far from convincing and thus not changing views here except to create a stronger recognition of the evidence of the Triune God.
Victoria
Active Member
Runningman
Active Member
So Jesus is literally a begotten Son and not an eternal being?How many have actually been called begotten? Only One
Acts 17
29Therefore, being offspring of God, we should not think that the Divine Being is like gold or silver or stone, an image formed by man’s skill and imagination.
Victoria
Active Member
That one post, The Unitarian Times, had me rolling... given the political end of things, TDS
Last edited:
Runningman
Active Member
You haven't found any evidence of the trinity. Some evidence might be "God is three persons" or "God is three" or anywhere God was called a they or them. That would be an excellent foundation for you, but the Bible doesn't even say that.
Runningman
Active Member
Perhaps a screen name change is in order. How about RunningDude.First time I've ever heard you say dude to someone
I think Runningman just needs a hug
Victoria
Active Member
There it is, Runningman... Godhead. It's no wonder you think it's unbiblical, you've got a corrupt version
"Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device." Acts 17:29
Victoria
Active Member
Whoa, now... something just dawned on me that I didn't catch at first. Divine Being... think New Age. It's New Age terminology!
Ever hear them referring to the "Divine", meaning the "Universe", but NOT Jesus Christ as being the Creator?
I have to remind you. Not everyone lives by hyperliteralism alone. Some people consider scripture for what it shares, not for simple one verse messages that control all other meaning of scripture.
Like I have shown. The Word appears in conversation with Abram in Gen 15:1-5. Abraham's is called to sacrifice Isaac, but the angel stopped that whereas God sacrifices his Son for our sin. The Jesus is called Mighty God in Isaiah 9:6-7, Dan 7:13-14 shows someone like a son of man on the clouds. Jesus is divine but also has humanity, and thus is called Son of Man. That term would be useless if it meant he was just another person born of man. It actually would be a bit off-target since his humanity only came through the woman, Mary. His Father was because he is born of God.
The unitarian has only reason to deny the virgin birth because it has no relevance to them.
Jesus is called God by Thomas, but unitarians cannot stand that Jesus is called God, so they make up another excuse. Yet, the Schoenheit says there is no evidence of the divinity of Christ, as if he has just opened up the Bible for the first time.
Victoria
Active Member
This is NOT meant as a personal attack on anyone who holds a modern version. It's just for educational purposes, equipping all serious Bible students w/ something they should be aware of. What each decides at the end of the day, it's between those believers, & God. We're supposed to watch out for each other. That's my only intention here.
New Age Bible Versions is the all-time, international best selling book, proving the perfection of the King James Bible and demonstrating the corruption of the ESV, NIV, NKJV, Legacy Standard, Amplified, Message, NRSV, NAB, REB, RSV, CEV, TEV, NET, GNB, Living, Phillips, New Jerusalem, New Century, and all modern versions.
New Age Bible Versions – Gail Riplinger
New Age Bible Versions is the all-time, international best selling book, proving the perfection of the King James Bible and demonstrating the corruption of the ESV, NIV, NKJV, Legacy Standard, Amplified, Message, NRSV, NAB, REB, RSV, CEV, TEV, NET, GNB, Living, Phillips, New Jerusalem, New Century, and all modern versions.
Do you to interpret this single verse that the "neither heard His voice" just refer to the Jews, and "neither seen His form" to all mankind?
What kind of standard of interpretation does Arians have?
John 5:37 “And the Father who sent Me, He has testified about Me. You have neither heard His voice at any time, nor seen His form.
Exo 33:20 He further said, “You cannot see My face, for mankind shall not see Me and live!”
Joh 1:18 No one has seen God at any time; God the only Son, who is in the arms of the Father, He has explained Him.
1Ti 6:16 who alone possesses immortality and dwells in unapproachable light, whom no one has seen or can see. To Him be honor and eternal dominion! Amen.
