The Trinity study ,plural references to God in the Old Testament:Plural nouns, pronouns, verbs, adverbs

[Runningman]

Then you agree that the Word was God (John 1:1c) and He tabernacled as Jesus on Earth (John 1:14). And since God cannot cease to be God then the tabernacled Word, Jesus, is God. Excellent!

No I don't agree with that translation. Regarding the "Word is God" in John 1:1, as an anarthrous predicate nominative means that the Word is not God because theos is qualitative of the Word, not personal. Can't just toss Greek grammar rules out the window.

"The Word became flesh" means the Word is flesh. If the Word is flesh then God is flesh, contrary to God explicitly stating He is not a man in Hosea 11:9 and Numbers 23:19 explicitly stating God is not a man. So we know your interpretation is still fringe and does not jive at all with Scripture.

 

[synergy]

No I don't agree with that translation. Regarding the "Word is God" in John 1:1, as an anarthrous predicate nominative means that the Word is not God because theos is qualitative of the Word, not personal. Can't just toss Greek grammar rules out the window.

Yes, John 1:1c describes the qualitative God attributes and essence/nature (omnipresence, omnipotence, etc...) that allows John to say that "the Word was God". You're catching on.

"The Word became flesh" means the Word is flesh. If the Word is flesh then God is flesh, contrary to God explicitly stating He is not a man in Hosea 11:9 and Numbers 23:19 explicitly stating God is not a man. So we know your interpretation is still fringe and does not jive at all with Scripture.

I see that you evaded addressing my statement "He tabernacled as Jesus on Earth (John 1:14)" and everything I wrote after that. Address that first and then I'll be more than happy to address "the Word became flesh".

 

[Capbook]

There are many Bibles translated by Trinitarians that say "Beginning" in Revelation 3:14 so it isn't as if Unitarians made it up as a clever argument. ἀρχὴ (arché) being translated as "beginning" happens all over the Bible. Jesus being of the creation of God is an honest and accurate translation and it doesn't stand alone. The Bible is rich in material to show that Jesus was created

God's spoken words aren't a person though nor are they God. God is a person, words are not a person. Check out the Old Testament. Can the word of God be personified? Yes it can be according to Scripture: (Psalm 33:6; Psalm 107:20; Psalm 147:15; Isaiah 55:10-11)

Once again, as I've said, we have to based our faith and understanding from the beginning.
In the beginning was the Word, the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
1. John 1:1b - the "God" (the Father) is a personal being, "the Word was with the God the Father,
2. John 1:1c - and as the Word was God, means the "God's nature" of the Word is the same with the Father nature, or else you will interpret that the Father also not a person.

Thus, being God, is a personal being, a peson.

But is the word of God actually a thing after all? Yes it is, John explicitly called the Word of life a thing in his prologue in 1John 1:1-3.

No, the Word as being God, is a person, or else again, you interpret the Father not a person.

No, you have incorrectly added the word "worship" there where none is stated in Revelation 5:13. It says: “To Him who sits on the throne and to the Lamb be praise and honor and glory and power forever and ever!” So don't add words like "worship" where none are stated.

Read verse 14, you will find the word worship Runningman.
Unitarians clumsy trick.

In regards to worship, only the One who sits on the throne is being worshipped. The Lamb came to the throne where they were circled around and that is the throne they fell down and worshipped around. The Lamb isn't on the throne where they were worshipping.

Rev 5:7 - And He came and took the scroll from the right hand of the One seated on the throne.
Rev 5:11 - Then I looked, and I heard the voices of many angels encircling the throne, and the living creatures and the elders.
Rev 5:14 - And the four living creatures said, “Amen,” and the elders fell down and worshiped.

Another ungainly trick, skipping verse 13.

Here, though Jesus already ascended to heaven, the disciples worshiped Him, let it be observed that this worship was not given by way of civil respect, as acts of civil respect are always performed in the presence of the person.
Thus, they render a divine worshiped to Jesus as their God.

Luk 24:52 And they worshipped Him, and returned to Jerusalem with great joy.

In the NASB, they said Jesus was worshipped in Matthew 14:33 "And those who were in the boat worshiped Him, saying, “You are truly God’s Son!” So I can understand how you could possibly be confused if you were to read just that verse then walk away without a proper study. Trinitarian theologians and translators did this to try to guide you into the direction that Jesus is God, but modern textual criticism shows that when others were bowed to and the same exact Greek word is used, they instead didn't say worship, they said bowed down or something similar.

Read Luke 24:52, and understand the situation.
Explanation stated above.

Matt 18:26 says, using the exact same Greek word for worship in Matt 14:33, "So the slave fell to the ground and prostrated himself before him, saying..." So now it sounds like just bowing, not God worship. It's possible to translate the Bible any number of ways for theological precision, but not necessarily in a way that reflects the truth. The NASB is one of many highly biased trinitarian translations, as I just showed you evidence of.

Yes, that's an example of civil respect, done in the presence of the one being respected.
Again, Jesus was worshiped, though He was already in heaven, the disciples worshiped Him as God.(Luke 24:52)

NASB is a literal word for word Bible translation that abide in the process of modern "textual criticism," that aims to maintain the highest degree of accuracy to the original languages.
See below how it render Mat 18:26.
By the way, what Bible translations you prefer to read Runningman?

Mat 18:26 “So the slave fell to the ground and prostrated himself before him, saying, ‘Have patience with me and I will repay you everything.’

So we know that Jesus was never worshipped as God, since prostrating oneself isn't what true worship is as Jesus directed only to the Father in John 4:23,24.
The Word didn't transform into flesh or else God would be flesh and God would be a creation. However, God did speak words and that is what created flesh.

Can't you not digest John 1:1b?
And the Word was with God. The Word was with God the Father and not the Father Himself.
Also understand John 1:1c - "and the Word was God" not "and the Word was the God."
It is wrong to understand that the word "God" is the personal name of the Father, common mistake to some.

John was referring to YHWH, but the one Lord of the church is Jesus, but the one God is the Father. Different contexts about different things. The Father is still a Lord, but in a different way and a different context. I believe I understand your confusion as conflating Lords in different context and trying to combine them into the same Lord. There is a different Lord who sent Jesus, for example.The Lord who blots out sins is the same Lord who sent Jesus. If there is a Lord who sent Jesus then that Lord isn't Jesus in this context.

Ok, would you care enough to let me know what way on earth does YHWH takes in the New Testament?

Acts 3
19Repent, then, and turn back, so that your sins may be wiped away, 20that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord, and that He may send Jesus, the Christ, who has been appointed for you.

It's just that the Father is the Lord of heaven and earth, a title never given to Jesus in all of Scripture, but Jesus is the Lord of the church. Paul and others didn't always clarify that in their writings, but we have enough material to know that God and Jesus aren't the same Lord. There is a hierarchy.

The Lordship of Jesus is also of heaven and earth. (Phil 2:10,11)
Also all authority in heaven and on earth was given to Him.

Php 2:10 so that at the name of Jesus EVERY KNEE WILL BOW, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
Php 2:11 and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

The Father is the Lord of heaven and earth:
Matthew 11
25At that time Jesus declared, “I praise You, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because You have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children.

Jesus is Lord of the church:
Ephesians 1
22And God put everything under His feet and made Him head over everything for the church,

Not only of the church but also to heaven and earth. (Phil 2"10,11)

 

[Runningman]

Yes, John 1:1c describes the qualitative God attributes and essence/nature (omnipresence, omnipotence, etc...) that allows John to say that "the Word was God". You're catching on.

Then you have just confessed that the Word is a thing personified. It's encouraging to see you make progress at times, but you're not there yet. If the Word is Jesus, and in your club the Word has omnipresence, omnipotence, etc. then you are in another contradiction because Jesus doesn't have omnipresence, omnipotence, etc.

Jesus isn't all knowing: Mark 13:32, Luke 2:52
Jesus is not omnipotent: John 5:19, Matthew 26:39
Jesus is not omnipresent: John 11:14-15, John 16:7
Jesus inferior to God: John 14:28, 1 Corinthians 15:27-28

I see that you evaded addressing my statement "He tabernacled as Jesus on Earth (John 1:14)" and everything I wrote after that. Address that first and then I'll be more than happy to address "the Word became flesh".

The "Word became flesh and dwelt among us" means flesh dwelt among them. It has nothing to do with tabernacling in the sense of pitching a tent or a pre-existent being dwelling in a human body. I know that's the direction you want to go, but once again you have an inconsistency in your line of reasoning because the same kind of tabernacling language applies to those who didn't pre-exist (1 Corinthians 3:16, 1 Corinthians 6:19) so you have not even got your foot in the door as far as making a convincing argument.

 

[mikesw]

Then you have just confessed that the Word is a thing personified. It's encouraging to see you make progress at times, but you're not there yet. If the Word is Jesus, and in your club the Word has omnipresence, omnipotence, etc. then you are in another contradiction because Jesus doesn't have omnipresence, omnipotence, etc.

Jesus isn't all knowing: Mark 13:32, Luke 2:52

If in Jesus as incarnation of the Word is not aware of this one point, you deny who he is. There was a wind in the face of Elijah and God was not in it (1 Kings 19:11-13). All you share here are limits in the incarnation. I even am suspicious of simple claims of God as omniscient being abused.
In the opposite direction from the unitarian beliefs, Jesus knew Lazarus was dead. But the unitarian will deny, as usual, information like that.

Jesus is not omnipotent: John 5:19, Matthew 26:39

That is clearly ignorant in your mention in John 5:19. Do you expect division of the Son and Father? That would bring God down to inconsistency and destruction.

Jesus is not omnipresent: John 11:14-15, John 16:7

Haha. you quote the passage about Lazarus. That can show omnipresence in Christ's divinity. But the other sense, that you seem to focus on, is the normal aspect that Jesus as human is not there. Amazing how backwards the interpretations are about what you share.
Then John 16:7 you are one of those disciples that hopes Jesus does not go away so that you only know him in human form.

Jesus inferior to God: John 14:28, 1 Corinthians 15:27-28

Duh. In the incarnation, Jesus does not exhibit all the glory and power of the Father. So, you use that against who he is.

Then 1 Cor 15:27-28 does not speak of inferiority but rather of unity. This in nowise denies the preexistent One incarnated as Jesus. You keep offering incomplete, inferior arguments hoping that people will be aligned to your speculations.

The "Word became flesh and dwelt among us" means flesh dwelt among them. It has nothing to do with tabernacling in the sense of pitching a tent or a pre-existent being dwelling in a human body. I know that's the direction you want to go, but once again you have an inconsistency in your line of reasoning because the same kind of tabernacling language applies to those who didn't pre-exist (1 Corinthians 3:16, 1 Corinthians 6:19) so you have not even got your foot in the door as far as making a convincing argument.

You boast of the gift but deny who the giver is. Jesus sent the Spirit to those who follow him.

 

[Runningman]

If in Jesus as incarnation of the Word is not aware of this one point, you deny who he is. There was a wind in the face of Elijah and God was not in it (1 Kings 19:11-13). All you share here are limits in the incarnation. I even am suspicious of simple claims of God as omniscient being abused.
In the opposite direction from the unitarian beliefs, Jesus knew Lazarus was dead. But the unitarian will deny, as usual, information like that.

That is clearly ignorant in your mention in John 5:19. Do you expect division of the Son and Father? That would bring God down to inconsistency and destruction.

Haha. you quote the passage about Lazarus. That can show omnipresence in Christ's divinity. But the other sense, that you seem to focus on, is the normal aspect that Jesus as human is not there. Amazing how backwards the interpretations are about what you share.
Then John 16:7 you are one of those disciples that hopes Jesus does not go away so that you only know him in human form.


Duh. In the incarnation, Jesus does not exhibit all the glory and power of the Father. So, you use that against who he is.

Then 1 Cor 15:27-28 does not speak of inferiority but rather of unity. This in nowise denies the preexistent One incarnated as Jesus. You keep offering incomplete, inferior arguments hoping that people will be aligned to your speculations.

You boast of the gift but deny who the giver is. Jesus sent the Spirit to those who follow him.

You seem to divide Jesus up into two Jesus'. The first Jesus is just a skin suit being driven by god. The other Jesus is god and he's the pilot of the skinsuit. You switch field goal posts as fast a Clark Kent changes outfits in a phonebooth. Just when I make a valid point about Jesus lacking all of the divine attributes of deity, surprise, you pull a different Jesus out of your bag of tricks and say that it doesn't apply.

Just to show you that the Son of God Jesus and the Son of Man Jesus are the exact same identical person and there is no distinction, we should look at what Jesus said. The one you call "God the Son" in your pantheon stated that he is the Son of Man. In other words, in trinitarian theology, "God confessed to being a human being" which runs entirely counter to your narrative. All of my points still stand.

John 5
25Truly, truly, I tell you, the hour is coming and has now come when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live. 26For as the Father has life in Himself, so also He has granted the Son to have life in Himself. 27And He has given Him authority to execute judgment, because He is the Son of Man.

 

[Runningman]

Once again, as I've said, we have to based our faith and understanding from the beginning.
In the beginning was the Word, the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
1. John 1:1b - the "God" (the Father) is a personal being, "the Word was with the God the Father,
2. John 1:1c - and as the Word was God, means the "God's nature" of the Word is the same with the Father nature, or else you will interpret that the Father also not a person.

Thus, being God, is a personal being, a peson.

No, the Word as being God, is a person, or else again, you interpret the Father not a person.

John 1 isn't the beginning of creation. It refers to the beginning of Jesus' ministry. How do I know? Because in the beginning of creation YHWH created alone with spoken words, not with someone else called the Word (Genesis 1:1, Isaiah 44:24, Isaiah 45:12, Nehemiah 9:6, Psalm 44:6, Malachi 2:10)

So John 1:1 cannot refer to the beginning of creation where the prophets explicitly stated, often quoting words from God Himself, that He (singular person pronoun) created alone, not with another God. This is how the other gospel writers put it when they opened their books:

Mark 1:1 "“The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ…”
Luke 1:2-3 says "…just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses…:
Acts 1:22-23 says "…beginning from the baptism of John…”
1 John 1:1 says “That which was from the beginning… which we have heard, which we have seen…”

The "beginning" is referring to something that the disciples were alive and present for to eyewitness, see, and touch, not the beginning of creation as you have erroneously stated. We have the entire Bible stating the God created a lone and then the New testament referring to the beginning of Jesus' ministry. John 1:1 follows in this same vein in regards to the ministry of Jesus.

Read verse 14, you will find the word worship Runningman.
Unitarians clumsy trick.

The "Word became flesh" refers to a creation.

Another ungainly trick, skipping verse 13.

The elders were not worshipping Jesus in Revelation 5. You can't change words and if you try I will call you out again.

Here, though Jesus already ascended to heaven, the disciples worshiped Him, let it be observed that this worship was not given by way of civil respect, as acts of civil respect are always performed in the presence of the person.
Thus, they render a divine worshiped to Jesus as their God.

Luk 24:52 And they worshipped Him, and returned to Jerusalem with great joy.

Read Luke 24:52, and understand the situation.
Explanation stated above.

Another trinitarian trick only quoting part of the verse totally out of context to give the wrong impression of what was happening.

No they didn't worship Jesus. It says they were praising God, not Jesus, so it follows they were worshipping God instead.

Luke 24
52And they worshiped Him and returned to Jerusalem with great joy, 53praising God continually in the temple.

Yes, that's an example of civil respect, done in the presence of the one being respected.
Again, Jesus was worshiped, though He was already in heaven, the disciples worshiped Him as God.(Luke 24:52)

This is proof that Jesus isn't bowed to any differently than other humans throughout the Bible.

Look at this way. There are no teachings, commandments, or examples given to believers to worship Jesus as God. The only explicitly directive about who the true worshippers worship is the Father in spirit and truth (John 4:23,24)

NASB is a literal word for word Bible translation that abide in the process of modern "textual criticism," that aims to maintain the highest degree of accuracy to the original languages.
See below how it render Mat 18:26.
By the way, what Bible translations you prefer to read Runningman?

Mat 18:26 “So the slave fell to the ground and prostrated himself before him, saying, ‘Have patience with me and I will repay you everything.’

Right, many humans are bowed to in the Bible without the suggestion that they are being worshipped as God.

Can't you not digest John 1:1b?
And the Word was with God. The Word was with God the Father and not the Father Himself.
Also understand John 1:1c - "and the Word was God" not "and the Word was the God."
It is wrong to understand that the word "God" is the personal name of the Father, common mistake to some.

So you confess that the Word is not the definitive God? i.e., the Word is not The God. That's your clue and you have caught on to an important point that will help you understand what John 1:1 is really about.

Ok, would you care enough to let me know what way on earth does YHWH takes in the New Testament?

Can you rephrase that? I am not sure what you are asking.

The Lordship of Jesus is also of heaven and earth. (Phil 2:10,11)
Also all authority in heaven and on earth was given to Him.

Php 2:10 so that at the name of Jesus EVERY KNEE WILL BOW, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
Php 2:11 and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

Not only of the church but also to heaven and earth. (Phil 2"10,11)

It says "at the name of Jesus" not "to Jesus" every knee will bow. Also observe that the only named God in the entire passage getting glory is the Father. That's a Unitarian prooftext. No mention of Jesus being the Lord of heaven and earth here at all. Where did you get that idea?

 

[mikesw]

You seem to divide Jesus up into two Jesus'. The first Jesus is just a skin suit being driven by god. The other Jesus is god and he's the pilot of the skinsuit. You switch field goal posts as fast a Clark Kent changes outfits in a phonebooth. Just when I make a valid point about Jesus lacking all of the divine attributes of deity, surprise, you pull a different Jesus out of your bag of tricks and say that it doesn't apply.

Just to show you that the Son of God Jesus and the Son of Man Jesus are the exact same identical person and there is no distinction, we should look at what Jesus said. The one you call "God the Son" in your pantheon stated that he is the Son of Man. In other words, in trinitarian theology, "God confessed to being a human being" which runs entirely counter to your narrative. All of my points still stand.

John 5
25Truly, truly, I tell you, the hour is coming and has now come when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live. 26For as the Father has life in Himself, so also He has granted the Son to have life in Himself. 27And He has given Him authority to execute judgment, because He is the Son of Man.

You just define his preexistence as deity into narrow boxes of how to define his incarnation. You also used verses haphazardly in your defense and thus failed horribly. This can be combined with sort of an excessive pushing of what are often said to be the attributes of a god. Your errors are duly noted and we await a sufficient argument that you might present to deny the scriptural testimony of the preexistence of the one who became Christ. There are too many passages on this for you to really create an argument for your novel, new, gnostic, private unitarian interpretations.

 

[synergy]

Then you have just confessed that the Word is a thing personified. It's encouraging to see you make progress at times, but you're not there yet. If the Word is Jesus, and in your club the Word has omnipresence, omnipotence, etc. then you are in another contradiction because Jesus doesn't have omnipresence, omnipotence, etc.

Huh? How can a personification possibly be omnipotent?? The only omnipotence your imagined personification possesses is a lock on your mind.

Jesus isn't all knowing: Mark 13:32, Luke 2:52
Jesus is not omnipotent: John 5:19, Matthew 26:39
Jesus is not omnipresent: John 11:14-15, John 16:7
Jesus inferior to God: John 14:28, 1 Corinthians 15:27-28

The passages cited describe Christ in the reality of His Tabernacling as the Word of God who was God, not a denial of His divine nature. We believe Jesus Christ possesses both a true human nature and the full divine nature (John 1:1–14), so statements like Mark 13:32 and Luke 2:52 reflect genuine human development and a voluntarily limited human consciousness, not the absence of omniscience, since elsewhere He knows hearts (John 2:24–25) and all things (John 16:30). Likewise, John 5:19 and Matthew 26:39 show functional submission to the Father, not lack of omnipotence, for He claims all authority in heaven and earth (Matt. 28:18) and exercises divine power over nature, death, and judgment. His physical absence in John 11:14–15 and John 16:7 pertains to bodily location, yet He promises, “I am with you always” (Matt. 28:20) and declares omnipresence in Matthew 18:20. Finally, texts like John 14:28 and 1 Corinthians 15:27–28 speak of relational or mediatorial subordination in His incarnate mission, not inferiority, for the Son shares the same divine glory “before the world existed” (John 17:5). Thus, when you actually read the whole Bible you would see that the broader biblical testimony affirms that the incarnate Son remains truly omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent in His divine nature.

The "Word became flesh and dwelt among us" means flesh dwelt among them. It has nothing to do with tabernacling in the sense of pitching a tent or a pre-existent being dwelling in a human body. I know that's the direction you want to go, but once again you have an inconsistency in your line of reasoning because the same kind of tabernacling language applies to those who didn't pre-exist (1 Corinthians 3:16, 1 Corinthians 6:19) so you have not even got your foot in the door as far as making a convincing argument.

You continue to embarrass yourself with your ignorance of Greek words. The Corinthian verses do not use the same word ἐσκήνωσεν as does John 1:14. This word deliberately echoes the Old Testament Tabernacle (Hebrew mishkan) described in Exodus, where God’s glory dwelt in the midst of Israel (Exod 25:8; 40:34–35). By choosing this term, John presents Jesus as the true and greater dwelling of God’s presence, so that the Divine God Glory once localized in a tent now resides personally and visibly in Jesus who is the tabernacled Word.

(John 1:14) And the Word became flesh, and tabernacled (ἐσκήνωσεν) among us. And we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and of truth.

(1Cor 3:16) Do you not know that you are a temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwells (οἰκεῖ) in you?

(1Cor 6:19) Or do you not know that your body is a temple (ναος) of the Holy Spirit in you, whom you have of God? And you are not your own,

 

[Capbook]

John 1 isn't the beginning of creation. It refers to the beginning of Jesus' ministry. How do I know? Because in the beginning of creation YHWH created alone with spoken words, not with someone else called the Word (Genesis 1:1, Isaiah 44:24, Isaiah 45:12, Nehemiah 9:6, Psalm 44:6, Malachi 2:10)

Do you mean that there were two scenarios of creation? A misguided understanding.
Can't we digest what "apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being" means?
The Word/logos/speech created all things through Him and exist in the OT until in the book of Malachi.

In Genesis, He is the One Whom says, "let us make man in Our image." As Jesus said "neither heard the voice of the Father anytime," I believe includes us, or else you've heard the Father's voice yourself.
Father's voice heard when He would bore witness or testify for the Son. (John 5:37)
Thus, the Word was named YHWH in Isaiah that speaks, "who will go for Us."

The Greek logos still was mentioned in all your quoted verses.
Proves, that the logos exist in the whole Old Testament.

Isa 1:10 HearG191 the wordG3056 of the LORD,G2962 O rulersG758 of Sodom!G* Take heed toG4337 the lawG3551 of our God,G2316 G1473 O peopleG2992 of Gomorrah!G*

Neh 1:8 RememberG3403 indeed!G1211 theG3588 wordG3056 whichG3739 you gave chargeG1781 to Moses,G* to G3588 your servant,G3816 G1473 saying,G3004 IfG1473 [2should break contractG801.2 1You],G1473 IG1473 shall disperseG1287 youG1473 amongG1722 theG3588 peoples.G2992

Psa 33:4 ForG3754 [5 is uprightG2112.3 1theG3588 2wordG3056 3of theG3588 4 LORD];G2962 andG2532 allG3956 G3588 his worksG2041 G1473 inG1722 trust.G4102

Mal 1:1 The concernG3024.1 of the wordG3056 of the LORD G2962 overG1909 G3588 IsraelG* byG1722 the handG5495 of his messenger.G32 G1473

G3056
λόγος logos
Thayer Definition:
1) of speech

So John 1:1 cannot refer to the beginning of creation where the prophets explicitly stated, often quoting words from God Himself, that He (singular person pronoun) created alone, not with another God. This is how the other gospel writers put it when they opened their books:

Yes, the creative Word/logos, with His speech alone created all things through Him.
And the most important part to understand deeply and wholly that "apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being."

Mark 1:1 "“The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ…”
Luke 1:2-3 says "…just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses…:
Acts 1:22-23 says "…beginning from the baptism of John…”

Yes, that was when the Word already became flesh.

1 John 1:1 says “That which was from the beginning… which we have heard, which we have seen…”

The "beginning" is referring to something that the disciples were alive and present for to eyewitness, see, and touch, not the beginning of creation as you have erroneously stated. We have the entire Bible stating the God created a lone and then the New testament referring to the beginning of Jesus' ministry. John 1:1 follows in this same vein in regards to the ministry of Jesus.

Yes, all your quoted verses speaks of the Word already became flesh.

The "Word became flesh" refers to a creation.

Can you find just one of the 5 below that refer to Jesus to make your interpretation easier and admissible?

The word "became" in Greek is "γίνομαι ginomai."

And the word "created" in Greek are;
1 κτίζω ktizō, - Mark 13:9, Strong#G2936
2. κτίσις ktisis, - Romans 8:39, Strong#G2937
3. πλάσσω plassō - 1Tim 2:13, Strong#G4111
4. κτίσμα ktisma - 1Tim 4:4, Strong#G2938
5. ποιέω poieō - Heb 12:27, Strong#G4160.

The elders were not worshipping Jesus in Revelation 5. You can't change words and if you try I will call you out again.

May we know your understanding of the word "and," is it a subtraction or addition?
Hope you care enough to answer honestly and understand the truth.

Rev 5:13 And every created thing which is in heaven and on the earth and under the earth and on the sea, and all things in them, I heard saying, "To Him who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb, be blessing and honor and glory and dominion forever and ever."
Rev 5:14 And the four living creatures kept saying, "Amen." And the elders fell down and worshiped.

Another trinitarian trick only quoting part of the verse totally out of context to give the wrong impression of what was happening.

The trick I know is to make the conjunction "and" a subtraction.

No they didn't worship Jesus. It says they were praising God, not Jesus, so it follows they were worshipping God instead.

Luke 24
52And they worshiped Him and returned to Jerusalem with great joy, 53praising God continually in the temple.

Understanding the context of the verses, Who were they recently with that they worshiped before they returned to Jerusalem?

Luk 24:50 And He led them out as far as Bethany, and He lifted up His hands and blessed them.
Luk 24:51 While He was blessing them, He parted from them and was carried up into heaven.
Luk 24:52 And they, after worshiping Him, returned to Jerusalem with great joy,
Luk 24:53 and were continually in the temple praising God.

This is proof that Jesus isn't bowed to any differently than other humans throughout the Bible.

Look at this way. There are no teachings, commandments, or examples given to believers to worship Jesus as God. The only explicitly directive about who the true worshippers worship is the Father in spirit and truth (John 4:23,24)

Right, many humans are bowed to in the Bible without the suggestion that they are being worshipped as God.

Won't you believe the Father Himself that testified for Jesus as God, (Heb 1:8,9) and command all the angels to worship Him?

So you confess that the Word is not the definitive God? i.e., the Word is not The God. That's your clue and you have caught on to an important point that will help you understand what John 1:1 is really about.

John 1:1c's truth is clear, "and the Word was God," does it mean blurred to Unitarians?

Can you rephrase that? I am not sure what you are asking.

You state and interpret John the Baptist"s phrase "make straight the way of the Lord," as referred to YHWH not to Jesus.
The question is, what straight way on earth did YHWH take where John the Baptist make?

It says "at the name of Jesus" not "to Jesus" every knee will bow. Also observe that the only named God in the entire passage getting glory is the Father. That's a Unitarian prooftext. No mention of Jesus being the Lord of heaven and earth here at all. Where did you get that idea?

Yes, at the name of Jesus, is there another name that all knee will bow, in heaven and on earth?
And all tongues will confess that Jesus is Lord to the glory of the Father.

It's not my own idea, Phil 2:10,11 state it.

 

[Runningman]

Do you mean that there were two scenarios of creation? A misguided understanding.
Can't we digest what "apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being" means?
The Word/logos/speech created all things through Him and exist in the OT until in the book of Malachi.

The ministry of Jesus and the subsequent church were definitely not created "in the beginning" when God was creating the unvierse. Where "the beginning" is depends on the context. The beginning of the ministry of Jesus is is something the apostles could eyewitness. I hope you aren't suggesting that "the beginning" of creation is something the apostles pre-existed to eyewitness.

In Genesis, He is the One Whom says, "let us make man in Our image." As Jesus said "neither heard the voice of the Father anytime," I believe includes us, or else you've heard the Father's voice yourself.
Father's voice heard when He would bore witness or testify for the Son. (John 5:37)
Thus, the Word was named YHWH in Isaiah that speaks, "who will go for Us."

The "Let us make man in our image" is a conversation with the angels, not the act of creation. The creation did not occur by an Our, They, Them, or We but rather by a He. There is the plural person creator you have erroneously suggested versus the single person Creator the Bible testifies of.

How many persons are you counting below?

Genesis 1
27So God created man in His own image;
in the image of God He created him;
male and female He created them.

The Greek logos still was mentioned in all your quoted verses.
Proves, that the logos exist in the whole Old Testament.

Isa 1:10 HearG191 the wordG3056 of the LORD,G2962 O rulersG758 of Sodom!G* Take heed toG4337 the lawG3551 of our God,G2316 G1473 O peopleG2992 of Gomorrah!G*

Neh 1:8 RememberG3403 indeed!G1211 theG3588 wordG3056 whichG3739 you gave chargeG1781 to Moses,G* to G3588 your servant,G3816 G1473 saying,G3004 IfG1473 [2should break contractG801.2 1You],G1473 IG1473 shall disperseG1287 youG1473 amongG1722 theG3588 peoples.G2992

Psa 33:4 ForG3754 [5 is uprightG2112.3 1theG3588 2wordG3056 3of theG3588 4 LORD];G2962 andG2532 allG3956 G3588 his worksG2041 G1473 inG1722 trust.G4102

Mal 1:1 The concernG3024.1 of the wordG3056 of the LORD G2962 overG1909 G3588 IsraelG* byG1722 the handG5495 of his messenger.G32 G1473

G3056
λόγος logos
Thayer Definition:
1) of speech

The word here is a word, matter, decree, or command because in every one of those places the "word" is is something spoken, commanded, heard, remembered, or sent through a prophet and it refers to God's spoken words, i.e., God used His mouth, if you will, to speak. It's not a reference to a second divine person nor does it say anything in regards to what you seem to be suggesting because the Old Testament never once got translated to say "The word is god" or anything remotely close to that.

John 1:1 abruptly, out of the blue, without precedent blurts out "the word is god" and then no one ever repeated it again. The minority verse doesn't override the entire testimony of scripture and turn it all on its head. You are using a kind of "upside down pyramid" theology, trying to sit the entire testimony of Scripture on top of a single verse, but that is not how exegesis works. Exegesis is foundational, building on a foundation of precedents and other previously stated things.

Yes, the creative Word/logos, with His speech alone created all things through Him.
And the most important part to understand deeply and wholly that "apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being."

Speech is not a person. So if you insist the Word is a He then you would have to see that the Word is personified especially since 1 John 1:1-3 explicitly refers to the Word as a thing (a they, this, that, which, and what but never a he, him, his, I or you) along with not having even one example of the Word being God in the Old Testament, and no one repeating what John said in 1John 1:1, you present a very weakly supported case for having so much to say about it.

Yes, that was when the Word already became flesh.

Yes, all your quoted verses speaks of the Word already became flesh.

So enough evidence has already been provided that demonstrate that there isn't a pre-existent person known as the Word who incarnated as a human. No precedent for that at all, nor is it even mentioned once. Did you notice there aren't even any prophecies where anyone said that God would become a human? That would be a game-changer for you, but even that much doesn't exist.

Can you find just one of the 5 below that refer to Jesus to make your interpretation easier and admissible?

The word "became" in Greek is "γίνομαι ginomai."

And the word "created" in Greek are;
1 κτίζω ktizō, - Mark 13:9, Strong#G2936
2. κτίσις ktisis, - Romans 8:39, Strong#G2937
3. πλάσσω plassō - 1Tim 2:13, Strong#G4111
4. κτίσμα ktisma - 1Tim 4:4, Strong#G2938
5. ποιέω poieō - Heb 12:27, Strong#G4160.

May we know your understanding of the word "and," is it a subtraction or addition?
Hope you care enough to answer honestly and understand the truth.

Rev 5:13 And every created thing which is in heaven and on the earth and under the earth and on the sea, and all things in them, I heard saying, "To Him who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb, be blessing and honor and glory and dominion forever and ever."
Rev 5:14 And the four living creatures kept saying, "Amen." And the elders fell down and worshiped.

The issue is you are attempting to conflate two entirely unrelated things.

Does the throne sitter and the Lamb receive "blessing and honor and glory and dominion forever and ever?" Why yes they do. Does "be blessing and honor and glory and dominion" mean the same thing as worship? No they do not.

As previously shown to you, the worshipping is occurring around the throne where the Lamb is not. So you cannot change the physical location of the throne sitter, the Lamb, or the worshippers by attempting to conflate worship with other things.

The trick I know is to make the conjunction "and" a subtraction.

Understanding the context of the verses, Who were they recently with that they worshiped before they returned to Jerusalem?

Luk 24:50 And He led them out as far as Bethany, and He lifted up His hands and blessed them.
Luk 24:51 While He was blessing them, He parted from them and was carried up into heaven.
Luk 24:52 And they, after worshiping Him, returned to Jerusalem with great joy,
Luk 24:53 and were continually in the temple praising God.

Even if they were directing it to Jesus, the context shows distinction between God and Jesus. They bowed to Jesus in royal homage or respect to their exalted master, but not as God. You cannot prove that Jesus was ever bowed to as God based on grammar or context of anything in the Bible. Jesus and God are always distinct throughout the gospels.

Here's a better version:

Luke 24 YLT
52and they, having bowed before him, did turn back to Jerusalem with great joy, 53and were continually in the temple, praising and blessing God. Amen.

Won't you believe the Father Himself that testified for Jesus as God, (Heb 1:8,9) and command all the angels to worship Him?

Parallel to Psalm 45:6,7 where the context in Psalms is about king Solomon, not God.

John 1:1c's truth is clear, "and the Word was God," does it mean blurred to Unitarians?

Check your lexicon, the Word is not The God, but the Father is The God.

You state and interpret John the Baptist"s phrase "make straight the way of the Lord," as referred to YHWH not to Jesus.
The question is, what straight way on earth did YHWH take where John the Baptist make?

By calling everyone to repentance and preaching, it made God's work easier, an easy straight walk and less bumpier walk.

Yes, at the name of Jesus, is there another name that all knee will bow, in heaven and on earth?
And all tongues will confess that Jesus is Lord to the glory of the Father.

It's not my own idea, Phil 2:10,11 state it.

Philippians 2:10,11 means by the authority of Jesus every knee will bow to the glory of God the Father only.

 

[Capbook]

The ministry of Jesus and the subsequent church were definitely not created "in the beginning" when God was creating the unvierse. Where "the beginning" is depends on the context. The beginning of the ministry of Jesus is is something the apostles could eyewitness. I hope you aren't suggesting that "the beginning" of creation is something the apostles pre-existed to eyewitness.

Do you mean that Moses who wrote the "In the beginning" must also be an eyewitness to the creation?

The "Let us make man in our image" is a conversation with the angels, not the act of creation. The creation did not occur by an Our, They, Them, or We but rather by a He. There is the plural person creator you have erroneously suggested versus the single person Creator the Bible testifies of.

Yes, also a "Him." The word "apart" really does not sink in to unitarians.
Can you find a verse, that the Father was described as "apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being?

John 1:3 All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being.

How many persons are you counting below?

Genesis 1
27So God created man in His own image;
in the image of God He created him;
male and female He created them.

One, the Word. Otherwise you won't believe what Jesus said in John 5:37, that you also heard the voice of the Father yourself.

The word here is a word, matter, decree, or command because in every one of those places the "word" is is something spoken, commanded, heard, remembered, or sent through a prophet and it refers to God's spoken words, i.e., God used His mouth, if you will, to speak. It's not a reference to a second divine person nor does it say anything in regards to what you seem to be suggesting because the Old Testament never once got translated to say "The word is god" or anything remotely close to that.

John 1:1 abruptly, out of the blue, without precedent blurts out "the word is god" and then no one ever repeated it again. The minority verse doesn't override the entire testimony of scripture and turn it all on its head. You are using a kind of "upside down pyramid" theology, trying to sit the entire testimony of Scripture on top of a single verse, but that is not how exegesis works. Exegesis is foundational, building on a foundation of precedents and other previously stated things.


Speech is not a person. So if you insist the Word is a He then you would have to see that the Word is personified especially since 1 John 1:1-3 explicitly refers to the Word as a thing (a they, this, that, which, and what but never a he, him, his, I or you) along with not having even one example of the Word being God in the Old Testament, and no one repeating what John said in 1John 1:1, you present a very weakly supported case for having so much to say about it.

The Word was God, if the Word's God nature is a thing, then you make the Father a thing also.
As I've said, defining the word "God" as the Father's personal name is always a mistake.

So enough evidence has already been provided that demonstrate that there isn't a pre-existent person known as the Word who incarnated as a human. No precedent for that at all, nor is it even mentioned once. Did you notice there aren't even any prophecies where anyone said that God would become a human? That would be a game-changer for you, but even that much doesn't exist.

If John the Baptist is still alive today, you might get a one on one study about the flesh Jesus pre-existence, as the Word that was God from the beginning.
Then you will be baptized by the last command of Christ, the Trinity. Not doing so, will be disobedient to Christ command.
Joh 1:14 And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.
Joh 1:15 John *testified about Him and cried out, saying, "This was He of whom I said, 'He who comes after me has a higher rank than I, for He existed before me.'"

The issue is you are attempting to conflate two entirely unrelated things.

Does the throne sitter and the Lamb receive "blessing and honor and glory and dominion forever and ever?" Why yes they do. Does "be blessing and honor and glory and dominion" mean the same thing as worship? No they do not.

You did not answer the question, again is the conjunction "and" an addition or subtraction?
As there are three "and" there, that makes clarification of your definition very important.
And the elders fell down and worshiped. Worship is worship not what you tried to divert the focus.
Do you care enough to answer that first, then explanation?

Rev 5:13 And every created thing which is in heaven and on the earth and under the earth and on the sea, and all things in them, I heard saying, "To Him who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb, be blessing and honor and glory and dominion forever and ever."
Rev 5:14 And the four living creatures kept saying, "Amen." And the elders fell down and worshiped.

As previously shown to you, the worshipping is occurring around the throne where the Lamb is not. So you cannot change the physical location of the throne sitter, the Lamb, or the worshippers by attempting to conflate worship with other things.

Even if they were directing it to Jesus, the context shows distinction between God and Jesus. They bowed to Jesus in royal homage or respect to their exalted master, but not as God. You cannot prove that Jesus was ever bowed to as God based on grammar or context of anything in the Bible. Jesus and God are always distinct throughout the gospels.

We are discussing Rev 5:13,14 I find nothing about royal homage, but the "and" that was being worshiped.
Treating the conjunction "and" as a subtraction is really a big mistake, it always leads to misinterpretation of God's word.

Here's a better version:

Luke 24 YLT
52and they, having bowed before him, did turn back to Jerusalem with great joy, 53and were continually in the temple, praising and blessing God. Amen.

The word "worshiping" with Strong#G4352, in Greek "προσκυνέω proskuneō" defined by Bibe lexicon as means - to express by attitude and possibly by position one's allegiance to and regard for deity.

That proves that they worship Jesus as God, Deity.

(NAS95+) Luke 24:52 And they, after worshipingG4352 Him, returnedG5290 to JerusalemG2419 with greatG3173 joyG5479,

(NT Westcott & Hort+) Luke 24:52 καιG2532 CONJ αυτοιG846 P-NPM | [[προσκυνησαντεςG4352 V-AAP-NPM αυτον]]G846 P-ASM | προσκυνησαντεςG4352 V-AAP-NPM αυτονG846 P-ASM | υπεστρεψανG5290 V-AAI-3P ειςG1519 PREP ιερουσαλημG2419 N-PRI μεταG3326 PREP χαραςG5479 N-GSF μεγαληςG3173 A-GSF

G4352 (Louw and Nida Greek-English Lexicon)
προσκυνέω proskuneō
to express by attitude and possibly by position one's allegiance to and regard for deity.
(from Greek-English Lexicon Based on Semantic Domain. Copyright © 1988 United Bible Societies, New York. Used by permission.)

Parallel to Psalm 45:6,7 where the context in Psalms is about king Solomon, not God.

Yes, the Father Himself testified for Jesus as God, is the Father's words not enough to you Runningman?
Can you find Solomon's forever and ever throne in the New Testament?

Check your lexicon, the Word is not The God, but the Father is The God.

John 1:1c is crystal clear, "and the Word was God.," in Greek "Theos en ho Logos," "and God was the Word."

By calling everyone to repentance and preaching, it made God's work easier, an easy straight walk and less bumpier walk.

John the Baptist that makes the way for YHWH is the one that states that.
Any verse what way on earth did YHWH takes as prepared by John?

Philippians 2:10,11 means by the authority of Jesus every knee will bow to the glory of God the Father only.

Runningman, your interpretation is just running, it's in the name of Jesus that every knee will bow in heaven, on earth and under the earth.

Php 2:10 so that at the name of Jesus EVERY KNEE WILL BOW, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
Php 2:11 and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

 

[Runningman]

Do you mean that Moses who wrote the "In the beginning" must also be an eyewitness to the creation?

John 1 isn't the beginning of creation. It refers to the beginning of Jesus' ministry. How do I know? Because in the beginning of creation YHWH created alone with spoken words, not with someone else called the Word (Genesis 1:1, Isaiah 44:24, Isaiah 45:12, Nehemiah 9:6, Psalm 44:6, Malachi 2:10)

So John 1:1 cannot refer to the beginning of creation where the prophets explicitly stated, often quoting words from God Himself, that He (singular person pronoun) created alone, not with another God. This is how the other gospel writers put it when they opened their books:

Mark 1:1 "“The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ…”
Luke 1:2-3 says "…just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses…:
Acts 1:22-23 says "…beginning from the baptism of John…”
1 John 1:1 says “That which was from the beginning… which we have heard, which we have seen…”

The "beginning" is referring to something that the disciples were alive and present for to eyewitness, see, and touch, not the beginning of creation as you have erroneously stated. We have the entire Bible stating the God created a lone and then the New testament referring to the beginning of Jesus' ministry. John 1:1 follows in this same vein in regards to the ministry of Jesus.

Yes, also a "Him." The word "apart" really does not sink in to unitarians.
Can you find a verse, that the Father was described as "apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being?

John 1:3 All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being.

Yes, John 1:,,3 refers to the Father because which would be the God the Word was with.

One, the Word. Otherwise you won't believe what Jesus said in John 5:37, that you also heard the voice of the Father yourself.

The Word was God, if the Word's God nature is a thing, then you make the Father a thing also.
As I've said, defining the word "God" as the Father's personal name is always a mistake.

The Father is a person, never called a thing, but the Word is called a thing in 1 John 1:1-3.

If John the Baptist is still alive today, you might get a one on one study about the flesh Jesus pre-existence, as the Word that was God from the beginning.
Then you will be baptized by the last command of Christ, the Trinity. Not doing so, will be disobedient to Christ command.
Joh 1:14 And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.
Joh 1:15 John *testified about Him and cried out, saying, "This was He of whom I said, 'He who comes after me has a higher rank than I, for He existed before me.'"

John 1:14 refers to a creation. John 1:15 with the word "before" refers to importance, not time.

You did not answer the question, again is the conjunction "and" an addition or subtraction?
As there are three "and" there, that makes clarification of your definition very important.
And the elders fell down and worshiped. Worship is worship not what you tried to divert the focus.
Do you care enough to answer that first, then explanation?

Rev 5:13 And every created thing which is in heaven and on the earth and under the earth and on the sea, and all things in them, I heard saying, "To Him who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb, be blessing and honor and glory and dominion forever and ever."
Rev 5:14 And the four living creatures kept saying, "Amen." And the elders fell down and worshiped.

We are discussing Rev 5:13,14 I find nothing about royal homage, but the "and" that was being worshiped.
Treating the conjunction "and" as a subtraction is really a big mistake, it always leads to misinterpretation of God's word.


The word "worshiping" with Strong#G4352, in Greek "προσκυνέω proskuneō" defined by Bibe lexicon as means - to express by attitude and possibly by position one's allegiance to and regard for deity.

That proves that they worship Jesus as God, Deity.

(NAS95+) Luke 24:52 And they, after worshipingG4352 Him, returnedG5290 to JerusalemG2419 with greatG3173 joyG5479,

(NT Westcott & Hort+) Luke 24:52 καιG2532 CONJ αυτοιG846 P-NPM | [[προσκυνησαντεςG4352 V-AAP-NPM αυτον]]G846 P-ASM | προσκυνησαντεςG4352 V-AAP-NPM αυτονG846 P-ASM | υπεστρεψανG5290 V-AAI-3P ειςG1519 PREP ιερουσαλημG2419 N-PRI μεταG3326 PREP χαραςG5479 N-GSF μεγαληςG3173 A-GSF

G4352 (Louw and Nida Greek-English Lexicon)
προσκυνέω proskuneō
to express by attitude and possibly by position one's allegiance to and regard for deity.
(from Greek-English Lexicon Based on Semantic Domain. Copyright © 1988 United Bible Societies, New York. Used by permission.)

In regards to worship, only the One who sits on the throne is being worshipped. The Lamb came to the throne where they were circled around and that is the throne they fell down and worshipped around. The Lamb isn't on the throne where they were worshipping.

Rev 5:7 - And He came and took the scroll from the right hand of the One seated on the throne.
Rev 5:11 - Then I looked, and I heard the voices of many angels encircling the throne, and the living creatures and the elders.
Rev 5:14 - And the four living creatures said, “Amen,” and the elders fell down and worshiped.

Your error is that you can't put the Lamb on the throne where the worship is occurring.

Yes, the Father Himself testified for Jesus as God, is the Father's words not enough to you Runningman?
Can you find Solomon's forever and ever throne in the New Testament?

Never once happened. If you think otherwise, please quote a verse.

John 1:1c is crystal clear, "and the Word was God.," in Greek "Theos en ho Logos," "and God was the Word."

John the Baptist that makes the way for YHWH is the one that states that.
Any verse what way on earth did YHWH takes as prepared by John?

Runningman, your interpretation is just running, it's in the name of Jesus that every knee will bow in heaven, on earth and under the earth.

The Word is not God, but rather has the qualities of God, i.e., is godly. Look up what an anarthrous predicate nominative is in John 1:1 and you'll see what I mean. Also, remember, we have Scripture that makes that an impossibility. John 17:3 is still there and isn't going anywhere. Any interpretation that contradicts that is automatically wrong.

Php 2:10 so that at the name of Jesus EVERY KNEE WILL BOW, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
Php 2:11 and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

"At the name of Jesus" refers to the authority of Jesus, hence Jesus isn't being bowed to nor receiving the glory. The Father is stated to be the one receiving the Father.

 

[Capbook]

John 1 isn't the beginning of creation. It refers to the beginning of Jesus' ministry. How do I know? Because in the beginning of creation YHWH created alone with spoken words, not with someone else called the Word (Genesis 1:1, Isaiah 44:24, Isaiah 45:12, Nehemiah 9:6, Psalm 44:6, Malachi 2:10)

If we just digest and fully understand what "All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being. I believe Unitarians would not be misled.

Can you quote a verse that state there something left not included to the "all things" created by the Word/logos through Him?

So John 1:1 cannot refer to the beginning of creation where the prophets explicitly stated, often quoting words from God Himself, that He (singular person pronoun) created alone, not with another God. This is how the other gospel writers put it when they opened their books:

Can you quote the verse where the prophets say explicitly that John 1:3, was not the beginning of creation?

Mark 1:1 "“The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ…”
Luke 1:2-3 says "…just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses…:
Acts 1:22-23 says "…beginning from the baptism of John…”
1 John 1:1 says “That which was from the beginning… which we have heard, which we have seen…”

The "beginning" is referring to something that the disciples were alive and present for to eyewitness, see, and touch, not the beginning of creation as you have erroneously stated. We have the entire Bible stating the God created a lone and then the New testament referring to the beginning of Jesus' ministry. John 1:1 follows in this same vein in regards to the ministry of Jesus.

How about, "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth," the speech uttered by the Word? (John 5:37)

Yes, John 1:,,3 refers to the Father because which would be the God the Word was with.

John 1:1c is crystal clear, "and the Word was God," is it blurred to Unitarians?

The Father is a person, never called a thing, but the Word is called a thing in 1 John 1:1-3.

Christ said I am the life, the "Word" of life, the Word that was God manifest in the flesh, was never called a thing.

1Jn 1:1 What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and touched with our hands, concerning the Word of Life—
1Jn 1:2 and the life was manifested, and we have seen and testify and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was manifested to us.

1Ti 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

John 1:14 refers to a creation. John 1:15 with the word "before" refers to importance, not time.

You just added word to the text, nothing "importance" was stated in that verse but "for He existed before me."(Rev 22:18)

In regards to worship, only the One who sits on the throne is being worshipped. The Lamb came to the throne where they were circled around and that is the throne they fell down and worshipped around. The Lamb isn't on the throne where they were worshipping.

Added words again, Revelation 22:18.

Rev 5:7 - And He came and took the scroll from the right hand of the One seated on the throne.
Rev 5:11 - Then I looked, and I heard the voices of many angels encircling the throne, and the living creatures and the elders.
Rev 5:14 - And the four living creatures said, “Amen,” and the elders fell down and worshiped.

Skipping the first of the three "and" which you understand as subtraction. (Psalms 111:10)

Your error is that you can't put the Lamb on the throne where the worship is occurring.

The biggest error is the treatment of "and" as subtraction, illogical.

Rev 5:13 And every created thing which is in heaven and on the earth and under the earth and on the sea, and all things in them, I heard saying, "To Him who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb, be blessing and honor and glory and dominion forever and ever."

Never once happened. If you think otherwise, please quote a verse.

Is the Father words not enough for you Runningman?

(NAS95) Heb 1:8 But of the Son He says, "YOUR THRONE, O GOD, IS FOREVER AND EVER, AND THE RIGHTEOUS SCEPTER IS THE SCEPTER OF HIS KINGDOM.

The Word is not God, but rather has the qualities of God, i.e., is godly. Look up what an anarthrous predicate nominative is in John 1:1 and you'll see what I mean. Also, remember, we have Scripture that makes that an impossibility.

I've read one of your responses, your Post#321 you mentioned the "theos" as qualitative, you hit it right.
Because as the specific Greek construction "theos en ho logos," the "theos" as anarthrous no article and precedes a linking verb, it emphasizes the qualitative nature of the Word the same with the Father as God but separate and distinct person to the Father.

John 17:3 is still there and isn't going anywhere. Any interpretation that contradicts that is automatically wrong.

The word "only" doesn't always mean "only" as we know Isaac had an older bother named Ishmael, and to other partners of Abraham.

And the Father Himself testified for Jesus as God (Heb 1:8) and the eternal life in John 10,11,12,20, and true God.

Gen 22:2 He said, "Take now your son, your only son, whom you love, Isaac, and go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains of which I will tell you."

 

[Runningman]

If we just digest and fully understand what "All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being. I believe Unitarians would not be misled.

Depends on the context. "All things" or "everything" is not always literally everything and the kitchen sink. To get a better idea of this, look at John 14:26, where Jesus said "the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things..." So did the disciples become omniscient knowing literally all things? No sir, they certainly learned all things about what they needed to know in this context, but not all things under the Sun.

Now take a look back John 1 where it says "All things came into being through Him..." This is where you are hitting the same road block repeatedly. There was no Word in the beginning with God doing anything. Adam was not created using spoken words, many things were made secondarily, but in the context of John 1, when the Word became flesh, it means Jesus was created using spoken words, the ministry of Jesus was made using spoken words, etc.

Can you quote a verse that state there something left not included to the "all things" created by the Word/logos through Him?

What do you mean?

Can you quote the verse where the prophets say explicitly that John 1:3, was not the beginning of creation?

The Bible doesn't say John 1:3 is about the beginning of creation, nor does it say it's not about the beginning of creation, we can only gather what it is about based on the local and remote context. It doesn't follow the Biblical narrative if it's about the beginning of creation. Do you see how John 1 is similar to the below verses?

Mark 1:1 "“The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ…”
Luke 1:2-3 says "…just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses…:
Acts 1:22-23 says "…beginning from the baptism of John…”
1 John 1:1 says “That which was from the beginning… which we have heard, which we have seen…”

So why would John 1 be about the beginning of creation in Genesis 1 when no one else assigned Jesus to that beginning point?

How about, "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth," the speech uttered by the Word? (John 5:37)

The Word isn't a person in Genesis or elsewhere in the OT or NT. John 1 is literally the only passage that translates the Word as a person in most Bibles. Actually, many verses place Jesus and the Word in the same sentence and show how they are distinct. How can you have a Word who is Jesus in John 1:1 and then turn right around and have to defend how Jesus isn't isn't the Word in 1 John 1:1-3? 1 John 1:1-3 says the Word is eternal life, not something that became flesh. It even capitalizes Word.

John 1:1c is crystal clear, "and the Word was God," is it blurred to Unitarians?

John 1:1 doesn't say that in the Greek.

Christ said I am the life, the "Word" of life, the Word that was God manifest in the flesh, was never called a thing.

1 John 1:1-3 calls the Word eternal life, a this, that, which, what, and it. That's a thing.

1Jn 1:1 What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and touched with our hands, concerning the Word of Life—
1Jn 1:2 and the life was manifested, and we have seen and testify and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was manifested to us.

This is what I am quoting. the Word of life is eternal life, a thing, not a person.

1Ti 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

That's not what 1 Tim 3:16 says. The earliest manuscripts don't say that God was manifest in the flesh and it contradicts the verse in the way you have proposed. For example "justified in the Spirit" Do you contend God was brought under judgement and found innocent?

You just added word to the text, nothing "importance" was stated in that verse but "for He existed before me."(Rev 22:18)

Added words again, Revelation 22:18.

Skipping the first of the three "and" which you understand as subtraction. (Psalms 111:10)

The biggest error is the treatment of "and" as subtraction, illogical.

Rev 5:13 And every created thing which is in heaven and on the earth and under the earth and on the sea, and all things in them, I heard saying, "To Him who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb, be blessing and honor and glory and dominion forever and ever."

You have lost your point in attempting to shoe horn the Lamb onto the throne where he physically isn't.

Rev 5:7 - And He came and took the scroll from the right hand of the One seated on the throne.
Rev 5:11 - Then I looked, and I heard the voices of many angels encircling the throne, and the living creatures and the elders.
Rev 5:14 - And the four living creatures said, “Amen,” and the elders fell down and worshiped.

Now that we have proven that Jesus came to the throne where the worship is occurring, care to explain why you insist otherwise?

Is the Father words not enough for you Runningman?

That's what I am beginning to wonder about you as well. You don't believe Jesus' teachings about the Father being the only true God?

(NAS95) Heb 1:8 But of the Son He says, "YOUR THRONE, O GOD, IS FOREVER AND EVER, AND THE RIGHTEOUS SCEPTER IS THE SCEPTER OF HIS KINGDOM.

Psalm 45:6,7 where this is quoted from is about Solomon. When transferred to Jesus it doesn't transfer deity since Solomon isn't deity.

I've read one of your responses, your Post#321 you mentioned the "theos" as qualitative, you hit it right.
Because as the specific Greek construction "theos en ho logos," the "theos" as anarthrous no article and precedes a linking verb, it emphasizes the qualitative nature of the Word the same with the Father as God but separate and distinct person to the Father.

God isn't qualitative, God is a person. Are you one of those people who thinks God is a thing?

The word "only" doesn't always mean "only" as we know Isaac had an older bother named Ishmael, and to other partners of Abraham.

In John 17:3 it does.

And the Father Himself testified for Jesus as God (Heb 1:8) and the eternal life in John 10,11,12,20, and true God.

Not according to the rest of those passages.

Gen 22:2 He said, "Take now your son, your only son, whom you love, Isaac, and go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains of which I will tell you."

 

[Capbook]

Depends on the context. "All things" or "everything" is not always literally everything and the kitchen sink. To get a better idea of this, look at John 14:26, where Jesus said "the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things..." So did the disciples become omniscient knowing literally all things? No sir, they certainly learned all things about what they needed to know in this context, but not all things under the Sun.

If we rely to our own private interpretation, eisegesis comes.

The word "all things" with Strong#G3956, in Greek "πᾶς pas" defined by Bible Lexicons to mean as - every, the whole, all, entire, total and etc.
Thus, the "all things," the entire, whole, creation was created through the Word and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being.

We can't be taught by the Holy Spirit if we always rely to our own private interpretation Runningman.


John 1:3 R1AllG3956 thingsG3956 cameG1096 into beingG1096 throughG1223 Him, and apartG5565 from Him nothingG3761 G1520 cameG1096 into beingG1096 that has comeG1096 into beingG1096.

G3956
πᾶς pas
every; the whole; pl.: all
(from Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament © 1990 by William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. All rights reserved.)

G3956
πᾶς pas
pertaining to being entire or whole, with focus on the totality - 'entire, whole, total.
(from Greek-English Lexicon Based on Semantic Domain. Copyright © 1988 United Bible Societies, New York. Used by permission.)

Now take a look back John 1 where it says "All things came into being through Him..." This is where you are hitting the same road block repeatedly. There was no Word in the beginning with God doing anything. Adam was not created using spoken words, many things were made secondarily, but in the context of John 1, when the Word became flesh, it means Jesus was created using spoken words, the ministry of Jesus was made using spoken words, etc.

Another private interpretation.
We, know that John 1:1-3 speaks about the Word that was God created all things through Him, as the Word became flesh/Jesus all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities, all things have been created through Him and for Him. (Col 1:16.)

What do you mean?

I mean you cannot find a verse that answer my question below.
Can you quote a verse that state there something left not included to the "all things" created by the Word/logos through Him?

The Bible doesn't say John 1:3 is about the beginning of creation, nor does it say it's not about the beginning of creation, we can only gather what it is about based on the local and remote context. It doesn't follow the Biblical narrative if it's about the beginning of creation. Do you see how John 1 is similar to the below verses?

Mark 1:1 "“The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ…”
Luke 1:2-3 says "…just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses…:
Acts 1:22-23 says "…beginning from the baptism of John…”
1 John 1:1 says “That which was from the beginning… which we have heard, which we have seen…”

Runningman, you are just blinded by your preconceived belief, that even the word of the Father Himself testifying for Jesus is not enough for you.

Heb 1:10 And, "YOU, LORD, IN THE BEGINNING LAID THE FOUNDATION OF THE EARTH, AND THE HEAVENS ARE THE WORKS OF YOUR HANDS;

So why would John 1 be about the beginning of creation in Genesis 1 when no one else assigned Jesus to that beginning point?

Read Heb 1:10 above Runningman.

The Word isn't a person in Genesis or elsewhere in the OT or NT. John 1 is literally the only passage that translates the Word as a person in most Bibles.

Because the Word was named YHWH in the Old Testament Runningman.

Zec 12:10 "I will pour out on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the Spirit of grace and of supplication, so that they will look on Me whom they have pierced; and they will mourn for Him, as one mourns for an only son, and they will weep bitterly over Him like the bitter weeping over a firstborn.

Actually, many verses place Jesus and the Word in the same sentence and show how they are distinct. How can you have a Word who is Jesus in John 1:1 and then turn right around and have to defend how Jesus isn't isn't the Word in 1 John 1:1-3? 1 John 1:1-3 says the Word is eternal life, not something that became flesh. It even capitalizes Word.

Yes, Jesus also is the eternal life. (1John 5:20)

John 1:1 doesn't say that in the Greek.

1 John 1:1-3 calls the Word eternal life, a this, that, which, what, and it. That's a thing.

This is what I am quoting. the Word of life is eternal life, a thing, not a person.

Read through context of 1John 5:10,11,12,20, Jesus is the eternal life.

That's not what 1 Tim 3:16 says. The earliest manuscripts don't say that God was manifest in the flesh and it contradicts the verse in the way you have proposed. For example "justified in the Spirit" Do you contend God was brought under judgement and found innocent?

Byzantine text type manuscripts says that.

You have lost your point in attempting to shoe horn the Lamb onto the throne where he physically isn't.

Rev 5:7 - And He came and took the scroll from the right hand of the One seated on the throne.
Rev 5:11 - Then I looked, and I heard the voices of many angels encircling the throne, and the living creatures and the elders.
Rev 5:14 - And the four living creatures said, “Amen,” and the elders fell down and worshiped.

Why skip verse 13, that contain the "and" you interpret as subtraction?

Now that we have proven that Jesus came to the throne where the worship is occurring, care to explain why you insist otherwise?

My point about the word "and" is always ignored.
Can you confirm here that "and" is a subtraction or not Runningman?
Or just run not addressing this point being raised?

That's what I am beginning to wonder about you as well. You don't believe Jesus' teachings about the Father being the only true God?

Psalm 45:6,7 where this is quoted from is about Solomon. When transferred to Jesus it doesn't transfer deity since Solomon isn't deity.

God isn't qualitative, God is a person. Are you one of those people who thinks God is a thing?

Visit your Post#321 Runningman, you are caught.
Now, deny your own words?

For your ready reference, it's here below;

Runningman state, "No I don't agree with that translation. Regarding the "Word is God" in John 1:1, as an anarthrous predicate nominative means that the Word is not God because theos is qualitative of the Word, not personal. Can't just toss Greek grammar rules out the window."

Deny again?

In John 17:3 it does.

Not according to the rest of those passages.

"Not according to the rest of the passages," do that mean you belittle the word of the Father Himself, you still doubt Him saying that?
And the Father Himself testified for Jesus as God (Heb 1:8) and the eternal life in John 10,11,12,20, and true God.

 

[Runningman]

If we rely to our own private interpretation, eisegesis comes.

The word "all things" with Strong#G3956, in Greek "πᾶς pas" defined by Bible Lexicons to mean as - every, the whole, all, entire, total and etc.
Thus, the "all things," the entire, whole, creation was created through the Word and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being.

Jesus isn't the Creator though. In Acts 4:23-31, John and Peter prayed to the Creator and Sovereign Lord and said that David and Jesus are His servants. So there's evidence that the disciples didn't hold your same beliefs. There is also the matter of Jesus himself being a creation (John 1:2,14, Colossians 1:15, Revelation 3:14, etc) so your interpretation cannot co-exist with Jesus being both creator and the created.

Furthermore, nothing calls Jesus the creator in the Bible.

We can't be taught by the Holy Spirit if we always rely to our own private interpretation Runningman.


John 1:3 R1AllG3956 thingsG3956 cameG1096 into beingG1096 throughG1223 Him, and apartG5565 from Him nothingG3761 G1520 cameG1096 into beingG1096 that has comeG1096 into beingG1096.

G3956
πᾶς pas
every; the whole; pl.: all
(from Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament © 1990 by William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. All rights reserved.)

G3956
πᾶς pas
pertaining to being entire or whole, with focus on the totality - 'entire, whole, total.
(from Greek-English Lexicon Based on Semantic Domain. Copyright © 1988 United Bible Societies, New York. Used by permission.)



Another private interpretation.
We, know that John 1:1-3 speaks about the Word that was God created all things through Him, as the Word became flesh/Jesus all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities, all things have been created through Him and for Him. (Col 1:16.)

"All things" is often used in a contextual or qualified sense, not in the absolute or omniscient sense where literally everything is included. In addition to John 14:26, where the disciples did not literally get taught all things, there are other examples where the writers were referring to a context, not trying to be all-encompassing.

There is Acts 2:5 where Luke wrote “There were dwelling in Jerusalem Jews, devout men, from every nation under heaven.” Of course this would refer to their known world, not the Americas or other places inaccessible to them. This doesn't mean Luke sinned and was trying to deceive anyone, but context matters.

In regards to your erroneous interpretation of Colossians 1:16, pointing you right back to Colossians 1:15 which says "who is the image of the invisible God, firstborn of all creation." What do we know? We know that Jesus is not the invisible God or the creator, but rather is of the creation. Paul wrote in 1 Timothy 1:17 that the only God is invisible. With that being said, the context of Colossians 1:16-20 is in regards to the church, hence it says "and through Him to reconcile to Himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through the blood of His cross." The "all things" in this context refers to the spiritual and physical church in heaven and earth that was created by Jesus' blood on the cross. Not any reference to a literal creation of the universe.

I mean you cannot find a verse that answer my question below.
Can you quote a verse that state there something left not included to the "all things" created by the Word/logos through Him?

If the Word created all things and Jesus is the Word and that Word is God, then that would make Jesus the Sovereign Lord by nature, not by appointment as Paul said.

1 Corinthians 15
27For “God has put everything under His feet.” Now when it says that everything has been put under Him, this clearly does not include the One who put everything under Him.

See the difference above? One put all things under, the other has all things put under him. If Jesus were already the Most High God in the same sense as the One subjecting all things to him, then nothing would need be put under him. Sovereign authority is not derived from someone or something else, but is intrinsic. Are you on board with that?

How can the Word be God the creator if the Word needed to have everything put under him by God, except God, if he is already God? That would mean God is not sovereign over Himself. Forcing deity on Jesus results in a lot of nonsense.

Runningman, you are just blinded by your preconceived belief, that even the word of the Father Himself testifying for Jesus is not enough for you.

Heb 1:10 And, "YOU, LORD, IN THE BEGINNING LAID THE FOUNDATION OF THE EARTH, AND THE HEAVENS ARE THE WORKS OF YOUR HANDS;

Read Heb 1:10 above Runningman.

Because the Word was named YHWH in the Old Testament Runningman.

Hebrews 1:10 refers to the previously mentioned God in Hebrews 1:9. So the God of Jesus is the creator, Jesus is not the creator.

Zec 12:10 "I will pour out on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the Spirit of grace and of supplication, so that they will look on Me whom they have pierced; and they will mourn for Him, as one mourns for an only son, and they will weep bitterly over Him like the bitter weeping over a firstborn.

That is not an accurate translation. YHWH was not pierced.

Zechariah 12 ESV
10“And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and pleas for mercy, so that, when they look on me, on him whom they have pierced, they shall mourn for him, as one mourns for an only child, and weep bitterly over him, as one weeps over a firstborn.

Yes, Jesus also is the eternal life. (1John 5:20)

Read through context of 1John 5:10,11,12,20, Jesus is the eternal life.

Byzantine text type manuscripts says that.

The true God and eternal life doesn't refer to Jesus here.

Why skip verse 13, that contain the "and" you interpret as subtraction?

My point about the word "and" is always ignored.
Can you confirm here that "and" is a subtraction or not Runningman?
Or just run not addressing this point being raised?

The word "and" is irrelevant here. What the "and" is referring to isn't the worship.

Visit your Post#321 Runningman, you are caught.
Now, deny your own words?

For your ready reference, it's here below;

Runningman state, "No I don't agree with that translation. Regarding the "Word is God" in John 1:1, as an anarthrous predicate nominative means that the Word is not God because theos is qualitative of the Word, not personal. Can't just toss Greek grammar rules out the window."

I stand by everything I said nor do I deny anything I have wrote that refutes your bad theology.

Deny again?


"Not according to the rest of the passages," do that mean you belittle the word of the Father Himself, you still doubt Him saying that?
And the Father Himself testified for Jesus as God (Heb 1:8) and the eternal life in John 10,11,12,20, and true God.

Hebrews 1:8 is quoted from Psalm 45:6,7 where it's Solomon being talked about there. What's your work around for that?

 

[Capbook]

Jesus isn't the Creator though. In Acts 4:23-31, John and Peter prayed to the Creator and Sovereign Lord and said that David and Jesus are His servants. So there's evidence that the disciples didn't hold your same beliefs. There is also the matter of Jesus himself being a creation (John 1:2,14, Colossians 1:15, Revelation 3:14, etc) so your interpretation cannot co-exist with Jesus being both creator and the created.

Furthermore, nothing calls Jesus the creator in the Bible.

You always belittle the Father's words that testified Jesus is God and Lord the creator in the beginning. (Heb 1:8-10)

Heb 1:10 And, "YOU, LORD, IN THE BEGINNING LAID THE FOUNDATION OF THE EARTH, AND THE HEAVENS ARE THE WORKS OF YOUR HANDS.

"All things" is often used in a contextual or qualified sense, not in the absolute or omniscient sense where literally everything is included. In addition to John 14:26, where the disciples did not literally get taught all things, there are other examples where the writers were referring to a context, not trying to be all-encompassing.

As I've said, the Holy Spirit will not taught us all things if we always rely to our own private interpretation.
If the "all things" does not literally mean everything, can you say/post here that "all things the Father has are yours Runningman?"

John 16:15 "All things that the Father has are Mine; therefore I said that He takes of Mine and will disclose it to you.

There is Acts 2:5 where Luke wrote “There were dwelling in Jerusalem Jews, devout men, from every nation under heaven.” Of course this would refer to their known world, not the Americas or other places inaccessible to them. This doesn't mean Luke sinned and was trying to deceive anyone, but context matters.

Was America already existed at that time?

In regards to your erroneous interpretation of Colossians 1:16, pointing you right back to Colossians 1:15 which says "who is the image of the invisible God, firstborn of all creation." What do we know? We know that Jesus is not the invisible God or the creator, but rather is of the creation. Paul wrote in 1 Timothy 1:17 that the only God is invisible. With that being said, the context of Colossians 1:16-20 is in regards to the church, hence it says "and through Him to reconcile to Himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through the blood of His cross." The "all things" in this context refers to the spiritual and physical church in heaven and earth that was created by Jesus' blood on the cross. Not any reference to a literal creation of the universe.

The Father did not testified that Jesus is a creation but a creator. (Heb 1:10)

If the Word created all things and Jesus is the Word and that Word is God, then that would make Jesus the Sovereign Lord by nature, not by appointment as Paul said.

1 Corinthians 15
27For “God has put everything under His feet.” Now when it says that everything has been put under Him, this clearly does not include the One who put everything under Him.

See the difference above? One put all things under, the other has all things put under him. If Jesus were already the Most High God in the same sense as the One subjecting all things to him, then nothing would need be put under him. Sovereign authority is not derived from someone or something else, but is intrinsic. Are you on board with that?

The Bible never say that Jesus the Most High God, He is the "only begotten God," same nature with the Father but the Father is greater.
Just like you and your son, you are greater as father, as your son obeys your will.

Johh 1:18 No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.

How can the Word be God the creator if the Word needed to have everything put under him by God, except God, if he is already God? That would mean God is not sovereign over Himself. Forcing deity on Jesus results in a lot of nonsense.

Jesus God.s nature was not by force, it was stated in the Bible, also from God the Father's words, Jesus is God. (John 1:18, Heb 1:8-10)

Hebrews 1:10 refers to the previously mentioned God in Hebrews 1:9. So the God of Jesus is the creator, Jesus is not the creator.

Yes, the Father said therefore "God" Whom refer to the Son Jesus, and in v.10,the Father called Jesus "Lord."

Heb 1:9 "YOU HAVE LOVED RIGHTEOUSNESS AND HATED LAWLESSNESS; THEREFORE GOD, YOUR GOD, HAS ANOINTED YOU WITH THE OIL OF GLADNESS ABOVE YOUR COMPANIONS."

That is not an accurate translation. YHWH was not pierced.

Zechariah 12 ESV
10“And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and pleas for mercy, so that, when they look on me, on him whom they have pierced, they shall mourn for him, as one mourns for an only child, and weep bitterly over him, as one weeps over a firstborn.

Yes, Jesus was named as the YHWH as Jesus was the One being pierced, while the Speaker is YHWH.

YHWH/Jesus said, "they look on Me whom they have pierced."

(NAS95+) Zec 12:10 "I will R1pourH8210 out on the houseH1004 of DavidH1732 and on the inhabitantsH3427 of JerusalemH3389, N1the SpiritH7307 of graceH2580 and of supplicationH8469, so that they will lookH5027 on Me whomH834 they have R2piercedH1856; and they will mournH5594 for Him, as one R3mournsH5594 for an onlyH3173 sonH3173, and they will weepH4843 bitterlyH4843 overH5921 Him like the bitterH4843 weepingH4843 overH5921 a firstbornH1060.


(OT Tanakh)Zec 12:10 ושׁפכתיH8210 עלH5921 ביתH1004 דוידH1732 ועלH5921 יושׁבH3427 ירושׁלםH3389 רוחH7307 חןH2580 ותחנוניםH8469 והביטוH5027 אליH413 אתH853 אשׁרH834 דקרוH1856 וספדוH5594 עליוH5921 כמספדH5594 עלH5921 היחידH3173 והמרH4843 עליוH5921 כהמרH4843 עלH5921 הבכור׃H1060

The true God and eternal life doesn't refer to Jesus here.

If we interpret God's word through our own private interpretation, the Holy Spirit will no taught us the truth.
Jesus said I am the life.
If you do not believe the testimony of the Father concerning Jesus, you made Him a liar, read 1John 5:10.

1Jn 5:10 The one who believes in the Son of God has the testimony in himself; the one who does not believe God has made Him a liar, because he has not believed in the testimony that God has given concerning His Son.
1Jn 5:11 And the testimony is this, that God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son.
1Jn 5:12 He who has the Son has the life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have the life.
1Jn 5:20 And we know that the Son of God has come, and has given us understanding so that we may know Him who is true; and we are in Him who is true, in His Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal life.

The word "and" is irrelevant here. What the "and" is referring to isn't the worship.

I stand by everything I said nor do I deny anything I have wrote that refutes your bad theology.

Hebrews 1:8 is quoted from Psalm 45:6,7 where it's Solomon being talked about there. What's your work around for that?

Can you cite a verse that says the "and" as irrelevant or it's just your own private interpretation Runningman?

Then find Solomon's forever and ever throne in the New Testament? Any verse?
There is Heb 1:8, but sad to the Unitarians it refers to the Son Jesus.

 

[amazing grace]

<snip> Then find Solomon's forever and ever throne in the New Testament? Any verse?
There is Heb 1:8, but sad to the Unitarians it refers to the Son Jesus.

When your days are fulfilled and you lie down with your fathers, I will raise up your offspring after you, who shall come from your body, and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build a house for my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. 14&nbsp;I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son. [2 Samuel 7]

Psalm 45:6,7 Solomon was a descendant of David, an heir to David's throne - David's throne was to be established through his heirs - Jesus Christ, being the Son of David is also heir to the throne of David - his kingdom and his throne will last forever.
That is the manner in which Solomon's throne is forever and ever. The Messiah had to be a lineal descendant of David.

 

[Runningman]

You always belittle the Father's words that testified Jesus is God and Lord the creator in the beginning. (Heb 1:8-10)

Heb 1:10 And, "YOU, LORD, IN THE BEGINNING LAID THE FOUNDATION OF THE EARTH, AND THE HEAVENS ARE THE WORKS OF YOUR HANDS.

Theos is used twice in Hebrews 1:8,9. There is the god who was anointed and exalted and then there is the God who did the anointing and exalting. The Lord God who is the Creator is the God who did the anointing and the exalting, not the god who was anointed and exalted.

As I've said, the Holy Spirit will not taught us all things if we always rely to our own private interpretation.
If the "all things" does not literally mean everything, can you say/post here that "all things the Father has are yours Runningman?"

John 16:15 "All things that the Father has are Mine; therefore I said that He takes of Mine and will disclose it to you.

All things isn't literal in this context again. Here's an example that proves Jesus doesn't have "all things" the Father has:

Acts 1
7Jesus replied, “It is not for you to know times or seasons that the Father has fixed by His own authority.

Was America already existed at that time?

Yes there were civilizations there in what we now call the Americas.

The Father did not testified that Jesus is a creation but a creator. (Heb 1:10)

The Bible never say that Jesus the Most High God, He is the "only begotten God," same nature with the Father but the Father is greater.
Just like you and your son, you are greater as father, as your son obeys your will.

God isn't begotten, but an eternal unbegotten being.

Johh 1:18 No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.

If the "begotten God" is the same God no one has seen, then no one saw Jesus. This version is a contradiction. This always happens when your sect distorts Scripture and tries to passes it off as truth. We have to keep one step behind you cleaning up the mess. Here's the correct version:

Isn't Jesus the only begotten Son through out all of the Bible? The NKJV reflects a consistent narrative about Jesus being the only begotten Son, not the only begotten god.

John 1
18No one has seen God at any time. The only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him.

Jesus God.s nature was not by force, it was stated in the Bible, also from God the Father's words, Jesus is God. (John 1:18, Heb 1:8-10)

Your argument attempts to force deity on Jesus contrary to what the Bible says.

Yes, the Father said therefore "God" Whom refer to the Son Jesus, and in v.10,the Father called Jesus "Lord."

No such thing happened.

Heb 1:9 "YOU HAVE LOVED RIGHTEOUSNESS AND HATED LAWLESSNESS; THEREFORE GOD, YOUR GOD, HAS ANOINTED YOU WITH THE OIL OF GLADNESS ABOVE YOUR COMPANIONS."

One gives the anointing and exaltation above his companions, the other is anointed and exalted. One of them is God and the other isn't God. If Jesus were already the Most High God in the same sense as the One who anointed/exalted him, then he wouldn't need to be anointed an exalted above anyone since he would already be in the highest position. Someone less than or equal to another cannot exalt someone else higher than them.
See the difference?

Yes, Jesus was named as the YHWH as Jesus was the One being pierced, while the Speaker is YHWH.

Jesus is not named YHWH.

YHWH/Jesus said, "they look on Me whom they have pierced."

(NAS95+) Zec 12:10 "I will R1pourH8210 out on the houseH1004 of DavidH1732 and on the inhabitantsH3427 of JerusalemH3389, N1the SpiritH7307 of graceH2580 and of supplicationH8469, so that they will lookH5027 on Me whomH834 they have R2piercedH1856; and they will mournH5594 for Him, as one R3mournsH5594 for an onlyH3173 sonH3173, and they will weepH4843 bitterlyH4843 overH5921 Him like the bitterH4843 weepingH4843 overH5921 a firstbornH1060.


(OT Tanakh)Zec 12:10 ושׁפכתיH8210 עלH5921 ביתH1004 דוידH1732 ועלH5921 יושׁבH3427 ירושׁלםH3389 רוחH7307 חןH2580 ותחנוניםH8469 והביטוH5027 אליH413 אתH853 אשׁרH834 דקרוH1856 וספדוH5594 עליוH5921 כמספדH5594 עלH5921 היחידH3173 והמרH4843 עליוH5921 כהמרH4843 עלH5921 הבכור׃H1060

The narrative shifts from first person to third person, meaning the one they pierced isn't YHWH. Your preferred version lacks consistency in Scripture. Let me show you an example:


Notice below YHWH is not crushing Himself, is not sacrificing his own soul, etc.

Isaiah 53
10Yet it was the LORD’s will to crush Him
and to cause Him to suffer;
and when His soul is made a guilt offering,
He will see His offspring, He will prolong His days,
and the good pleasure of the LORD will prosper in His hand.

If we interpret God's word through our own private interpretation, the Holy Spirit will no taught us the truth.

I hope you will stop doing that.

Jesus said I am the life.
If you do not believe the testimony of the Father concerning Jesus, you made Him a liar, read 1John 5:10.

Jesus was granted life. Do you believe Jesus didn't always had life, but rather was granted life? You wouldn't call Jesus a liar would you? God is watching sir.

John 5
26For as the Father has life in Himself, so also He has granted the Son to have life in Himself.

1Jn 5:10 The one who believes in the Son of God has the testimony in himself; the one who does not believe God has made Him a liar, because he has not believed in the testimony that God has given concerning His Son.
1Jn 5:11 And the testimony is this, that God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son.
1Jn 5:12 He who has the Son has the life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have the life.
1Jn 5:20 And we know that the Son of God has come, and has given us understanding so that we may know Him who is true; and we are in Him who is true, in His Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal life.

The true God refers to the previously mentioned God which would be the God Jesus is the Son of. John 17:3 says of the Father that He alone is the true God so precedent requires the true God in 1 John 5:20 be the Father.

Can you cite a verse that says the "and" as irrelevant or it's just your own private interpretation Runningman?

It's irrelevant because your premise is that the Lamb is being worshipped, which is not what Revelation 5 says at all.

Then find Solomon's forever and ever throne in the New Testament? Any verse?
There is Heb 1:8, but sad to the Unitarians it refers to the Son Jesus.

Psalm 45:6,7 are about Solomon.