Peterlag
Active Member
That's not Jesus. That's God in Hebrews 1:10. Both are called Lord in the New Testament as well as men like governors, kings and rulers.
The Trinity made easy
- Thread starter civic
- Start date
The evidence which I presented refutes your false belief.
You never refuted it, because you heresy hides from it.
civic
Active Member
No its the Son who is identified as God. Its clear as the noon day sun to everyone who reads whats it says, not what they believe it says. Your presuppositions( Jesus cannot be God ) cause you to ignore the "obvious" reading/meaning of the text.
If you were to read the passage with an open mind not having any presuppositions then you would know the text in Hebrews is calling the Son, God. But you will not read the text for what it actually says and instead deny what it says because you hold unitarianism above the bible.
Hebrews 1:1-10
In the past God spoke to our ancestors through the prophets at many times and in various ways,
2but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom also he made the universe.
3The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven.
4So he became as much superior to the angels as the name he has inherited is superior to theirs.
The Son Superior to Angels
5For to which of the angels did God ever say,“You are my Son;
today I have become your Father”
Or again,
“I will be his Father,
and he will be my Son”
6And again, when God brings his firstborn into the world, he says,
“Let all God’s angels worship him.
7In speaking of the angels he says,
“He makes his angels spirits,
and his servants flames of fire.”
8But about the Son he says,
“Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever;
a scepter of justice will be the scepter of your kingdom.
9;You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness;
therefore God, your God, has set you above your companions
by anointing you with the oil of joy.”
10;He also says,
“In the beginning, Lord, you laid the foundations of the earth,
and the heavens are the work of your hands.
conclusion: It is a single continued thought, sentence about the Son and His superiority over everything from verse 1-10.
hope this helps !!!
Peterlag
Active Member
Since I like you civic because you are always polite in your replies is why I will get long winded in my reply.
Hebrews is saying your throne oh God is forever. Not Jesus is forever. In Hebrews it's quoted referring to Jesus having the use of that throne.
Hebrews 1:8
But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.
Psalms 45:6
Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: the sceptre of thy kingdom is a right sceptre.
Hebrews 1:10 is also a quote from the Septuagint text of the Old Testament (Psalms 102:25).
There are theologians who read Hebrews 1:10 and see it as a reference to the Father. Verse 10 starts with the word “and” in the Greek text, so verses 9 and 10 are conjoined. Since verse 9 ends with “Your God has set you [the Christ] above your companions by anointing you with the oil of joy” these theologians see the reference to “the Lord” in the beginning of verse 10 as a reference back to the God last mentioned, i.e., the Father. Andrews Norton explains this point of view:
The God last mentioned was Christ’s God, who had anointed him; and the author [of the book of Hebrews] addressing himself to this God, breaks out into the celebration of his power, and especially his unchangeable duration; which he dwells upon in order to prove the stability of the Son’s kingdom… i.e., thou [God] who hast promised him such a throne, art he who laid the foundation of the earth. So it seems to be a declaration of God’s immutability made here, to ascertain the durableness of Christ’s kingdom, before mentioned; and the rather so, because this passage had been used originally for the same purpose in the Psalms 102.
In the way that it is used in the Old Testament, theologians such as Norton say that the verse shows how the unchanging God can indeed fulfill His promises, and they see it used in exactly the same way in Hebrews. Their conclusion is that since God created the heavens and the earth, and since He will not pass away, He is fit to promise an everlasting kingdom to His Son.
Peterlag
Active Member
I never refuted? I just responded to it. See 963.
If that is your excuse for a response then I certain pity the people that you may ever happen to teach.
Peterlag
Active Member
There's no Trinity...
The verses that are used to try to teach it are all taken out of context, or not understood how the words were used in the culture they were written in, or from a bad translation. It's an evil Catholic concept that was sold to the world mostly by the power of the sword.The folks back then weren't allowed to have Bibles to read for themselves. The rejection of the Trinity often brought severe punishment including the loss of your job, intimidation, harassment, confiscation of property, jail or imprisonment, torture, and even burning at the stake.
But now I have noticed intelligent and informed input on the subject of debating the Trinity comes from the unitarian camp. It seems low intelligence, ignorance, and an incapacity for critical thought are prerequisites for membership in trinitarian circles.
Here's an example...
Concerning 1 John 5:7-8 where it has the words "In heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth" are words that are not found in any Greek Manuscript before the 15th or 16th century and in no ancient Version. - E. W. Bullinger., A Critical Lexicon and Concordance to the English and Greek New Testament: (London: Samuel Bagster & Sons, 1975), p. 11 of Appendix A.
Trinitarians...
You are changing the Scriptures. Or 2 Peter 2:21 says the Bible is not to be privately interpreted. Or why are you denying the words of the Apostles?
Why are you pretending to look at something with your eyes closed?
Peterlag
Active Member
John 8:58 (“Before Abraham was, I am”)
- Traditional reading: Jesus’ use of “I am” before Abraham is taken as a claim to eternal existence (and even deity).
- Alternate understanding: Contextual linguistics and Jewish background show Jesus’ ego eimi can be emphatic “I am the one.” C.K. Barrett notes that Jesus’ “I am” does not identify Jesus with God per se, but simply draws strong attention to himself as the one God sent. In context, Jesus is emphasizing his unique role, not uttering the divine Name. As one modern commentator explains, Abraham “saw Jesus’ day” (John 8:56) not by Abraham literally time-traveling, but by faith in the promise. Thus Jesus being “before Abraham” can mean Jesus was God’s ordained Redeemer from before Abraham’s birth. John the Baptist’s cousin John (the apostle) could well have intended no more than that “Jesus was God’s plan for salvation from ancient times,” humbly recognized by John the Baptist.
For example, one writer concludes on John 1:30 (similar idea): “Jesus was… foreknown before the foundation of the world, but has appeared in these last times…”. In short, “I am before Abraham” is plausibly understood as “Jesus was in God’s plan long before Abraham”, not “Jesus personally existed 2,000 years earlier.”
civic
Active Member
no such thing in Scripture with different levels of God.
360watt
Active Member
When Jesus worked 'by the Fathers hand' and said He was 'one' with the Father.. sent by the Father.. etc..
This doesn't mean inequality with the Father.
Jesus saw Nathaneal when He was nowhere near Nathaneal and Scripture doesn't say that is a vision or revelation from the Father.
Jesus redefined what the disciples could do on the Sabbath. Ben Shapiro said this was a common thing in Judaism of talking about the reason for the Sabbath rather than just following the law. But this doesn't address the authority shown by Jesus to speak as He did.
Jesus forgave sin of those who had not directly offended Him. Usually if someone stole from me, I could choose to forgive them personally. Jesus though, forgave people who had done nothing to Him directly.
I could say I forgive a group of people on the news for what they have done. But that would just be me letting something go.. I have no power over their sin. Jesus though was forgiving sin itself. Thats God's power.
This doesn't mean inequality with the Father.
Jesus saw Nathaneal when He was nowhere near Nathaneal and Scripture doesn't say that is a vision or revelation from the Father.
Jesus redefined what the disciples could do on the Sabbath. Ben Shapiro said this was a common thing in Judaism of talking about the reason for the Sabbath rather than just following the law. But this doesn't address the authority shown by Jesus to speak as He did.
Jesus forgave sin of those who had not directly offended Him. Usually if someone stole from me, I could choose to forgive them personally. Jesus though, forgave people who had done nothing to Him directly.
I could say I forgive a group of people on the news for what they have done. But that would just be me letting something go.. I have no power over their sin. Jesus though was forgiving sin itself. Thats God's power.
Funny how Barrett then contradicts what he said in your undocumented source:
C.K. Barrett, British biblical scholar and Professor of Divinity at the University of Durham, adds: “The meaning here is: Before Abraham came into being, I eternally was, as now I am, and ever continue to be.”24 Note 24 C.K. Barrett (1978), The Gospel According to St. John (Philadelphia, PA: Westminster), p. 352.
Jesus: The Great “I AM” - Apologetics Press
As a Member of the Godhead, Jesus Christ shares complete deity with the other Members of the Godhead. In fact, the Bible repeatedly identifies Jesus with the Jehovah of the Old Testament.
apologeticspress.org
Your other writer seeks a novel, unsupported interpretation.
Funny how your view fits into that paradigm of ignorant people thinking smart people are dumber while the ignorant can see themselves as superior. Thanks for giving us an an example of that paradigm working in the unitarian camp.
Oh wow. Even without that passage, it is truly a masterful feat of unitarians to disregard the broad testimony of the divinity of Christ in the Godhead.
Obviously, per the image you shared, you are trying to read scriptures with your eyes closed while tearing out most of the scriptures counter to the unitarian belief system. It is evident though.
Last edited:
Runningman
Active Member
Yep and the level of the Father is ONLY TRUE GOD. Same can't be said for Jesus. So much for the trinity having a leg to stand on.
civic
Active Member
Projecting
Runningman
Active Member
According to John 17:1-3, if the Father alone is the only true God, then the Trinity is not the only true God. This is extremely easy to understand and most random people I've asked agree. We couldn't have asked for a better gift than John 17:1-3, 1 Corinthians 8:4-6, and Ephesians 4:6.
e v e
Active Member
Why would the father want to be alone? Did not he create His souls in His own image?
How horrible to be a monad or something ..
e v e
Active Member
God would not speak un-clearly since he WANTS us to understand
Why does everything need to devolve or equate into the heathen 'oneness' concept?
It does not.
Runningman
Active Member
God isn't alone, but as far as being God goes there are no others according to the Bible. Not sure if you believe that or not.
Yes, God gave Jesus all authority to do what he does. Gods power goes through Jesus. Yes one with the Father= in purpose.
Similar threads
- Poll
