Salvation and Unitarians

[Runningman]

False. Jesus explicitly referred to himself as the "I Am". John 8:58 rebukes you.

Jesus not being the I am in Acts 3:13 and claiming to be the I am in John 8:58 are not compatible ideas. In other words, they cannot co-exist without creating a contradiction. The way to resolve the woes of your eisegesis is to understand what Jesus was actually claiming in John 8:58. He didn't say " I am the I am" like God did in Exodus 3:14,15. So your proposal is a huge stretch and isn't consistent with Scripture.

Given the context, Jesus was claiming to be the man who was prophesied about before Abraham. In other words, Jesus hinted at being the messiah. That's all.

Right off the bat you can see how your theory falters. They believed in "Gods". Trinitarianism doesn't. Your theory crashed and burned before it could even take flight!

You believe in "gods" as well though you deny it. Hence, the point is your idea about our God isn't found in scripture.

Here is where Christ has the authority to make amends for sin and to forgive sins:

Hebrews 10:12: "But He (Jesus), having offered one sacrifice for sins for all time, sat down at the right hand of God"

Matthew 9:6: "The Son of man has authority on earth to forgive sins"

Of course you will run away from these verses as you always do as the Runningman.

God gave Jesus and the men authority to forgive sins.
Another perfect example of Jesus not having something that others don't. You still haven't figured out Jesus was the example of what is attainable.

Matthew 9
6But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins...” Then He said to the paralytic, “Get up, pick up your mat, and go home.” 7And the man got up and went home.

8When the crowds saw this, they were filled with awe and glorified God, who had given such authority to men.

 

[Runningman]

In John 8:58 Jesus is not saying explicitly "I am the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob". However, synergy thinks He said it implicitly.
In contrast, in Acts 3:13 Peter is saying explicitly "The God of Abraham and Isaac and Jacob, the God of our fathers, has glorified His Son Jesus". @Runningman is not interpreting anything implicitly. The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob has a Son... his Son.

If we are to believe that Jesus said implicitly what our brother synergy thinks he meant
and that the explicit statement of Peter does not say what it says,
these are the possible explanations to what Peter said. Let me know if you have alternative explanations.

• Peter didn't hear Jesus saying "I Am"
• Peter hadn't understood what Jesus said, despite the pouring of the Holy Spirit in Pentecost
• Peter heard and understood, but he was preaching his own, wrong interpretation of things
• Peter had taken a logical leap, and now thought that the God of Israel was his own son, and that the God of Israel had died and raised himself from the dead.

Yes, this is a matter of how one looks at the Bible. I am of the Berean mindset and very conservative with Scripture. Since the Bible says Jesus is the Son of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob then I believe they aren't the same person. Since Jesus didn't say "I am the I AM" then I don't believe he's the I AM. It's very basic and easy to understand that a father and son are not the same person. God and a man aren't the same person.

The Scripture testifies Jesus is a man whom God was with and worked through, not that Jesus was God or God incarnate, etc. Then upon inspecting how God worked through Jesus, the vast majority of signs and miracles Jesus did others were also doing.

Conclusion, God works through people. God is not people. Trinitarianism is a very liberal interpretation of Scripture in that it actually holds traditional, philosophy, and creeds to a higher authority than the Scripture themselves.

 

[Runningman]

That is not the "I Am" of the OT God. That's your interpretation, which must be tested.
Ego eimi does NOT equal YHWH. Not semantically, not contextually and more importantly, not spiritually.

So, the case is far from over.
If it is over for you, then you have discovered a new condition for God's forgiveness... never presented before that episode, and never presented after that episode.
If the case is over for you, then admit that, for you, millions of Jews and Muslims, as well as @Peterlag, @Runningman and @Studyman are dammed to die unforgiven.

Admit, then, that you will forgive me for any offence that I can make to you, but God will not.

The narrative in John 8 contains a denial by Jesus that he is God because, contrary to their accusations against him, he said in John 8:40 "But now you are trying to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God. Abraham never did such a thing."

So not only did Jesus place himself next to God in a sentence, but in contrast to claiming to be God, which he didn't, he admitted he is just a man who heard the truth from God. That makes Jesus a prophet.

It's pretty easy to see they were getting triggered by the things Jesus was saying. They didn't understand it.

 

[Runningman]

I thought your favorite argument was related to kurios? Now you're abandoning it. Typical.

Mat 22:44 ειπεν ο κυριος τω κυριω μου καθου εκ δεξιων μου εως αν θω τους εχθρους σου υποποδιον των ποδων σου

What about it? This proves that God and Jesus aren't the same Lord.

 

[Runningman]

A "Triune" God is mentioned many times throughout history and in various cultures. This is true in the OT and ancient religions all across the world. Such began before long before Calvary. It begins in the earthly narrative as "let us" and "our" image. After "our" likeness. It came through the children of Abraham and through Egypt. It found its way into the Egyptian culture.... and far eastern cultures through the sons of Keturah.

This isn't complicated. You just need to know history. The Triune God preexisted ALL the teachings. Which is why Romans 1 reads the way it does....

Rom 1:21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
Rom 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
Rom 1:23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

Put little more effort into knowing God instead of listen to your sinful peers.

In the OT, the Jews didn't believe in a Trinitarian style God. There is no evidence for them every referring to as a compound person or being or explicitly describe Him as a three-in-one God. They spoke of God as a singular person who used a singular name to identify Himself with. Traditionally and historically up to present day, the Jews regard the trinity idea as irreconcilable with Scripure.

There is also plenty of evidence of this from Matthew to Revelation, where no one apparently believed Jesus is God, not even Jesus thought he was God.

Since you mention Romans 1, let's just begin there where Paul pointed out that Jesus isn't God.

Paul, a Jew, didn't refer to Jesus as God nor believe it. Be honest, most of the things Paul said, if he came here saying it, you all would hate him for it.

Romans 1
7To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.

 

[synergy]

Jesus not being the I am in Acts 3:13 and claiming to be the I am in John 8:58 are not compatible ideas. In other words, they cannot co-exist without creating a contradiction. The way to resolve the woes of your eisegesis is to understand what Jesus was actually claiming in John 8:58. He didn't say " I am the I am" like God did in Exodus 3:14,15. So your proposal is a huge stretch and isn't consistent with Scripture.

Given the context, Jesus was claiming to be the man who was prophesied about before Abraham. In other words, Jesus hinted at being the messiah. That's all.

Tell us more about this "prophesy" theory. Book, Chapter, and Verse of where that "prophesy" took place, with special emphasis on the "I Am" name.

You believe in "gods" as well though you deny it. Hence, the point is your idea about our God isn't found in scripture.

The point is that Trinitarianism is not polytheistic. If you don't know that then you know nothing about the Trinity.

God gave Jesus and the men authority to forgive sins.
Another perfect example of Jesus not having something that others don't. You still haven't figured out Jesus was the example of what is attainable.

So people around your circles also did the following as did Jesus:

Hebrews 10:12: "But He (Jesus), having offered one sacrifice for sins for all time, sat down at the right hand of God"

Matthew 9
6But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins...” Then He said to the paralytic, “Get up, pick up your mat, and go home.” 7And the man got up and went home.

8When the crowds saw this, they were filled with awe and glorified God, who had given such authority to men.

Exactly! Men having such authority was not a common thing. That's because Jesus was not a common person. Thanks for those verses. Keep those Trinitarian verses coming!

 

[praise_yeshua]

What about it? This proves that God and Jesus aren't the same Lord.

Can you read what I posted?

 

[praise_yeshua]

In the OT, the Jews didn't believe in a Trinitarian style God. There is no evidence for them every referring to as a compound person or being or explicitly describe Him as a three-in-one God. They spoke of God as a singular person who used a singular name to identify Himself with. Traditionally and historically up to present day, the Jews regard the trinity idea as irreconcilable with Scripure.

There is also plenty of evidence of this from Matthew to Revelation, where no one apparently believed Jesus is God, not even Jesus thought he was God.

Since you mention Romans 1, let's just begin there where Paul pointed out that Jesus isn't God.

Paul, a Jew, didn't refer to Jesus as God nor believe it. Be honest, most of the things Paul said, if he came here saying it, you all would hate him for it.

Romans 1
7To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.

What is a name that is above every name?

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

All Angels and Prophets identified themselves as such. That was not the case here.

The Angel of God has been identified as such by the inspired authors and by God Himself talking through the inspired authors.
YHWH has called this Messenger “My angel” . Do you really need more evidence?

1. Exodus 23:23 “For My angel will go before you…”
2. Exodus 32:34 “So go now, lead the people to the place of which I have spoken to you. Indeed, My angel will go before you.”

You demand from the Messenger of YHWH to explicitly say “I am speaking the words that God asked me to speak”.
However, when it is Jesus who explicitly says “I am speaking the words that the Father asked me to speak” you don’t believe He is a Messenger. Your double standard is an intrinsic part of the fallacy you cherish.

The Person who spoke identified himself as the " the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob". That makes your Angel an Imposter.

It is not my Angel. Is it?
It is the Angel of YHWH. His Messenger, identified as such by Scriptures.
This is not a Pancho Frijoles theory.
So be careful and respectful with your words, friend.
How could YHWH send an imposter to speak on his behalf?

We've gone through this before.

We have, and nevertheless, in all this time you have not even tried to explain why the inspired authors would call Almighty God “a messenger”.
So, instead of repeating over and over the same unsupported assertions, why don’t you spend time preparing an argument for the benefit of our readers?

That Messenger appeared to Moses. Who is God and can appear to Moses, other than the Preincarnate Christ? I'll give you one guess.

I have already given you several guesses. It makes no difference in the end: All are Messengers. They are not God.
Hermes, the fast foot-winged messenger, was god for the Greek, not for Jesus and his disciples.

 

[praise_yeshua]

Tell us more about this "prophesy" theory. Book, Chapter, and Verse of where that "prophesy" took place, with special emphasis on the "I Am" name.

The point is that Trinitarianism is not polytheistic. If you don't know that then you know nothing about the Trinity.

So people around your circles also did the following as did Jesus:

Hebrews 10:12: "But He (Jesus), having offered one sacrifice for sins for all time, sat down at the right hand of God"

Exactly! Men having such authority was not a common thing. That's because Jesus was not a common person. Thanks for those verses. Keep those Trinitarian verses coming!

He was talking about a "Roman" language the other day. Here he us talking about "polytheistic".... He really doesn't understand the teaching Trinity. His basic argument is The Father can't be The Son.

 

[synergy]

He was talking about a "Roman" language the other day. Here he us talking about "polytheistic".... He really doesn't understand the teaching Trinity. His basic argument is The Father can't be The Son.

He's just spewing out whatever comes into his mind, hoping something will stick. Nothing ever does.

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

What is a name that is above every name?

“Jehovah saves” . This is (or was) the name above every name. The name Jesus proudly bear throughout his life.
The name of His God and Father, the source of salvation.

Maybe the name is different now (Rev 3:12).

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

He really doesn't understand the teaching Trinity.

Do you really understand it? . Just teasing you.
The Catholic Church humbly speaks about it as “The Mystery” of the Trinity. I respect that.

 

[praise_yeshua]

“Jehovah saves” . This is (or was) the name above every name. The name Jesus proudly bear throughout his life.
The name of His God and Father, the source of salvation.

Maybe the name is different now (Rev 3:12).

He has a name no one knows but He Himself alone. Sounds important doesn't it. Revelation 19:13

 

[praise_yeshua]

Do you really understand it? . Just teasing you.
The Catholic Church humbly speaks about it as “The Mystery” of the Trinity. I respect that.

I've debated it for a very long time. I'm on my phone at the moment making mistakes. Don't judge me too harshly.

 

[praise_yeshua]

Do you really understand it? . Just teasing you.
The Catholic Church humbly speaks about it as “The Mystery” of the Trinity. I respect that.

Also, FYI. Not all Trinitarians agree on all the details. However, we find great value in how the Father has highly exalted The Son..

 

[Runningman]

What is a name that is above every name?

You have it in your username. Yeshua points to YHWH. YHWH is salvation. Seeing it now?

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

He has a name no one knows but He Himself alone. Sounds important doesn't it. Revelation 19:13

Whatever that name is, there is One Person who gave it to Jesus and therefore , knows it.

“Therefore God highly exalted Him
and gave Him the name which is above every name”

 

[Runningman]

He has a name no one knows but He Himself alone. Sounds important doesn't it. Revelation 19:13

That’s not Jesus then. Jesus isn’t omniscient nor able to conceal information from the Father in scripture. So that’s a strong verse to suggest that the Father is the rider.

 

[Fred]

So that’s a strong verse to suggest that the Father is the rider.

You are confused.
Having eyes as a flame of fire is always used in the Book of Revelation in reference to Jesus (Revelation 1:14; 2:18; 19:12)