God denotes nature, not person. John 1:1 makes perfect sense that way. For example, I can say that I am with a human and I am human. That's how the Word is with God and the Word is God makes perfect sense.
Is Jesus God?
- Thread starter Keiw1
- Start date
Wrangler
Well-known member
Gabriel pre-existed Jesus. Does not mean Gabriel is God. I agree that Jesus pre-existed Abraham but this does not mean he is God.
How can a voice be a god? The same way a word can be a god. Consider how the VOICE translation renders your back door reasoning.
Revelation 19:16
The Voice
16 And there on His robe and on His thigh was written His name: King of kings and Lord of lords.
Because there is no trinity verse, trinitarians have to read so much of their doctrine into unitarian text. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_of_Kings, the expression is not a claim of deity.
King of Kings[n 1] was a ruling title employed primarily by monarchs based in the Middle East. Although most commonly associated with Iran (historically known as Persia in the West[7]), especially the Achaemenid and Sasanian Empires, the title was originally introduced during the Middle Assyrian Empire by king Tukulti-Ninurta I (reigned 1233–1197 BC) and was subsequently used in a number of different kingdoms and empires, including the aforementioned Persia, various Hellenic kingdoms, Armenia, Georgia, and Ethiopia.
The title is commonly seen as equivalent to that of Emperor, both titles outranking that of king in prestige, stemming from the late antique Roman and Eastern Roman emperors who saw the Shahanshahs of the Sasanian Empire as their equals. The last reigning monarchs to use the title of Shahanshah, those of the Pahlavi dynasty in Iran (1925–1979)
Regarding Revelation 19:13 The Voice
13 He is dressed in a robe dipped in blood, and the name He was known by is <The Word of God>.
There is complete sepration from his title to the Voice in John 1:1. This is as it should be since there is no relationship between Rev 19:13 and John 1:1, thereby killing Trinitarians admitted best hope - which never existed.
Before time itself was measured, the Voice was speaking. The Voice was and is God.
Last edited:
Wrangler
Well-known member
You are simply wrong on the facts.
Here, you are going to the general use of a common word as yet another back door attempt to justify your doctrine. The oldest sense of the word "God" from Webster that I provided (the first sense) indeed denotes person, specifically the Supreme Person. By definition, supreme cannot have an equal.
But your claim that your take makes perfect sense is a sham as you cannot explain how this nature can be with that nature and be that nature. Now, your going so general, you cannot grasp how then is word different from god. If they mean the same thing, why use 2 words?
This abuse of language is necessary for trinitarianism to appear plausible. Scripture does not read "In the beginning was the trinity ...." And this absence is why trinitarians have to be totally invested in eisegesis. "The word is God" is how the verse reads and you know it does not refer to Jesus because Rev 19:16 informs us his title is <The Word of God>. So close, but so far away.
Trinitarians like to always be on offense, never answer questions put to them. From post # 58, John 16:29-30, 2 questions:
- Do you recognize Jesus disciples believed Jesus to be - not God, Himself, but - from God?
- Why do you suppose it is the disciples thought Jesus was from God if the proper take on John 1:1 is that he was God, Himself?
Wrangler
Well-known member
Another bit of this apple.
I and "a" signify singular. 1 + 1 = 2. Sure, you can say that you are with a human and are human. But that makes 2 humans.
Be intellectually honest. You cannot say you believe in one God except for when it is inconvienent.
It is intellectually honest to say that there is only one human nature, like there is only one God. When will you be intellectually honest?
Wrangler
Well-known member
LOL. Now you are changing your reference from 2 things - word and god or human and human - to nature. Again, just because 2 fish are together with the same nature does not mean there are not 2 fish.
You need to read entire sentences. This is what i wrote: The fact remains that Jesus explicitly declared that He preexisted Abraham as the God of the OT. Now if you want to continue to skip over that fact I can fully understand why.
You continue to misunderstand the difference between person and nature. It's 2 persons but one nature. Even an elementary child can understand the difference. Why can't you?
Please tell me the name of that translation. The translators must have been hearing voices in their head.
Wrangler
Well-known member
No. I read the sentence in its entirety. The part in bold is the EXACT OPPOSITE of explicit. It’s not even implied but only read into.
Exegesis. Extreme Eisegesis. Not the same.
Wrangler
Well-known member
No. You misunderstand there is no difference between person and Being. It is an inherent contradiction to say that that there is one God - who is the Supreme Being - who is not in one person.
You are just reading this into unitarian Scripture that contradicts this at every turn. God so loved the world that he came down as another person? No.
Wrangler
Well-known member
It is the VOICE translation, inspired by John 1.
Wrangler
Well-known member
Another bite at this Apple …
Jesus and God having 2 different natures is the strongest possible fact, demonstrable. Jesus died. It is the most important fact of the Bible.
God cannot die and there is not one verse that claims he did. Moreover, scripture explicitly says God - in his unitarian nature - raised Jesus from the dead.
Some trinitarians seek to escape this by claiming only Jesus’ human nature died. If this is true, it again proves Jesus and God do not have the same nature.
- God has one unchanging nature.
- Jesus has 2 natures; one is temporal and the other eternal.
- he is a created being.
- He was created after the Father already existed.
Wrangler
Well-known member
See what I mean about always being on the offense? Accusing me of what you, yourself are doing. You are not being intellectually honest in equating one human nature to one God person (or Being). Funny that you double down on this lack of intellectual honesty rather than answer tough questions.
This is the 3rd time I've asked this pair of questions. Why don't you answer? (I frequently encounter a competitive spirit among trinitarians, wanting to be 'win' the debate rather than more deeply understand Scritpure's plain meaning.
Wrangler
Well-known member
To re-iterate a couple of other points @synergy :
From https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/god
1 God : the supreme or ultimate reality: such as
a being or object that is worshipped as having more than natural attributes and powersspecifically : one controlling a particular aspect or part of realityGreek gods of love and war
3 a person or thing of supreme value
had photos of baseball's gods pinned to his bedroom wall
4 a powerful ruler
Jesus is the object of the anointing. The subject of the anointing, the person doing the anointing, is God - in his unitarian nature, the Being who created the Son - if words have meaning. And if they don't have meaning, there is no support for the trinity still.
From https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/god
1 God : the supreme or ultimate reality: such as
a being or object that is worshipped as having more than natural attributes and powersspecifically : one controlling a particular aspect or part of realityGreek gods of love and war
3 a person or thing of supreme value
had photos of baseball's gods pinned to his bedroom wall
4 a powerful ruler
The VOICE translation renders Mark 1:1: This is the beginning of the good news of Jesus, the Anointed One, the Liberating King, the Son of God. I love how it starts by stripping away the mystery of who Jesus is. He is OF God. Anointed by God.
Jesus is the object of the anointing. The subject of the anointing, the person doing the anointing, is God - in his unitarian nature, the Being who created the Son - if words have meaning. And if they don't have meaning, there is no support for the trinity still.
Wrangler
Well-known member
@synergy, from today's devotional reading
The same standard used to rationalize Jesus relationship to God must be consistently applied IF one is to have intellectual honesty. This verse implies the angel Jacob fought with was God, yes? All your God nature thinking must also apply to this verse IF you are to have intellectual honesty.
On what basis do you reject the claim that the angel who fought with Jacob is not God, based on this passage?
in the strength of his manhood he fought with God.
Yes, he fought with an angel and won
Yes, he fought with an angel and won
Hosea 12:4-5
The same standard used to rationalize Jesus relationship to God must be consistently applied IF one is to have intellectual honesty. This verse implies the angel Jacob fought with was God, yes? All your God nature thinking must also apply to this verse IF you are to have intellectual honesty.
On what basis do you reject the claim that the angel who fought with Jacob is not God, based on this passage?
It was explicit to the Pharisees and to Christ and that's what counts. That's why a stoning was commanded by the Pharisees. No stoning would be necessary if what you say was true.
I said human nature, not human being. Please stay focused on what I actually write.
Again, I said there is a difference between a person and human nature. There is one human nature as there is one God. There are multiple Divine persons as God as there are multiple human persons possessing the same one human nature.
Interesting. Was the translation an Unitarian undertaking?
Jesus, being God, has the same nature as God the Father. In addition to His Divine Nature, Jesus took on human nature at the Incarnation. It's all perfectly reasonable.
