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,