The Bible does not teach to pray to Jesus

[synergy]

Thus we have proof that you reject the divinely inspired writing that Jesus was tempted. Bible says Jesus was tempted, you say he wasn't. Easy math here. You're wrong and the Bible isn't. He isn't God.

You seriously want to maintain your position that "Jesus was drawn away of his own lust"???? Wow!!!! Unitarians will go to any lengths just so they can protect their Unitarian heretical beliefs.

Thus we have proof that Jesus was drawn away of his own lust.

 

[Runningman]

Nonsensical argument. Like I have mentioned before, you do not recognize nuance or English in your analysis. Ok, I added that second one for the first time here. The alternative is that you just miss the posts related to this.

the Greek word "god" (theos) applies in different ways. The word can refer to God overall or to the Father. It can be used to point out false gods as Paul does in Ephesus. It can refer to Jesus in the Godhead. It is used like this analogy: you announce Mr. Jim Johnson and his son Ralph are entering the party by announcing Mr. Johnson and his son Ralph are here. If however only Ralph appears, you announce that Mr. Johnson has arrived. That does not mean that Ralph has improperly been called Mr. Johnson. Jesus is not the Father just because he also is called God. Thus, your miss nuance and should be learning from others, not enforcing misconceptions.

Also, you have not shared what you think the passage means. That was the challenge.

This isn't an argument. The Word is objectively not The God in John 1:1. Rather the Word is a god (or someone/something godly) with The God. Why apostle John wrote it this way was to show distinction between the God, using the definitive "the" article of course, and another god who is not The God. Plain rendering of John 1:1 without any Trinitarian bias or obstinate rejection of common sense is the Word isn't God, but rather a god (or someone/something godly) with The God. It's a bad translation.

As demonstrated above, when Trinitarianism is literally wrote into the way you Trinitarians theologically define the Trinity, it is the highest tier of nonsense.

So do you admit that John 1:1 could theoretically read, "In the beginning was Jesus, and Jesus was with the Trinity, and Jesus was the Trinity." If you say yes, I happily accept your admittance that your Trinity has been proven false. If you say no, I accept you don't actually believe in your Trinity. Which is it?

 

[synergy]

Give me some time. I'll do a write up of more than 150 verses that are plain about how Jesus isn't God.

First of all, you conveniently skipped over the explicit verses I forwarded. 2nd of all, the verses you forward must explicitly say that Jesus is not God. No conjectures. Ready, set, go...

 

[TomL]

I never said they are. Why are you making a strawman to say I am making a strawman? That's a new one.

Your words

Revelation 3
21To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.

This proves Jesus isn't God. Jesus isn't the same person as God.

In context there is the Father and Jesus

One is not the other

 

[TomL]

common sense and biblical truth 101.

and down goes modalism is one fell swoop.

Biblical truth 101 - yes

 

[TomL]

And you are having difficulty reading what I wrote. Trinitarianism was not discussed by Jesus. It wasn't discussed anywhere.

Umm... Jesus said he's a man. Men aren't God. Therefore worshipping Jesus as God is idolatry.

Then you must believe God promotes idolatry

Hebrews 1:6 (NASB 2020) — 6 And when He again brings the firstborn into the world, He says, “AND LET ALL THE ANGELS OF GOD WORSHIP HIM.”

Revelation 5:13 (NASB 2020) — 13 And I heard every created thing which is in heaven, or on the earth, or under the earth, or on the sea, and all the things in them, saying, “To Him who sits on the throne and to the Lamb be the blessing, the honor, the glory, and the dominion forever and ever.”


and Christ goes along with it

 

[Runningman]

And there is no recognized scholarship to support his view with Greek Scholars.

This is a bit desperate to just deny it, pivot, and quote sources who simply agree with you. Here are some Trinitarians and misc. others who disagree with you.

Scholar Jason David BeDuhn states that the absence of the definite article makes the two occurrences of “God” “as different as ‘a god’ is from ‘God’ in English.” He adds: “In John 1:1, the Word is not the one-and-only God, but is a god, or divine being.”—Truth in Translation: Accuracy and Bias in English Translations of the New Testament, pages 115, 122, and 123.

G. B. Caird - In his commentary on John, Caird discusses the complexities of interpreting the Greek text and acknowledges that the use of the definite article in Greek can imply nuances in meaning. He explores how "the Word" (Logos) interacts with God, emphasizing the distinction without denying divinity.

D. A. Carson - In his work "The Gospel According to John," Carson examines the grammatical structure of John 1:1 and addresses how the absence of the definite article before "God" can lead to different interpretations. He argues that the context supports the understanding of the Word as fully divine but also distinct in relationship.

Raymond E. Brown - In "The Gospel According to John," Brown provides an extensive analysis of the prologue and acknowledges the subtleties in the Greek language. He emphasizes the theological implications of the relationship between the Word and God, suggesting that the interpretation hinges on understanding the nature of that relationship rather than a strict translation.

James D.G. Dunn - In his commentary "The Theology of Paul the Apostle," Dunn discusses the Word's divinity and the implications of John 1:1 for early Christology. He notes the early church's struggle with fully articulating the nature of Christ and the nuances present in the text.

C. K. Barrett - Barrett's commentary on John also touches on the translation and its implications for understanding the divinity of Christ, noting that the absence of the article can suggest a distinction rather than a complete separation from God.

"At the beginning God expressed Himself. That personal expression, that word, was with God and was God..." - J.B Philips

"In the beginning was the purpose, the purpose in the mind of God, the purpose which was God's own being...this purpose took human form in Jesus " - G. B. Caird. New Testament Theology

"In the beginning there was the divine word and wisdom. The divine word and wisdom were there with God. It was there with God from the beginning. Everything came to be by means of it.." Robert Funk

 

[Runningman]

The fact that the JWs selectively quote these experts while omitting the points contrary to the JWs shows their culpability. They are purposely deceiving people when writing out their arguments. The other characteristic feature of JWs and the local Unitarians posters is to call the Trinitarianism as (Roman) Catholic doctrine despite the doctrine long preceding Roman Catholic bishops grab of power. It then becomes hard to imagine that the Unitarian doctrine is derived separately from the JWs.

Trinitarians do it too. I quoted some sources to some to @civic a moment ago. Calling the Word a god with THE GOD is a scholarly honest translation.

 

[mikesw]

This isn't an argument. The Word is objectively not The God in John 1:1. Rather the Word is a god (or someone/something godly) with The God. Why apostle John wrote it this way was to show distinction between the God, using the definitive "the" article of course, and another god who is not The God. Plain rendering of John 1:1 without any Trinitarian bias or obstinate rejection of common sense is the Word isn't God, but rather a god (or someone/something godly) with The God. It's a bad translation.

You missed the Greek experts that Civic posted. So you just are restating nonsense. I would hope you can present better logic than this messed up point when you share on John 1.

As demonstrated above, when Trinitarianism is literally wrote into the way you Trinitarians theologically define the Trinity, it is the highest tier of nonsense.

So do you admit that John 1:1 could theoretically read, "In the beginning was Jesus, and Jesus was with the Trinity, and Jesus was the Trinity." If you say yes, I happily accept your admittance that your Trinity has been proven false. If you say no, I accept you don't actually believe in your Trinity. Which is it?

the more you say, the less convincing you are.
You alternative wording is like saying the President is United States. People do not talking like that. Please learn some normal English here.

Anyhow, I was hoping you could share highlights of your reading of John 1 so we can understand what the hell is in your mind.

 

[Runningman]

Do your homework before commenting.

God is three in person and one in essence/nature.

"Thus the Father is God (by nature),
the Son is God (by nature),
the Holy Spirit is God (by nature).
Yet there are not three gods (natures);
there is but one God (Nature)."

Let's apply it to humans:

Person 1 is Human (by nature),
Person 2 is Human (by nature),
Person 3 is Human (by nature).
Yet there is not 3 Human Natures;
There is but one Human Nature.

Trinitarianism perpetually stands.

Three persons, each God. Not three gods, one God.

Three colors, each on an apple. Not three apples, one apple.

Yeah it's hot nonsense. Trinity is a joke man.

Personally, I wouldn't defend three apples being one apple, but you're free to do it if you want. You've already taken the bait so you're committed. Your ego won't release you from the hole you've dug. Please continue. This is good.

 

[synergy]

This isn't an argument. The Word is objectively not The God in John 1:1. Rather the Word is a god (or someone/something godly) with The God. Why apostle John wrote it this way was to show distinction between the God, using the definitive "the" article of course, and another god who is not The God. Plain rendering of John 1:1 without any Trinitarian bias or obstinate rejection of common sense is the Word isn't God, but rather a god (or someone/something godly) with The God. It's a bad translation.

As demonstrated above, when Trinitarianism is literally wrote into the way you Trinitarians theologically define the Trinity, it is the highest tier of nonsense.

So do you admit that John 1:1 could theoretically read, "In the beginning was Jesus, and Jesus was with the Trinity, and Jesus was the Trinity." If you say yes, I happily accept your admittance that your Trinity has been proven false. If you say no, I accept you don't actually believe in your Trinity. Which is it?

You seriously do not understand the Greek language. It is a much more philosophical language than English. Greeks can easily talk about forms, nature, essence, personhood, classes, images, and other philosophical topics in their language. English is much more restricted. That's why in Greek "God" can be viewed as a person or as nature/essence, depending on the context. English has a hard time distinguishing between person and nature/essence. That's why learning the NT without understanding Greek is like having both your hands tied behind your back. A perfect example are JWs who are notoriously anti-Greek.

 

[mikesw]

This is a bit desperate to just deny it, pivot, and quote sources who simply agree with you. Here are some Trinitarians and misc. others who disagree with you.

Scholar Jason David BeDuhn states that the absence of the definite article makes the two occurrences of “God” “as different as ‘a god’ is from ‘God’ in English.” He adds: “In John 1:1, the Word is not the one-and-only God, but is a god, or divine being.”—Truth in Translation: Accuracy and Bias in English Translations of the New Testament, pages 115, 122, and 123.

G. B. Caird - In his commentary on John, Caird discusses the complexities of interpreting the Greek text and acknowledges that the use of the definite article in Greek can imply nuances in meaning. He explores how "the Word" (Logos) interacts with God, emphasizing the distinction without denying divinity.

D. A. Carson - In his work "The Gospel According to John," Carson examines the grammatical structure of John 1:1 and addresses how the absence of the definite article before "God" can lead to different interpretations. He argues that the context supports the understanding of the Word as fully divine but also distinct in relationship.

Raymond E. Brown - In "The Gospel According to John," Brown provides an extensive analysis of the prologue and acknowledges the subtleties in the Greek language. He emphasizes the theological implications of the relationship between the Word and God, suggesting that the interpretation hinges on understanding the nature of that relationship rather than a strict translation.

James D.G. Dunn - In his commentary "The Theology of Paul the Apostle," Dunn discusses the Word's divinity and the implications of John 1:1 for early Christology. He notes the early church's struggle with fully articulating the nature of Christ and the nuances present in the text.

C. K. Barrett - Barrett's commentary on John also touches on the translation and its implications for understanding the divinity of Christ, noting that the absence of the article can suggest a distinction rather than a complete separation from God.

"At the beginning God expressed Himself. That personal expression, that word, was with God and was God..." - J.B Philips

"In the beginning was the purpose, the purpose in the mind of God, the purpose which was God's own being...this purpose took human form in Jesus " - G. B. Caird. New Testament Theology

"In the beginning there was the divine word and wisdom. The divine word and wisdom were there with God. It was there with God from the beginning. Everything came to be by means of it.." Robert Funk

Again, most of this speaks against the Unitarian view. You keep pounding nails in your own coffin. Pretty weird you including Carson as testimony against your view. Also Barrett is obviously against your point. You get one guy, Dunn, who is not a Trinitarian. J. B. Phillips made a translation on his own just to help the younger people read the scriptures. It was for readability rather than detailed accuracy.

Perhaps I have failed to understand how your post tries to counter what Civic shared.

 

[TomL]

This is a bit desperate to just deny it, pivot, and quote sources who simply agree with you. Here are some Trinitarians and misc. others who disagree with you.

Scholar Jason David BeDuhn states that the absence of the definite article makes the two occurrences of “God” “as different as ‘a god’ is from ‘God’ in English.” He adds: “In John 1:1, the Word is not the one-and-only God, but is a god, or divine being.”—Truth in Translation: Accuracy and Bias in English Translations of the New Testament, pages 115, 122, and 123.

The problem with DeDuhn analysis is the addition of an article in clause C would make the word the same person he was with

He has a further problem in assuming if not definite it must be indefinite completely ignoring the possibility of it being qualitative

God (theos without the article) is a pre verbal predicate nominativee which describes or tells us something about the word

The word is what the God is -i.e. deity

This is a bit desperate to just deny it, pivot, and quote sources who simply agree with you. Here are some Trinitarians and misc. others who disagree with you.


G. B. Caird - In his commentary on John, Caird discusses the complexities of interpreting the Greek text and acknowledges that the use of the definite article in Greek can imply nuances in meaning. He explores how "the Word" (Logos) interacts with God, emphasizing the distinction without denying divinity.

Caird is correct, and he affirms the full deity of Christ

Why don't you

 

[civic]

This is a bit desperate to just deny it, pivot, and quote sources who simply agree with you. Here are some Trinitarians and misc. others who disagree with you.

Scholar Jason David BeDuhn states that the absence of the definite article makes the two occurrences of “God” “as different as ‘a god’ is from ‘God’ in English.” He adds: “In John 1:1, the Word is not the one-and-only God, but is a god, or divine being.”—Truth in Translation: Accuracy and Bias in English Translations of the New Testament, pages 115, 122, and 123.

G. B. Caird - In his commentary on John, Caird discusses the complexities of interpreting the Greek text and acknowledges that the use of the definite article in Greek can imply nuances in meaning. He explores how "the Word" (Logos) interacts with God, emphasizing the distinction without denying divinity.

D. A. Carson - In his work "The Gospel According to John," Carson examines the grammatical structure of John 1:1 and addresses how the absence of the definite article before "God" can lead to different interpretations. He argues that the context supports the understanding of the Word as fully divine but also distinct in relationship.

Raymond E. Brown - In "The Gospel According to John," Brown provides an extensive analysis of the prologue and acknowledges the subtleties in the Greek language. He emphasizes the theological implications of the relationship between the Word and God, suggesting that the interpretation hinges on understanding the nature of that relationship rather than a strict translation.

James D.G. Dunn - In his commentary "The Theology of Paul the Apostle," Dunn discusses the Word's divinity and the implications of John 1:1 for early Christology. He notes the early church's struggle with fully articulating the nature of Christ and the nuances present in the text.

C. K. Barrett - Barrett's commentary on John also touches on the translation and its implications for understanding the divinity of Christ, noting that the absence of the article can suggest a distinction rather than a complete separation from God.

"At the beginning God expressed Himself. That personal expression, that word, was with God and was God..." - J.B Philips

"In the beginning was the purpose, the purpose in the mind of God, the purpose which was God's own being...this purpose took human form in Jesus " - G. B. Caird. New Testament Theology

"In the beginning there was the divine word and wisdom. The divine word and wisdom were there with God. It was there with God from the beginning. Everything came to be by means of it.." Robert Funk

they agree with me nice try lol just more twisting scholars like you do Gods word

 

[civic]

You missed the Greek experts that Civic posted. So you just are restating nonsense. I would hope you can present better logic than this messed up point when you share on John 1.


the more you say, the less convincing you are.
You alternative wording is like saying the President is United States. People do not talking like that. Please learn some normal English here.

Anyhow, I was hoping you could share highlights of your reading of John 1 so we can understand what the hell is in your mind.

the more posts and comments we read the deeper is the pit is dug.

 

[synergy]

Three persons, each God. Not three gods, one God.

More mind blockage exhibited by you.

Three Persons, each God by nature. Not three God natures, one God Nature.

Three colors, each on an apple. Not three apples, one apple.

Yeah it's hot nonsense. Trinity is a joke man.

Personally, I wouldn't defend three apples being one apple, but you're free to do it if you want.

Strawman. Nobody is defending that. Three apples is one fruit is what I'm defending

Your mind blockage is a joke.

You've already taken the bait so you're committed. Your ego won't release you from the hole you've dug. Please continue. This is good.

What you should really get for yourself is a pick that can break through the blockage in your mind.

 

[TomL]

D. A. Carson - In his work "The Gospel According to John," Carson examines the grammatical structure of John 1:1 and addresses how the absence of the definite article before "God" can lead to different interpretations. He argues that the context supports the understanding of the Word as fully divine but also distinct in relationship.

Carson is correct and fully supports the deity of Christ

More, the Word was God. That is the translation demanded by the Greek structure, theos ēn ho logos. A long string of writers has argued that because theos, ‘God’, here has no article, John is not referring to God as a specific being, but to mere qualities of ‘God-ness’. The Word, they say, was not God, but divine. This will not do. There is a perfectly serviceable word in Greek for ‘divine’ (namely theios). More importantly, there are many places in the New Testament where the predicate noun has no article, and yet is specific. Even in this chapter, ‘you are the King of Israel’ (1:49) has no article before ‘King’ in the original (cf. also Jn. 8:39; 17:17; Rom. 14:17; Gal. 4:25; Rev. 1:20). It has been shown that it is common for a definite predicate noun in this construction, placed before the verb, to be anarthrous (that is, to have no article; cf. Additional Note). Indeed, the effect of ordering the words this way is to emphasize ‘God’, as if John were saying, ‘and the word was God!’ In fact, if John had included the article, he would have been saying something quite untrue. He would have been so identifying the Word with God that no divine being could exist apart from the Word. In that case, it would be nonsense to say (in the words of the second clause of this verse) that the Word was with God. The ‘Word does not by Himself make up the entire Godhead; nevertheless the divinity that belongs to the rest of the Godhead belongs also to Him’ (Tasker, p. 45). ‘The Word was with God, God’s eternal Fellow; the Word was God, God’s own Self.’

D. A. Carson, The Gospel according to John (The Pillar New Testament Commentary; Leicester, England; Grand Rapids, MI: Inter-Varsity Press; W.B. Eerdmans, 1991), 117.

 

[civic]

Carson is correct and fully supports the deity of Christ

More, the Word was God. That is the translation demanded by the Greek structure, theos ēn ho logos. A long string of writers has argued that because theos, ‘God’, here has no article, John is not referring to God as a specific being, but to mere qualities of ‘God-ness’. The Word, they say, was not God, but divine. This will not do. There is a perfectly serviceable word in Greek for ‘divine’ (namely theios). More importantly, there are many places in the New Testament where the predicate noun has no article, and yet is specific. Even in this chapter, ‘you are the King of Israel’ (1:49) has no article before ‘King’ in the original (cf. also Jn. 8:39; 17:17; Rom. 14:17; Gal. 4:25; Rev. 1:20). It has been shown that it is common for a definite predicate noun in this construction, placed before the verb, to be anarthrous (that is, to have no article; cf. Additional Note). Indeed, the effect of ordering the words this way is to emphasize ‘God’, as if John were saying, ‘and the word was God!’ In fact, if John had included the article, he would have been saying something quite untrue. He would have been so identifying the Word with God that no divine being could exist apart from the Word. In that case, it would be nonsense to say (in the words of the second clause of this verse) that the Word was with God. The ‘Word does not by Himself make up the entire Godhead; nevertheless the divinity that belongs to the rest of the Godhead belongs also to Him’ (Tasker, p. 45). ‘The Word was with God, God’s eternal Fellow; the Word was God, God’s own Self.’

D. A. Carson, The Gospel according to John (The Pillar New Testament Commentary; Leicester, England; Grand Rapids, MI: Inter-Varsity Press; W.B. Eerdmans, 1991), 117.

Amen here once again we see a reading comprehension issue and misrepresenting Carson.

 

[TomL]

Raymond E. Brown - In "The Gospel According to John," Brown provides an extensive analysis of the prologue and acknowledges the subtleties in the Greek language. He emphasizes the theological implications of the relationship between the Word and God, suggesting that the interpretation hinges on understanding the nature of that relationship rather than a strict translation.

James D.G. Dunn - In his commentary "The Theology of Paul the Apostle," Dunn discusses the Word's divinity and the implications of John 1:1 for early Christology. He notes the early church's struggle with fully articulating the nature of Christ and the nuances present in the text.

Both Brown and Dunn have a concern of showing that the logos is not the person (ton theon) he is with.

Rather the Logos is of the same quality (deity) as the God he is with

Were a definite article to appear in clause c that would teach modalism -

the Logos is the God he is with, but that would not be trinitarianism



u

 

[TomL]

Amen here once again we see a reading comprehension issue and misrepresenting Carson.

The JW are notorious at doing this (not saying the poster of these objections is one)