The Trinity and all of its supporting doctrines are all circular in reasoning

[Doug Brents]

Saying you are the son of God does not make you God. It does put you in the same family to whatever the Father has. If you're a king then the son would be a prince

You are still thinking of "son" as meaning descendant. Jesus is not a descendant of God. John 1:1 is very clear that Jesus IS God.

and therefore share in the kingdom on equal ground pertaining to the kingdom. If your dad is a business owner then it would put you on equal ground in the family business to share in the wealth and even run the business later on. The Jews understood that custom and even we do today in our country.

 

[amazing grace]

The simplest ideas get missed by the hyperliteralists.
The appearance of the Angel of the Lord was not as a prophet speaking judgment on the people. He appears to key figures in the OT usually to share a promise to them.
In those last days the Word is the preexisting One (likely seen as the Angel of the Lord in the OT) became incarnate and warned of judgment upon the people. The preexisting One received the promise along with Abraham in accord with Gal 3:16. It is sad to miss such vital details.

Thanks.......I'd rather rely upon what scripture says over what someone's idea of what scripture says.
Reading out of scripture what is said (exegesis) takes primacy over something read into scripture (eisegesis).

 

[mikesw]

Thanks.......I'd rather rely upon what scripture says over what someone's idea of what scripture says.
Reading out of scripture what is said (exegesis) takes primacy over something read into scripture (eisegesis).

Ok. We can wait until you learn how to interpret scripture. I will keep helping you until you catch up. I just was pointing out a not-so-rare error of forcing a Greek or Hebrew word into one unnaturally narrow meaning for the language. That even happens with experienced students of scripture.

 

[mikesw]

View attachment 2803

That is so amateur interpretation regarding Psalm 82:6. It is also disrespectful at any level to apply to Jesus. Psalm 82 applies this to those who are judging in an evil fashion. Is this what unitarians desire to apply to Jesus? That is what concerns me about attempts to interpret scripture by unitarians. They will grasp at any little proof text they can find, even such bad ones.

 

[amazing grace]

Ok. We can wait until you learn how to interpret scripture. I will keep helping you until you catch up. I just was pointing out a not-so-rare error of forcing a Greek or Hebrew word into one unnaturally narrow meaning for the language. That even happens with experienced students of scripture.

What are you even talking about? What 'forcing a Greek or Hebrew word into one unnatually narrow meaning' - What word are you referencing?

 

[mikesw]

What are you even talking about? What 'forcing a Greek or Hebrew word into one unnatually narrow meaning' - What word are you referencing?

The common one is "word" and just now you abuse "angel" --as if that is only a created being used of God as messengers. That is a clear sign of hyperliteralism. That view also would have to be tested against the actual analysis of the Hebrew versus the translations -- to show, for example, that no people are given the designation with the Hebrew word.

Of course the other problem is you do not care what others say. Thus, you lean on private interpretation instead of wise instruction and correction.

 

[JesusFan]

Jesus had not been claiming to be God in the flesh and this is why the Jews never asked him at his trial if he was God in the flesh, but instead they asked him about what he had been claiming to be, which was the Messiah. Mark 14:61-62 records the High Priest asking “Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?" And Jesus said "I am.” The High Priest tore his garments and said he deserved to be put to death when Jesus stated he was the Messiah. So we see that the Jews correctly assessed that Jesus had been claiming to be the Christ, and that Jesus indeed said he was the Christ, and also that the Jews thought his claim was worthy of the death penalty.

He would have accepted being the Messiah, as they would accept a fully human king like David as messiah, but when he also added was and is Son of God, that is when they seen that as claiming to be divine Messiah

 

[JesusFan]

angels are created beings - the Angel of the LORD being an angel sent out on a mission by God - an agent of God who can utilize the prerogatives, authority, and name of God.

'of' is used as a function word to indicate origin or derivation; a preposition showing possession, origin, source, association. ----- the Angel of the LORD - the angel sent by God, Spirit of the LORD - the Spirit of God, aka God's Spirit, the word of the LORD, words originating from Him, the LORD'S words.

THE Angel of the Lord was God Himself appearing as a messenger to speak to certain OT peoples , as they realized that they had seen God and yet still were alive

 

[JesusFan]

If Jesus was 'the Angel of the LORD' and as 'the Angel of the LORD' he spoke for Yahweh aka God ---

Let's see we have angels speaking for God - 'the message declared by angels proved to be reliable' (Heb. 2:2); we know that long ago God spoke to our fathers through the prophets but in THESE LAST DAYS He has spoken to us by his Son......But you are saying the Son was in the person/messenger of the LORD as the Angel of the LORD speaking in the OT???

I don't think so but hey you just keep on believing that Jesus was the Angel of the LORD in the OT ....... hope it helps!

The Angel of the Lord in Ot was appearances by preincarnate Christ

 

[amazing grace]

The common one is "word" and just now you abuse "angel" --as if that is only a created being used of God as messengers. That is a clear sign of hyperliteralism. That view also would have to be tested against the actual analysis of the Hebrew versus the translations -- to show, for example, that no people are given the designation with the Hebrew word.

Of course the other problem is you do not care what others say. Thus, you lean on private interpretation instead of wise instruction and correction.

We were not having a discussion about the 'word' but in this specific conversation, we are discussing the Angel of the LORD.
Did I say or imply that an angel is the only created being used of God as messengers? Don't believe I did nor was it even implied.

Now, to me when scripture says 'the message declared by angels proved to be reliable' ---- 1) it means the message God gave angels was reliable.
2) When scripture says that 'Long ago, at many times and many ways God spoke to our the father's by the prophets' that's what He did.
3) In contrast to long ago, scripture says 'but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son.' which means that God did not speak to us by his Son LONG AGO and therefore, the Angel of the LORD is not Jesus, NOT the Son, NOT the second person of the Trinity.

Does that make me a hyperliteralist? I really don't care, I just follow scripture.

 

[amazing grace]

THE Angel of the Lord was God Himself appearing as a messenger to speak to certain OT peoples , as they realized that they had seen God and yet still were alive

The Angel of the Lord in Ot was appearances by preincarnate Christ

First, the Angel of the LORD was God Himself....... then the Angel of the LORD were appearances by preincarnate Christ ......
God did not send Himself to speak to the Old Testament scriptures ----- God spoke through his angels, long ago God spoke through his prophets and IN THESE LAST DAYS God spoke through his Son. (Hebrews 2:2; Hebrews 1)
The Angel of the LORD was exactly that the Angel of the LORD.

 

[Peterlag]

He would have accepted being the Messiah, as they would accept a fully human king like David as messiah, but when he also added was and is Son of God, that is when they seen that as claiming to be divine Messiah

Perhaps, but that does not mean the Jews thought he was God. The Jewish people would have thought Jesus was insane had he walked around saying he was God. But he was a threat to walk around saying he was the Messiah.

 

[Peterlag]

You are still thinking of "son" as meaning descendant. Jesus is not a descendant of God. John 1:1 is very clear that Jesus IS God.

John 1:1 is not a teaching on the trinity or that we should believe or confess that Jesus is God. It seems difficult for people to understand that John 1:1 is introducing the Gospel of John, and not the Book of Genesis. The topic of John is God (the Father, the only God) at work in the ministry of the man Jesus of Nazareth, not the creation of rocks, trees and stars.

 

[mikesw]

We were not having a discussion about the 'word' but in this specific conversation, we are discussing the Angel of the LORD.
Did I say or imply that an angel is the only created being used of God as messengers? Don't believe I did nor was it even implied.

Now, to me when scripture says 'the message declared by angels proved to be reliable' ---- 1) it means the message God gave angels was reliable.
2) When scripture says that 'Long ago, at many times and many ways God spoke to our the father's by the prophets' that's what He did.
3) In contrast to long ago, scripture says 'but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son.' which means that God did not speak to us by his Son LONG AGO and therefore, the Angel of the LORD is not Jesus, NOT the Son, NOT the second person of the Trinity.

Does that make me a hyperliteralist? I really don't care, I just follow scripture.

Didn't we already see that the pre-existence of Jesus as the Angel of the Lord in such scenarios was not of him speaking to us? He was only speaking to a few saints. So your point 3 is nonsensical for use to deny the pre-existence of Jesus as deity.

If you do not care, that means you are not following scripture. You have come to the right place to be help follow scripture. Otherwise, I'm not sure why you are here if not to learn.

 

[mikesw]

John 1:1 is not a teaching on the trinity or that we should believe or confess that Jesus is God. It seems difficult for people to understand that John 1:1 is introducing the Gospel of John, and not the Book of Genesis. The topic of John is God (the Father, the only God) at work in the ministry of the man Jesus of Nazareth, not the creation of rocks, trees and stars.

You have one thing right. John 1 is not Genesis. John 1 is identifying the pre-existent one who became incarnate as Jesus -- so this is only of his role in creation, not the story of creation.

 

[Peterlag]

I have noticed we graduate from all the other subjects be it accounting, mechanics or dentistry. We study the books and complete the course that brings us to the required accomplished task which is the ability to know how to do something. We study a map to learn how to get someplace. Thus, our study ends with us able to get from point A to point B, fix a tooth, balance the financial numbers or build the car. How come we spend our entire lives studying the Bible and yet nobody seems to graduate?

Can you come up with anything that God purposely made not so easy to find or understand? The Catholics are not the only ones who say it's a mystery or God did not mean for us to understand. We have to go to a Bible college to figure out how to make the Bible difficult. Then when we can't put it together and understand the simple truth. We then say wow this is too deep or we are only human and so we can't understand. I wrote a book not to teach the Bible, but to try to unteach the religion of the world. I can teach Christ in 5 or 10 minutes.

What I believe I have been able to graduate from is the following verse...

1 Corinthians 1:9
God is faithful, by whom ye were called unto the fellowship of his Son Jesus Christ our Lord.

This cannot be achieved if we do not know the attributes and characteristics of the resurrected Christ Jesus.

 

[Doug Brents]

John 1:1 is not a teaching on the trinity or that we should believe or confess that Jesus is God.

Again, you offer your opinions which contradict Scripture. But this is a discussion of Biblical Truth, not opinions.

It seems difficult for people to understand that John 1:1 is introducing the Gospel of John, and not the Book of Genesis.

That is not difficult to understand at all, seeing as how that verse is over three fourths of the way through the Bible and Genesis is at the very beginning of the Bible. But what you seem to be unable to grasp is that John 1:1 is looking back at the same "Beginning" that Genesis tells us about. The Creation that God did in Genesis is the same Creation that the Word/Logos is credited with in John 1:3. When you get that Truth through your skull and into your mind, it will revolutionize your understanding of Scripture.

The topic of John is God (the Father, the only God) at work in the ministry of the man Jesus of Nazareth, not the creation of rocks, trees and stars.

Wrong. Read John 1:3 carefully. It even states the Truth twice (once in the positive, and once in the negative), that EVERYTHING that was Created was created by/through the Word, and there is NOTHING that was created that was not created by/through the Word. Then the Word took on flesh and became a man whom the Apostles lived with, saw, experienced, and earned from for three and a half years: the man we know as Jesus.

I know you don't want to hear, or understand, that Truth, but your denials of it does not change it.

 

[mikesw]

I have noticed we graduate from all the other subjects be it accounting, mechanics or dentistry. We study the books and complete the course that brings us to the required accomplished task which is the ability to know how to do something. We study a map to learn how to get someplace. Thus, our study ends with us able to get from point A to point B, fix a tooth, balance the financial numbers or build the car. How come we spend our entire lives studying the Bible and yet nobody seems to graduate?

It is partly because people cannot even follow simple identification of the deity of Christ let alone many other passages.

Can you come up with anything that God purposely made not so easy to find or understand? The Catholics are not the only ones who say it's a mystery or God did not mean for us to understand. We have to go to a Bible college to figure out how to make the Bible difficult. Then when we can't put it together and understand the simple truth. We then say wow this is too deep or we are only human and so we can't understand. I wrote a book not to teach the Bible, but to try to unteach the religion of the world. I can teach Christ in 5 or 10 minutes.

John 1:1-18 is easy to see the deity of Christ. If that is sufficient, one need not go further into reconciling how the Word is in unity with the Father and within God together such that this is not perceived as Jesus incarnate of a separate god.

What I believe I have been able to graduate from is the following verse...

1 Corinthians 1:9
God is faithful, by whom ye were called unto the fellowship of his Son Jesus Christ our Lord.

This cannot be achieved if we do not know the attributes and characteristics of the resurrected Christ Jesus.

That is why we protest against a unitarian misconception of Christ.

 

[Peterlag]

Again, you offer your opinions which contradict Scripture. But this is a discussion of Biblical Truth, not opinions.

That is not difficult to understand at all, seeing as how that verse is over three fourths of the way through the Bible and Genesis is at the very beginning of the Bible. But what you seem to be unable to grasp is that John 1:1 is looking back at the same "Beginning" that Genesis tells us about. The Creation that God did in Genesis is the same Creation that the Word/Logos is credited with in John 1:3. When you get that Truth through your skull and into your mind, it will revolutionize your understanding of Scripture.

Wrong. Read John 1:3 carefully. It even states the Truth twice (once in the positive, and once in the negative), that EVERYTHING that was Created was created by/through the Word, and there is NOTHING that was created that was not created by/through the Word. Then the Word took on flesh and became a man whom the Apostles lived with, saw, experienced, and earned from for three and a half years: the man we know as Jesus.

I know you don't want to hear, or understand, that Truth, but your denials of it does not change it.

I think it's interesting that when I quote Scripture it's my opinion. When you quote Scripture it's the Word of God.

John 1:3 “Everything came to be through it.” The logos is an “it” not a “him.”

Translators have deliberately chosen to use “him” because they wanted to emphasize that the Word was the male person we know as Jesus. This was a theological choice, not a linguistic one.

 

[mikesw]

I think it's interesting that when I quote Scripture it's my opinion. When you quote Scripture it's the Word of God.

John 1:3 “Everything came to be through it.” The logos is an “it” not a “him.”

Translators have deliberately chosen to use “him” because they wanted to emphasize that the Word was the male person we know as Jesus. This was a theological choice, not a linguistic one.

Have you not heard how John is developing from the ideas of Philo and Greek Philosophy about the creator alongside God? John identifies that creator as the Word. The Word became flesh. Not sure how many times this must be shared.