Jesus denied being God

[101G]

Of course

thank you, the same one Person.
for being "ALONE" there is no one else present, and that means any other person or persons are not omni-present, meaning "God". there is oinly one PERSON who is God, who is ONLY "one" Spirit.

thanks.

101G.

 

[MTMattie]

thank you, the same one Person.
for being "ALONE" there is no one else present, and that means any other person or persons are not omni-present, meaning "God". there is oinly one PERSON who is God, who is ONLY "one" Spirit.

thanks.

101G.

So wrong, and no time. SIGH

We have a Godhead. A single Godhead that is comprised of 3 parts. 3 into a single Godhead. So be by themselves... as Jesus walked the Earth. or floating over the waters in Genesis, or breathing life into Adam... one of the 3 was doing their job/... so to speak but the 3 still hold the same title of Godhead.....

 

[Runningman]

Serious question(s) for all non-Trin believers.

Who is Jesus?

Where did Jesus come from?

How did Jesus come into being?

Why did Jesus come into being?

Why was Jesus given the power to forgive sins?

Why did Jesus say "“Therefore I say to you, any sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven people, but blasphemy against the Spirit shall not be forgiven.?"

What was the importance of the Holy Spirit?

Do you think that at one time the Holy Spirit could have been one of the Arch Angels?

May God bless you and I highly respect your integrity in the way you asked these questions. It's very refreshing see that you acknowledge that Jesus was, in fact, given the authority to forgive sins (Matthew 9:6-8) but it wasn't Jesus alone, it was the "men" so most likely would have been Jesus and his disciples. That's a spiritual gift God gave to them to help bolster their position and credibility.

It's also refreshing to see that you have pointed out an important distinction between the Holy Spirit and Jesus when you quoted the verse about blasphemy against the Holy Spirit not being forgivable, while on the other hand blasphemy against Jesus is forgivable. On that point, it's quite clear to see that Jesus and God are not the same. If I may ask you a question, why do you suppose Jesus didn't mention the Father? Do you suppose the Holy Spirit is another name for the Father? (I don't see that the Holy Spirit is an arch angel, but rather is the Father)

As for the rest of your questions, it's great to see, but the Bible says Jesus was made my God in the womb of Mary without her having a male partner. God sent Jesus to be a sin sacrifice, show us how to live, and show us how to know God so that all who believe will not perish but have eternal life. I would also clarify, believing in Jesus isn't the suggestion you just believe he existed and that's it. In believing in him, you would also be believing the things he said to do and, of course, following his instructions.

 

[mikesw]

So you do reject Jesus' words on the only true God. He was pretty clear about that only word there in John 17:3.

To believe otherwise would be to simply reject what he said.

John 17:3 And this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have
5 And now, O Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was.

The word "true" could also reflect "correct." This essentially can show that the conception of God among Jews was incorrect, not so much that they were thinking there were other gods. We have the parable of the minas where a man hid the minas because he only saw the nobleman as a severe man (Luke 19:120-21). Jesus then had to overcome the disciples' false perceptions.

Verse 5 is an amazing verse since it is one that inconspicuously tells the disciples of Jesus' divinity in the Godhead. I could imagine hearing that among many words and missing the amazing point Jesus shared here.

 

[mikesw]

I wonder what got these guys into this unitarian concept. Did they have a troubled or strict church experience and they identified the problem as trinitarianism? Maybe they got attracted to some passages that speak of Jesus' humanity so then they just interpreted the divinity passages to other meanings? Perhaps they start with some hyper-spiritual concept of religion and fit everything into doctrines that make them "spiritual" like Jesus.

I realized this list I gave was similar to what I observed of some young people who gave up on Christianity. Other reasons for taking the Unitarian view could be the opposite of the last entry; thus, they did not see expected "spirituality" in church so they sought a "spiritualizing" concept within the Christian designation. (Jesus spoke against the Pharisee's attempt to appear more spiritual when they took on priesthood purity rituals.) Another reason for the odd interpretation of scripture could be in the trend to seek the root religion. So people have sometimes gone to Greek Orthodox or to Jewish first-century practices in attempt to reach that root.
I can only share trends seen elsewhere, not what the people posting here have pursued.

 

[Peterlag]

You're not talking about the subject. You are copying and pasting the work of others. You're in a self delusion.

You can do whatever you want to do. You're one that started talking about being an "advanced writer".....

I'm coping and pasting data that a friend of mine has written down since he believes as I do that there is no trinity. And that data you cannot prove wrong so you say I did not write it myself. And you don't think you are acting like a fool? Oh and I do write well. This is my work... https://www.carb-fat.com/jesus.html

 

[Peterlag]

You used his material conclusions. Don't downplay what you did. You didn't even know Kittle was a raging anti-Semite. You did what most every modern "author" does. Repeat the work of others without vetting it yourself.

Tell me Kittle's definition is wrong for the word he is defining. You're doing it again. You don't discuss what Kittle said. You attack the man personally.

 

[Peterlag]

For the other readers here that may want to know what definition @praise_yeshua is questioning that I quote in my biblical paper. It is the following sentence. Like he does with me, he does not talk about the subject matter. Instead he attacks the man's personal life. Here he is attacking the guy who wrote the Theological Dictionary. Read it for yourself...

Kittel’s Theological Dictionary of the New Testament says the word “Christ” appears “when there is reference to the work or redemption.”

And this is the whole quote I have in my paper...

A distinction must be made between the various usages and combinations of his name: Jesus, Christ, Jesus Christ, Christ Jesus, and Lord Jesus Christ. Failing to make these distinctions and assuming that they are all used interchangeably clouds certain essential insights that are critical for christological accuracy. Basically, the usage of these terms is indicative of two distinctions. One is about his person, his humility when he was here upon the earth. The other is about his exaltation. Kittel’s Theological Dictionary of the New Testament says the word “Christ” appears “when there is reference to the work or redemption.” (1) This term emphasizes not so much the person of Christ as the job he was sent to do. This becomes very important when we understand Christ Jesus as he functions today with the power of God that has been placed within him.

The word "Christ" means "anointed" which leads to the obvious question, with what? Acts 10:38, says "with the holy spirit and with power." The holy spirit was upon men by measure in the Old Testament (2 Kings 2:9), Jesus received it without measure (John 3:34). So his messianic works were accomplished by the power of the holy spirit upon him, and it is those works in which he is presently engaged that is the referent of the word "Christ" in biblical usage. "Christ in you" (Colossians 1:27), refers not to a person but to the same enablement of the holy spirit without measure that Jesus received to become the "Christ."

"Jesus" refers to his earthly life and mission prior to being risen from the dead. "Jesus Christ" refers to the person who is the Son of God seated at the right hand of God. It is he with whom we have fellowship (1 John 1:3, 1 Corinthians 1:9). Though he is the exalted Christ seated at the right hand of God, he is personally acquainted with every member of his body, his brothers and sisters (Hebrews 2:11). "Christ Jesus" emphasizes his exalted position at the right hand of God, and the legal rights and privileges that have resulted from his accomplishments. This compound form of his name is most often used with "in" and "by" emphasizing not his person but his works.

God has highly exalted the Christ, and gave him a name, which is above every name. Thus, "Christ" became the name of his changed position; after he was raised from the dead, and exalted in glory. "Christ" in the Epistles denotes our position, blessing, and standing before God. In Christ, never in Jesus, marks him as the now glorified one who was once humbled. The combination with "Lord" marks his authority and power. "God hath made this same Jesus both Lord and Christ" (Acts 2:36). (2)

 

[praise_yeshua]

I'm coping and pasting data that a friend of mine has written down since he believes as I do that there is no trinity. And that data you cannot prove wrong so you say I did not write it myself. And you don't think you are acting like a fool? Oh and I do write well. This is my work... https://www.carb-fat.com/jesus.html

Which you openly admit came from your training. You share in that training. Still "parroting". Nothing more.

 

[praise_yeshua]

Tell me Kittle's definition is wrong for the word he is defining. You're doing it again. You don't discuss what Kittle said. You attack the man personally.

That is secondary. Yes. I can easily deal with Kittel because he lies. No lie is of the truth. When he speaks a lie it is because it came from the father o lies. It is why open reference Christ and an idol. It comes from your heart.

I know you don't love Christ from how you treat Him. It is why you don't or care to have your own voice relative the Majesty of Jesus Christ.

The fact you "believe" you can use any source of information regardless of WHO it came from.... shows just ignorant you really are.

 

[praise_yeshua]

For the other readers here that may want to know what definition @praise_yeshua is questioning that I quote in my biblical paper. It is the following sentence. Like he does with me, he does not talk about the subject matter. Instead he attacks the man's personal life. Here he is attacking the guy who wrote the Theological Dictionary. Read it for yourself...

Kittel’s Theological Dictionary of the New Testament says the word “Christ” appears “when there is reference to the work or redemption.”

And this is the whole quote I have in my paper...

A distinction must be made between the various usages and combinations of his name: Jesus, Christ, Jesus Christ, Christ Jesus, and Lord Jesus Christ. Failing to make these distinctions and assuming that they are all used interchangeably clouds certain essential insights that are critical for christological accuracy. Basically, the usage of these terms is indicative of two distinctions. One is about his person, his humility when he was here upon the earth. The other is about his exaltation. Kittel’s Theological Dictionary of the New Testament says the word “Christ” appears “when there is reference to the work or redemption.” (1) This term emphasizes not so much the person of Christ as the job he was sent to do. This becomes very important when we understand Christ Jesus as he functions today with the power of God that has been placed within him.

The word "Christ" means "anointed" which leads to the obvious question, with what? Acts 10:38, says "with the holy spirit and with power." The holy spirit was upon men by measure in the Old Testament (2 Kings 2:9), Jesus received it without measure (John 3:34). So his messianic works were accomplished by the power of the holy spirit upon him, and it is those works in which he is presently engaged that is the referent of the word "Christ" in biblical usage. "Christ in you" (Colossians 1:27), refers not to a person but to the same enablement of the holy spirit without measure that Jesus received to become the "Christ."

"Jesus" refers to his earthly life and mission prior to being risen from the dead. "Jesus Christ" refers to the person who is the Son of God seated at the right hand of God. It is he with whom we have fellowship (1 John 1:3, 1 Corinthians 1:9). Though he is the exalted Christ seated at the right hand of God, he is personally acquainted with every member of his body, his brothers and sisters (Hebrews 2:11). "Christ Jesus" emphasizes his exalted position at the right hand of God, and the legal rights and privileges that have resulted from his accomplishments. This compound form of his name is most often used with "in" and "by" emphasizing not his person but his works.

God has highly exalted the Christ, and gave him a name, which is above every name. Thus, "Christ" became the name of his changed position; after he was raised from the dead, and exalted in glory. "Christ" in the Epistles denotes our position, blessing, and standing before God. In Christ, never in Jesus, marks him as the now glorified one who was once humbled. The combination with "Lord" marks his authority and power. "God hath made this same Jesus both Lord and Christ" (Acts 2:36). (2)

Reminds me of.....

Tit 1:15 Unto the pure all things are pure: but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving is nothing pure; but even their mind and conscience is defiled.
Tit 1:16 They profess that they know God; but in works they deny him, being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate.

Thusly you have an rabid anti-Semite in the same thread as his father Rudolf. You show your inexperience by not knowing Judaism. If you did, you would know how these men have affected the theological condemnation that came from so called "Christians" that lead to the Holocaust and "White Supremacists".

The fact you include anything the man said in your writings shows your inexperience and lack of knowledge.

I don't need any of the "Kittels" to make my argument for me.......

FYI. Jesus dealt with your silliness a long time ago. You're not the first person to demand that Jesus wasn't who He said He was.

Mat 22:44 The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool?
Mat 22:45 If David then call him Lord, how is he his son?

So your of understand in the use of "Lord" here in these verses shows your silliness of not recognizing the semantic overlap in κύριος.

Once again. Rudimentary mistakes on your part. Parroting mistakes doesn't get you anywhere.

 

[praise_yeshua]

thank you, the same one Person.
for being "ALONE" there is no one else present, and that means any other person or persons are not omni-present, meaning "God". there is oinly one PERSON who is God, who is ONLY "one" Spirit.

thanks.

101G.

Yeah... Jesus Only.

Why all this "running" from the reference?

Does Perfection speak as One Voice?

What separation exists in "One Voice" that is identical in rank, authority, and substance?

You're losing so much here in your theology by holding to this limiting teaching.

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

There is no connection to Jesus Christ if there isn't an very real and powerfully emotional connection to Him. It is what drives me even when I fail. This connection is beyond reason. Beyond entirely understanding. It is what drove John the Beloved. It is what drove great men to successfully sharing Jesus Christ with humanity. The Gospel must be lived. You can't have this connection you're referencing and belittle Christ as an idol.

I agree with you and thank you again for the powerful insights you've shared.
I just want to clarify that I do not "belittle Christ as an idol". Perhaps you read something like that from another member of the Forum.
An idol takes us away from God. Christ lead us to God.

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

Another math problem for the non trins

It is not a math problem.
It is powerful poetry.

I am married. I am NOT one flesh with my wife. I have hypertension. My wife does not. She can't eat on behalf of me and I can't breathe on behalf of her.
We don't have one body and certainly we don't have one mind. We are separate persons.
So, becoming "one flesh" is obviously a metaphor of the strong bond of love between husband and wife. Let's remember that Jesus pronounced these words in the context of whether men could divorce from their wives.

 

[praise_yeshua]

I agree with you and thank you again for the powerful insights you've shared.
I just want to clarify that I do not "belittle Christ as an idol". Perhaps you read something like that from another member of the Forum.
An idol takes us away from God. Christ lead us to God.

I did see it from someone else.

If you would take that next step brother....

Recognize the "Great I AM" ... IS .........

Just like the Father. Coequal. CoEternal. CoPowerful. Perfect in Unity..... No divisions. No separations. Equal in Rank in their Eternal Perfection.

It is interesting to recognize how "Unitarians" talk of Unity and yet deny such Unity to God. Such are man made constructs.

 

[praise_yeshua]

It is not a math problem.
It is powerful poetry.

I am married. I am NOT one flesh with my wife. I have hypertension. My wife does not. She can't eat on behalf of me and I can't breathe on behalf of her.
We don't have one body and certainly we don't have one mind. We are separate persons.
So, becoming "one flesh" is obviously a metaphor of the strong bond of love between husband and wife. Let's remember that Jesus pronounced these words in the context of whether men could divorce from their wives.

One flesh is an analogy relative to "Only Begotten". It is not a solely "literal" fleshly confine.

Eve was taken from the "rib" of Adam. Christ was pierced in like manner to Adam for His Bride. You don't what your missing brother.

 

[mikesw]

That is secondary. Yes. I can easily deal with Kittle because he lies. No lie is of the truth. When he speaks a lie it is because it came from the father o lies. It is why open reference Christ and an idol. It comes from your heart.

I know you don't love Christ from how you treat Him. It is why you don't or care to have your own voice relative the Majesty of Jesus Christ.

The fact you "believe" you can use any source of information regardless of WHO it came from.... shows just ignorant you really are.

I would not find Kittle writing in the TDNT as problematic. He seems to present ideas as any respectful of any other scholar. (I'm not sure how much of Kittle is reasonably represented by Peterlag though.) So I would not have a problem considering his contributions -- at least what I know so far.

The TDNT entries by Kittle do not reflect anti-semitism based on an analysis by J. S. Vos per this video (but the video does not note where Vos shares this). As to anti-Trinitarianism, there are interesting abuses by JWs of Kittel's material. see link: #link trinity-Kittel.htm (www.bible.ca)

I partly was considering the content of the video but also doing AI requests about Kittel and Vos. Some say Kittel was devout Christian and went against the German Rationalism. It could be a useful project or study to assess Kittel's viewpoint, contribution, and concerns. I think in the end it depends whether a person gets their insight from one source or uses many sources plus intuition to understand scripture.

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

I did see it from someone else.

If you would take that next step brother....

Recognize the "Great I AM" ... IS .........

Just like the Father. Coequal. CoEternal. CoPowerful. Perfect in Unity..... No divisions. No separations. Equal in Rank in their Eternal Perfection.

It is interesting to recognize how "Unitarians" talk of Unity and yet deny such Unity to God. Such are man made constructs.

There is no way without a destination.
Certainly, I cannot get to the destination if I don't take the way.
But were it not for the destination that attracts me to it, I wouldn't take that way. I could perhaps take another.

Jesus presented Himself as the Way to the Father.
Jesus wants me to walk his Way and keep focused on the destination ahead: the arms of the Father.

In the parable of the evil vineyard workers, the owner of the vineyard sends messenger after messenger, and then his son, to claim something the workers owed to the owner.
Let me obey my Owner by paying attention to what his son is asking. If the son asks me my life, I will give it to Him, so that He can give it to my Owner.

 

[mikesw]

There is no way without a destination.
Certainly, I cannot get to the destination if I don't take the way.
But were it not for the destination that attracts me to it, I wouldn't take that way. I could perhaps take another.

Jesus presented Himself as the Way to the Father.
Jesus wants me to walk his Way and keep focused on the destination ahead: the arms of the Father.

In the parable of the evil vineyard workers, the owner of the vineyard sends messenger after messenger, and then his son, to claim something the workers owed to the owner.
Let me obey my Owner by paying attention to what his son is asking. If the son asks me my life, I will give it to Him, so that He can give it to my Owner.

Nothing like getting theology from someone who is not a Christian.
You may be too specific to specify a destination added to "the Way." However, the problem in your theology is that you do not see Jesus as the Way, the Truth, and the Life. You are saying every religion has a way. So you sometimes speak nicely of Jesus but you always deny that he is the only way. Of a truth then is that when Jesus is the Way, there is no other way.

 

[praise_yeshua]

I would not find Kittle writing in the TDNT as problematic. He seems to present ideas as any respectful of any other scholar. (I'm not sure how much of Kittle is reasonably represented by Peterlag though.) So I would not have a problem considering his contributions -- at least what I know so far.

The TDNT entries by Kittle do not reflect anti-semitism based on an analysis by J. S. Vos per this video (but the video does not note where Vos shares this). As to anti-Trinitarianism, there are interesting abuses by JWs of Kittel's material. see link: #link trinity-Kittel.htm (www.bible.ca)

I partly was considering the content of the video but also doing AI requests about Kittel and Vos. Some say Kittel was devout Christian and went against the German Rationalism. It could be a useful project or study to assess Kittel's viewpoint, contribution, and concerns. I think in the end it depends whether a person gets their insight from one source or uses many sources plus intuition to understand scripture.

We can disagree but "word choices" in translations are very meaningful. There are reasons that most any modern theologian references Kittel. Ironically, even Jews do such because of his influence upon modern choices in the MT.

When any translator takes upon themselves the task to accurately translate a very ancient source to a modern understanding, most anyone will show their bias in those word choices. Most people have no idea just how impactful a certain "choice of words" are to understanding the Scriptures. Their methodology is flawed. You can not make an accurate translation without considering every single use of that word throughout history and how each individual statement expresses an accurate thought. It is monumental task that is over simplified by less than stellar men.

I don't have an issue with his work among Nazis. I have a very real problem with his work. We can discuss further but I recommend you spend some time reviewing his works personally. I wouldn't trust AI or the assessment of others. "Human beings" have an agenda. Once someone writes something, they will defend what they've written "at all costs". It so very rare to find a retraction from anyone.

This world should be full of an historical record where theologians have realized their mistakes. It just doesn't happen due to egos and pride.

I realized this a very long time ago. It began with me in dealing with the choice of words made in translation the Latin works of Calvin. I spent time comparing different sources to soon realize that their "word choices" were drastically different from one another. I soon began looking for the same within various Bibles and commentaries. I very disheartened by what I learned. I learned just how prideful man could be. I then began to realize just how prideful I had been.

Show me a man that doesn't admit his mistakes and you'll find a man that never changes. There is never a scenario wherein we experience God and it does not change us.

Reconcile that fact and you begin to experience how the Truth impacts our lives.