Jesus denied being God

[mikesw]

An older manuscript than John called the Old Testament makes no mention of that. Actually, no one else in the entire Bible mentioned that. You would have to ignore everything else the Bible says to come to such a fringe conclusion as if a single verse overrides everything else. John 1:1 has absolutely nothing to do with the pre-existence of Jesus.

then John was confused in sharing what he did about the preexisting One who became incarnate. Like said too many times to those who are blind, there are too many passages speaking of the deity of Christ also shared in his words about preexistence. To deny those is to deny the literal meaning of what is recorded.

 

[Runningman]

then John was confused in sharing what he did about the preexisting One who became incarnate. Like said too many times to those who are blind, there are too many passages speaking of the deity of Christ also shared in his words about preexistence. To deny those is to deny the literal meaning of what is recorded.

You have misunderstandings about the doctrine of pre-existence that we should be able to resolve quickly when you see other examples.

Was Jesus crucified two times, one time before the world was created, and then another time in Israel? Looking forward to your answer.

Revelation 13
8All inhabitants of the earth will worship the beast—all whose names have not been written in the Lamb’s book of life, the Lamb who was slain from the creation of the world.

 

[mikesw]

You have misunderstandings about the doctrine of pre-existence that we should be able to resolve quickly when you see other examples.

Was Jesus crucified two times, one time before the world was created, and then another time in Israel? Looking forward to your answer.

Revelation 13
8All inhabitants of the earth will worship the beast—all whose names have not been written in the Lamb’s book of life, the Lamb who was slain from the creation of the world.

wow. you really like to take some obscure passage in a vision to reject the rest of scriptures. You have to deny what Jesus said and what John wrote.

It is perfectly fine to align the idea of Rev 13:8 with 1 Pet 1:20
20He was foreknown before the foundation of the world but was made manifest in the last times for the sake of you

So Peter shows preexistence of the Lamb who appears later. But unitarians despise that.

It also is being found among translators that the word could best be:
Revelation 13:8 (ESV)
8and all who dwell on earth will worship it, everyone whose name has not been written from the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb who was slain.

 

[synergy]

It seems your strategy is to now make claims and decorate them with Bible verses that state nothing in regards to your claim. Probably because you hope to bolster your credibility, but it only works if you are speaking to people who have not actually read the Bible or have bothered to look up your heretical pagan teachings.

The Old Testament states explicitly that God created alone, not as John 1:1-3 says where there is a God with a God creating through another God. Your fringe teachings are found nowhere else in the Bible. You have been rebuked.

You just ran away from Prov 8:22–31; Isa 48:16; Exod 25:8; Isa 7:14; 9:6; 40:3; and John 1:1–14 as fast as your legs can carry you. This is a typical unitarian response to Scripture.

Isaiah 44
24Thus says the LORD,
your Redeemer who formed you from the womb:
“I am the LORD,
who has made all things,
who alone stretched out the heavens,
who by Myself spread out the earth,

Excellent Monotheistic verse! Its immediate context (44:6–20) is one of the strongest declarations of uncompromising Monotheism in all Scripture. It explicitly denies that any idol, angel, or rival deity participated in creation. Also, that same verse becomes profoundly Trinitarian when read in light of the entire NT. The NT teaches that all things were created through the Son (John 1:3; Col 1:16) and that the Spirit was active in creation (Gen 1:2), meaning that they all share in the one divine identity Isaiah defends. Thus, Isaiah 44:24 powerfully refutes polytheism while simultaneously providing the very monotheistic framework within which Trinitarian theology affirms one God in three distinct persons.

 

[Runningman]

You just ran away from Prov 8:22–31; Isa 48:16; Exod 25:8; Isa 7:14; 9:6; 40:3; and John 1:1–14 as fast as your legs can carry you. This is a typical unitarian response to Scripture.

I read them already and they state nothing in regards to your claim. Perhaps you should quote where you imagined in those verses regarding the Word how they "speak of a separate distinct individual acting personally in creation." You need to be the one to own this instead of just slapping down random Bible verses while seeming to hope no one actually checks them.

Excellent Monotheistic verse! Its immediate context (44:6–20) is one of the strongest declarations of uncompromising Monotheism in all Scripture. It explicitly denies that any idol, angel, or rival deity participated in creation. Also, that same verse becomes profoundly Trinitarian when read in light of the entire NT. The NT teaches that all things were created through the Son (John 1:3; Col 1:16) and that the Spirit was active in creation (Gen 1:2), meaning that they all share in the one divine identity Isaiah defends. Thus, Isaiah 44:24 powerfully refutes polytheism while simultaneously providing the very monotheistic framework within which Trinitarian theology affirms one God in three distinct persons.

Now that we have proven that God as a singular person created alone and wasn't in the beginning God with God, why do you keep selling a pagan myth about a polytheistic God if you have the sense to recognize that God is monotheistic?

 

[Runningman]

wow. you really like to take some obscure passage in a vision to reject the rest of scriptures. You have to deny what Jesus said and what John wrote.

It is perfectly fine to align the idea of Rev 13:8 with 1 Pet 1:20
20He was foreknown before the foundation of the world but was made manifest in the last times for the sake of you

So Peter shows preexistence of the Lamb who appears later. But unitarians despise that.

1 Peter 1:20 does nothing to support your claim of a pre-existence since it doesn't actually prove that Jesus was foreknown any differently than others who were foreknown yet didn't literally pre-exist.

Romans 8
29For those God foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brothers.

It also is being found among translators that the word could best be:
Revelation 13:8 (ESV)
8and all who dwell on earth will worship it, everyone whose name has not been written from the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb who was slain.

This reads awkwardly and unnatural sounding. It also doesn't make sense theologically. It suggests that God automatically excluded people from eternal life by not writing their name "in the book of life of the Lamb who was slain" before the Lamb was slain, which is nonsensical and contradictory. How could it be called "the book of life of the Lamb who was slain" if this book already had names excluded from it before the Lamb was actually slain? Are you trying to say God predestines people to not receive eternal life and there's nothing they can do about it?

 

[synergy]

I read them already and they state nothing in regards to your claim. Perhaps you should quote where you imagined in those verses regarding the Word how they "speak of a separate distinct individual acting personally in creation." You need to be the one to own this instead of just slapping down random Bible verses while seeming to hope no one actually checks them.

You didn't even address even one of those passages but just ran away again as fast as your legs can carry you.

Now that we have proven that God as a singular person created alone and wasn't in the beginning God with God, why do you keep selling a pagan myth about a polytheistic God if you have the sense to recognize that God is monotheistic?

Your polytheistic strawmen and illusions are all living rent free in your mind. There is nothing polytheistic about what I said. Trinitarianism is anchored on that Monotheistic platform and manifests itself most profoundly throughout the NT.

 

[mikesw]

1 Peter 1:20 does nothing to support your claim of a pre-existence since it doesn't actually prove that Jesus was foreknown any differently than others who were foreknown yet didn't literally pre-exist.

The idea of being "made manifest" is the transition from being invisible to visible. So you again are wrong on 1 Pet 1:20

If you want to make a new, novel, unique, private interpretation to be acceptable, you will need solid arguments to overcome the testimony of scripture.

Romans 8
29For those God foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brothers.

This reads awkwardly and unnatural sounding. It also doesn't make sense theologically. It suggests that God automatically excluded people from eternal life by not writing their name "in the book of life of the Lamb who was slain" before the Lamb was slain, which is nonsensical and contradictory. How could it be called "the book of life of the Lamb who was slain" if this book already had names excluded from it before the Lamb was actually slain? Are you trying to say God predestines people to not receive eternal life and there's nothing they can do about it?

So you simply deny the testimony of preexistence in favor of your new, novel, unique, private interpretation.

You might realize that humans do not not have preexistence except when the Son of God and son of Mary. You are doing the work of a hyperliteralist and take a weak meaning of a passage to deny the preexistence One who became Christ.

 

[Runningman]

The idea of being "made manifest" is the transition from being invisible to visible. So you again are wrong on 1 Pet 1:20

If you want to make a new, novel, unique, private interpretation to be acceptable, you will need solid arguments to overcome the testimony of scripture.

Again, this does nothing at all to demonstrate that Jesus is different than anyone else who was foreknown and yet didn't pre-exist. This demonstrates an inconsistency that you are unable to account for. If others are foreknown and didn't pre-exist, then the same must be true for Jesus. That is why I keep telling you to go directly to the source, but perhaps what will help you better is seeing that you have literally no Scriptural support for your claims.

So you simply deny the testimony of preexistence in favor of your new, novel, unique, private interpretation.

You might realize that humans do not not have preexistence except when the Son of God and son of Mary. You are doing the work of a hyperliteralist and take a weak meaning of a passage to deny the preexistence One who became Christ.

The version you provided is a forced and possible translation but it is theologically unsound. Trinitarians translated it that way because the correct version proves that Jesus didn't have a literal pre-existence. People aren't pre-destined to go to hell in Scripture so the translation you provided is a non-Christian translation.

This verse below contains no errors or theological issues.

Revelation 13
8All inhabitants of the earth will worship the beast—all whose names have not been written in the Lamb’s book of life, the Lamb who was slain from the creation of the world.

Question, since Jesus was not literally slain from the creation of the world, then it refers to Jesus' death in God's foreknowledge. Not a literal pre-existence.

Acts 2
23He was delivered up by God’s set plan and foreknowledge, and you, by the hands of the lawless, put Him to death by nailing Him to the cross.

 

[mikesw]

Again, this does nothing at all you demonstrate that Jesus is different than anyone else who was foreknown and yet didn't pre-exist. This demonstrates an inconsistency that you are unable to account for. If others are foreknown and didn't pre-exist, then the same must be true for Jesus. That is why I keep telling you to go directly to the source, but perhaps what will help you better is seeing that you have literally no Scriptural support for your claims.

The version you provided is a forced and possible translation but it is theologically unsound. Trinitarians translated it that way because the correct version proves that Jesus didn't have a literal pre-existence. People aren't pre-destined to go to hell in Scripture so the translation you provided is a non-Christian translation.

That is your hyperliteralism going. You apply a word as if it has one use and then controls all other passages. That is a basic error of interpretation methods. Plus, the word "manifest" undoes your argument. After study of the passage is done, all your argument totally fail.
I cannot go into all the errors of your interpretations. So we will just let your other errors remain. None is so dismissive of Christ as your denial of the testimony of him as incarnation of the preexistent One that John describes through metalyptically as the Word.

This verse below contains no errors or theological issues.

Revelation 13
8All inhabitants of the earth will worship the beast—all whose names have not been written in the Lamb’s book of life, the Lamb who was slain from the creation of the world.

Haha. It is not the verse that is in error. You got that right. It is the unitarian distortion that is in error. At best, you take an awkwardly written verse as your way to deny who Christ is.

Question, since Jesus was not literally slain from the creation of the world, then it refers to Jesus' death in God's foreknowledge. Not a literal pre-existence.

Acts 2
23He was delivered up by God’s set plan and foreknowledge, and you, by the hands of the lawless, put Him to death by nailing Him to the cross.

The plan of his sacrifice is acceptable to whenever God defined it. That does not mean that the preexisting One, designated as the Word, did not exist when God made that design.

 

[Runningman]

That is your hyperliteralism going. You apply a word as if it has one use and then controls all other passages. That is a basic error of interpretation methods. Plus, the word "manifest" undoes your argument. After study of the passage is done, all your argument totally fail.
I cannot go into all the errors of your interpretations. So we will just let your other errors remain. None is so dismissive of Christ as your denial of the testimony of him as incarnation of the preexistent One that John describes through metalyptically as the Word.

So your get out of jail free card is simply deny what the Bible says and fool yourself into believing that words don't mean what they mean, applying inconsistent reasoning, and baseless theological claims. You can settle all of your striving to justify the existence of your beliefs by showing a pre-existent Jesus under any name or title in the Old Testament. For someone who seems to so firmly believe what you do, you would think you would have all of your ducks in a row. You being able to explain why you believe what you do is evidence of you having been indoctrinated into something you didn't fully understand. You drank the kool-aid before you knew what was in it. Bad idea.

Haha. It is not the verse that is in error. You got that right. It is the unitarian distortion that is in error. At best, you take an awkwardly written verse as your way to deny who Christ is.

The version of Revelation 13:8 I provided you is from the NIV, it uses the original manuscript, and was produced by trinitarian publishers and translators.

The plan of his sacrifice is acceptable to whenever God defined it. That does not mean that the preexisting One, designated as the Word, did not exist when God made that design.

So we know that Jesus was not slain before the world was created, rather God had a set plan and foreknowledge for Jesus. So we have a solid example of Jesus not literally pre-existing in Revelation 13:8 and Acts 2:32. I did my job to explain why I know Jesus didn't pre-exist by quoting Scripture that makes it impossible. Your job is different than mine because you need to actually show where he is pre-existing doing anything.

 

[mikesw]

So your get out of jail free card is simply deny what the Bible says and fool yourself into believing that words don't mean what they mean, applying inconsistent reasoning, and baseless theological claims. You can settle all of your striving to justify the existence of your beliefs by showing a pre-existent Jesus under any name or title in the Old Testament. For someone who seems to so firmly believe what you do, you would think you would have all of your ducks in a row. You being able to explain why you believe what you do is evidence of you having been indoctrinated into something you didn't fully understand. You drank the kool-aid before you knew what was in it. Bad idea.

haha. you are at it again. You deny the preexisting scenarios in the OT even while saying the key -- the other ways that One exists in various scenarios. Clever for you to make those options available as an argument but then always rejecting the evidence as it comes up. So the problem is not finding likely references to that preexistence. The problem is that the unitarian denies, denies, denies. We show examples but since this does not show a human body called Jesus in the OT, you always deny the preexistence on false grounds. We even know Jews saw Two Powers in Heaven (using Segal's book title).

You deny the preexistence because you do not understand who God is.

sThe version of Revelation 13:8 I provided you is from the NIV, it uses the original manuscript, and was produced by trinitarian publishers and translators.

So we know that Jesus was not slain before the world was created, rather God had a set plan and foreknowledge for Jesus. So we have a solid example of Jesus not literally pre-existing in Revelation 13:8 and Acts 2:32. I did my job to explain why I know Jesus didn't pre-exist by quoting Scripture that makes it impossible. Your job is different than mine because you need to actually show where he is pre-existing doing anything.

The wording is difference is not so much the issue. The issue is that you simply deny the preexisting One who became incarnate as Jesus. Once you find a convenient word definition to apply in a verse you like, you try to apply that meaning everywhere. In this case you do not even need the word "foreknew." That is grade school mentality rather than a sufficient interpretation skill.

Of course you also dropped the use of "manifest" which indicates going from invisible to visible. This again affirms preexistence. But unitarians have a web of so-called knowledge and then end up caught in that web--unable to break free.

 

[Peterlag]

I've proven that John 20:28 does NOT say "Thomas CALLED Jesus my Lord and my God." But people still claim it does.

 

[Runningman]

haha. you are at it again. You deny the preexisting scenarios in the OT even while saying the key -- the other ways that One exists in various scenarios. Clever for you to make those options available as an argument but then always rejecting the evidence as it comes up. So the problem is not finding likely references to that preexistence. The problem is that the unitarian denies, denies, denies. We show examples but since this does not show a human body called Jesus in the OT, you always deny the preexistence on false grounds. We even know Jews saw Two Powers in Heaven (using Segal's book title).

You deny the preexistence because you do not understand who God is.

The wording is difference is not so much the issue. The issue is that you simply deny the preexisting One who became incarnate as Jesus. Once you find a convenient word definition to apply in a verse you like, you try to apply that meaning everywhere. In this case you do not even need the word "foreknew." That is grade school mentality rather than a sufficient interpretation skill.

Of course you also dropped the use of "manifest" which indicates going from invisible to visible. This again affirms preexistence. But unitarians have a web of so-called knowledge and then end up caught in that web--unable to break free.

Nice rant.

I will take you being unable or unwilling to show Jesus pre-existing as proof that you don't have anything; that encourages me.

Now I want to hear from every trinitarian on this board. Please show where Jesus pre-existed in the Old Testament.

 

[mikesw]

Nice rant.

I will take you being unable or unwilling to show Jesus pre-existing as proof that you don't have anything; that encourages me.

Now I want to hear from every trinitarian on this board. Please show where Jesus pre-existed in the Old Testament.

you have denied every likely evidence, including the creation of the world. It is like the judge who denied the defendant the proper approach of his defense. When you remove any type of evidence from being permissible, there is no argument that can be made that is convincing. duhhhh

 

[Runningman]

you have denied every likely evidence, including the creation of the world. It is like the judge who denied the defendant the proper approach of his defense. When you remove any type of evidence from being permissible, there is no argument that can be made that is convincing. duhhhh

All of your "arguments" were refuted. You have nothing that clearly shows Jesus pre-existing, just arguments and distortions of Scripture.

 

[Peterlag]

Jesus Christ is not a lexical definition of logos...

The verse does not say "In the beginning was Jesus." 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]

All of your "arguments" were refuted. You have nothing that clearly shows Jesus pre-existing, just arguments and distortions of Scripture.

Like I said, you refute the evidence before the discussion starts. You are playing with a stacked deck but you end up being the loser. If Jesus did not speak of existing before Abraham with John likewise showing it, you might start having a true basis for denial.

 

[synergy]

Now I want to hear from every trinitarian on this board. Please show where Jesus pre-existed in the Old Testament.

In the Old Testament, God is explicitly described with titles and concepts later directly applied to Jesus, even if the name “Jesus” is not used. Isaiah 48:12–16 features a speaker who is both the LORD and yet “sent” by the LORD with His Spirit. Psalm 110:1 records the LORD speaking to “my Lord,” a divine figure enthroned alongside God and later identified by Jesus as referring to himself. Daniel 7:13–14 presents the “Son of Man” receiving eternal dominion and worship—something reserved for God alone. Isaiah 63:9–10 distinguishes the LORD from the “Angel of His Presence” who saves and redeems, a figure understood as the divine mediator later revealed fully as Christ. I can keep going on and on but it is useless in your case because you always run away from Scripture presented to you.

 

[synergy]

Jesus Christ is not a lexical definition of logos...

The verse does not say "In the beginning was Jesus." 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 1:1b says that "the Word was with God", face to face with God. It would be bizarre to say that God was face to face with his expression of thought or plan, as if God was being confronted with his expression or plan.