Thomas... My Lord and my God

[mikesw]

You would be a hyperliteralist, too, if it would help you at all. For example, @synergy is already doing it with John 1:1.

Do you believe that in the beginning the Word was God with God? Why do you not twist the life out of that verse and reinterpret the meaning and all of the words until you make it bend to your desires? Because you don't need to reinterpret it because you can use what it literally says. Well, me too!

wow. it is not hard to twist John 1:1-18 to point to the divinity of Christ that it reveals. It is the hyperliteralist that tries to make logos into mere words or sayings. You may have dominance over all of scripture but that is your error. You have to allow scripture to have dominance instead, but that goes against unitarian principles.

That's why I am a Unitarian lol. We have total dominance over all of Scripture. Anywhere you look we can find God being described as a singular person, but you can't find God described in the same way you believe. This is why you prefer metaphysical and non-literal interpretations 99% of the time. You can't use literal, but you can use extra-biblical philosophy. I already got you guys figured out.

That is so stupid. THe scriptures show the divinity of Christ. You also showed the scripture of Jesus validated by the third person of the Godhead. It is only the Trinitarian philosophical terms that are used to express the uniqueness of each person of the Trinity, not the revealing of their divinity in the Triune sense.

 

[mikesw]

Read the post you just just replied to. I am not saying Jesus ever sinned. Scripture teaches Jesus is sinless.

Thanks for pointing that out. Your interpretation of repentance in that situation was utter nonsense. Maybe your next attempt to interpret things will be better. Jesus never is said to repent from doing the trade of Joseph. Sorry that that post of yours cannot be deleted this late after posting it.

 

[Doug Brents]

Jesus is never called eternal in the Bible. The verse you quoted from Hebrews 7 is a comparison of Melchizedek to Jesus. For your argument to hold any sort of merit, you must prove that Melchizedek is an eternal being. I hope we don't need to inform you that he isn't. So if Mel is not eternal then either is Jesus.

I find it humorous that you pick one verse out of 4 that is a comparison of God with a man, and still say that the other three (without addressing them because you know that they do say Jesus is eternal) don't say He is eternal. smh

John 17:3 explicitly and undeniably calls the Father the only true God. Sorry, no fancy arguments are going to change that.

John 17:3 cannot contradict John 1:1 which says that Jesus is also God. No fancy arguments are going to change that either.

But 1 Corinthians 8:4-6 defines the one God as the Father.

And Isa 8:6 says that Jesus is also the Father.

To be fair, nothing in the Bible says Isaiaih 9:6 applies to Jesus and if it does then it was a failed prophecy in your version. Read the CJB and LXX version of Isaiah 9:6.

While there are no direct quotes of Isaiah 9:6 in the NT, there are multiple quotes of the surrounding passages that are directly linked to Jesus, making the whole of Isaiah 8 and 9 refer to Jesus.

 

[praise_yeshua]

What difference doesn't make if my answer is yes or no? I assume it's going to be straight skepticism either way. Stick with the Scripture.

It will establish your thought process. It is why you're avoiding it.

You have many "blind spots" in your theology.

 

[praise_yeshua]

John 8:58 is about Jesus being in prophecy before Abraham. Not literally existing before Abraham, not a claim to being God, etc. You're reading theology into it. Based on the internal evidence of the Bible, Jesus is not the I AM.

Jesus said he was before Abraham in the context of age. You can't deny this given the clear reading of the manuscript of John 5:57-58.

You must deal with this. You can't simply call it "prophecy". I bet I can make you say the same thing to me if I declare some things you're saying as "prophecy"....

Do you want to test your hypocrisy here?

How about John the Baptist's statement.

Joh 1:27 He it is, who coming after me is preferred before me, whose shoe's latchet I am not worthy to unloose.

Lets keep going. This is getting good. Why avoid these questions and demand I answer your own?

 

[Runningman]

1) Baptism was not required in the OT, so John’s baptism was a new phenomenon as a practice.

Jesus had nothing to repent of, which John clearly understood when he said, “I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?”
In other words, Jesus didn’t need to repent but John knew he should be baptized unto repentance.

2) Jesus stated why he was being baptized, saying, “Let it be so now; it is proper for us to do this to fulfill all righteousness.”

He essentially was telling John “Do it immediately; this will fulfill righteousness”, and it established the example that his followers would follow after.

The Apostle John records John the Baptist as giving the reason for Jesus being baptized, saying, “I myself did not know him, but the reason I came baptizing with water was that he might be revealed to Israel.”

Jesus affirmed that what John said was true and that he needed to be baptized of John as part of fulfilling all righteousness. It was a required step for Jesus apart from John's water baptism having the collaterel result of revealing who the messiah is.

Matt 3
15“Let it be so now,” Jesus replied. “It is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness in this way.” Then John permitted Him

Jesus did not “change his mind” about what his life would be, he instinctively knew knew what his purpose was, and demonstrated it at the age of 12 by amazing the Teachers of the Law with his knowledge and understanding of the scriptures. He stayed behind when his family left Jerusalem, unbeknownst to them, and when asked why, he said he “had to be about his Father’s business.”

Scripture never says or implies that Jesus “changed his mind” about what he would do in life as an adult.

Doug

Jesus' ministry began immediately following his water baptism. Yes, he did change his mind from doing non-ministerial work to doing ministerial work for God.

Luke 3
23Jesus Himself was about thirty years old when He began His ministry.

 

[Runningman]

I just gave you scripture! The NT expands and interprets the OT, showing the true and intended meaning of the OT.

Nothing you would tell me would stand the test of scripture, if it could, you would not refrain from making your counter argument.


Doug

You did not provide Scripture about your opinions. You said "Jesus and the Father were together and both are eternal in existence, thus they are both God!" Which is something we are all aware the Bible does not say. Hence, there is a pending request for Scripture. If you cannot show what you are claiming I will write it off as additional Trinitarian heresy.

 

[Runningman]

You're barking up the wrong tree. We are not modalists. Only Modalists insist that the Word is the God (the Father). You just added another misunderstanding to your list of unitarian gaffes.

I also went to English to show you how you mangle both languages. You're an equal opportunities language mangler.

The Word and Jesus are directly associated with each other through the Greek word "ἐσκήνωσεν" in John 1:14. That Greek word literally means “pitched a tent” or “tabernacled” among us. This term directly connects to the Old Testament, where God manifested His presence through the physical Tabernacle. John draws a powerful parallel: just as God dwelled in the Tabernacle, the Word, who was God, dwelt among his people in the person of Jesus Christ. Jesus is the new and greater Tabernacle, the visible manifestation of the invisible God. John affirms this when he writes, “We beheld His glory…”—the same divine glory that once filled the Tabernacle is now fully revealed in the person of Christ.

Let's add your latest gaffes to your list of how you managed to mangle all of John 1, the English language, the Greek language, and even general common sense:

1. You mistake us for Modalists by falsely accusing us that we do not differentiate between the Word and the God (the Father).
2. Your ignorance of the Greek word ἐσκήνωσεν in John 1:14.
3. You have difficulty understanding the grammatical fact that pronouns implicitly point back to the Primary Subject as their Antecedent.
4. Your categorical mistake when you think that partaking of an item transforms your nature into that item.
5. Your ignorance of the Greek word κοινωνία,
6. Your ignorance of Greek neuter pronouns in 1 John 1.
7. You said that "the Word is not actually God" which flat out contradicts John 1:1c that says "the Word was God".
8. At no time does Jesus ever have to "partake" of divine nature. That's because he is God to begin with (John 1:1c).
9. The REV translates from God only knows which originals when they dreamt up the phrase "what God was the word was".

We're now up to 9 gaffes on your part. Keep talking so that we can reach double figures.

So you now confess that the Word is something that was in Jesus, but was not Jesus himself?

 

[praise_yeshua]

Luke 3
23Jesus Himself was about thirty years old when He began His ministry.

Interesting....

Interesting that you would cut off that verse. I know why.

Luk 3:23 Jesus, when he began his ministry, was about thirty years of age, being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the son of Heli,

Do you deny the virgin birth? I bet you do.

 

[Runningman]

wow. it is not hard to twist John 1:1-18 to point to the divinity of Christ that it reveals. It is the hyperliteralist that tries to make logos into mere words or sayings. You may have dominance over all of scripture but that is your error. You have to allow scripture to have dominance instead, but that goes against unitarian principles.


That is so stupid. THe scriptures show the divinity of Christ. You also showed the scripture of Jesus validated by the third person of the Godhead. It is only the Trinitarian philosophical terms that are used to express the uniqueness of each person of the Trinity, not the revealing of their divinity in the Triune sense.

More Scripture won't help you at this point. I've identified your issues and it's a matter of the way you are reading the Bible. I have gathered that you typically view a literal interpretation as something naughty since it seems to always debunk trinitarianism. However, where something seems to help trinitarianism then literal is ok for you.

The issue is you actually just don't believe what you Biblical literally says. Trinitarianism is a later philosophical development. Surely you care about the truth regarding this. Why do you stick with trinitarianism when it isn't what the Bible teaches?

 

[Runningman]

Thanks for pointing that out. Your interpretation of repentance in that situation was utter nonsense. Maybe your next attempt to interpret things will be better. Jesus never is said to repent from doing the trade of Joseph. Sorry that that post of yours cannot be deleted this late after posting it.

Still not getting it I see. Okay let's throw you a life line.

Question 1: was John's water baptism a baptism of repentence?

Acts 19
4Paul explained: “John’s baptism was a baptism of repentance. He told the people to believe in the One coming after him, that is, in Jesus.”

Question 2: Where is John's water baptism from?

Mattheew 21
25What was the source of John’s baptism? Was it from heaven or from men?”

Question 3: Did Jesus take John's water baptism?

Luke 3
21When all the people were being baptized, Jesus was baptized too. And as He was praying, heaven was opened, 22and the Holy Spirit descended on Him in a bodily form like a dove. And a voice came from heaven: “You are My beloved Son; in You I am well pleased.”

 

[synergy]

So

You didn't offer any counterargument to your list of John 1, the English language, the Greek language, and even general common sense gaffes, which means you agree with them all:

1. You mistake us for Modalists by falsely accusing us that we do not differentiate between the Word and the God (the Father).
2. Your ignorance of the Greek word ἐσκήνωσεν in John 1:14.
3. You have difficulty understanding the grammatical fact that pronouns implicitly point back to the Primary Subject as their Antecedent.
4. Your categorical mistake when you think that partaking of an item transforms your nature into that item.
5. Your ignorance of the Greek word κοινωνία,
6. Your ignorance of Greek neuter pronouns in 1 John 1.
7. You said that "the Word is not actually God" which flat out contradicts John 1:1c that says "the Word was God".
8. At no time does Jesus ever have to "partake" of divine nature. That's because he is God to begin with (John 1:1c).
9. The REV translates from God only knows which originals when they dreamt up the phrase "what God was the word was".

Let's see if they can reach double digits.

you now confess that the Word is something that was in Jesus, but was not Jesus himself?

God has Personhood, right? The Word has a Personhood because He was God (according to John 1:1c). That Personhood of the Word is the same Personhood of Jesus who is in turn the "ἐσκήνωσεν" of the Word. The details of all that is contained in the doctrine called the Hypostatic Union. Are you familiar with that explanation?

 

[Runningman]

You didn't offer any counterargument to your list of John 1, the English language, the Greek language, and even general common sense gaffes, which means you agree with them all:

1. You mistake us for Modalists by falsely accusing us that we do not differentiate between the Word and the God (the Father).
2. Your ignorance of the Greek word ἐσκήνωσεν in John 1:14.
3. You have difficulty understanding the grammatical fact that pronouns implicitly point back to the Primary Subject as their Antecedent.
4. Your categorical mistake when you think that partaking of an item transforms your nature into that item.
5. Your ignorance of the Greek word κοινωνία,
6. Your ignorance of Greek neuter pronouns in 1 John 1.
7. You said that "the Word is not actually God" which flat out contradicts John 1:1c that says "the Word was God".
8. At no time does Jesus ever have to "partake" of divine nature. That's because he is God to begin with (John 1:1c).
9. The REV translates from God only knows which originals when they dreamt up the phrase "what God was the word was".

Let's see if they can reach double digits.

God has Personhood, right? The Word has a Personhood because He was God (according to John 1:1c). That Personhood of the Word is the same Personhood of Jesus who is in turn the "ἐσκήνωσεν" of the Word. The details of all that is contained in the doctrine called the Hypostatic Union. Are you familiar with that explanation?

You are all over the place and contradicting yourself at this point. Jesus was created in John 1:14. Here's a tip, if your translation doesn't match the context you need to take another look at the translation. Also, masculine nouns don't automatically mean a he is being referred to. A word is not a person anywhere in the Bible to begin with. It's personification.

 

[Runningman]

I find it humorous that you pick one verse out of 4 that is a comparison of God with a man, and still say that the other three (without addressing them because you know that they do say Jesus is eternal) don't say He is eternal. smh

John 17:3 cannot contradict John 1:1 which says that Jesus is also God. No fancy arguments are going to change that either.

No contradiction at all. The Father is the only true God, right? So that rules out the Word being the only true God because the Word is not the Father. Find a different inrepretation for John 1:1. Logos theologians tend to take John 1:1 way too literally and it just contradicts the rest of the Bible.

And Isa 8:6 says that Jesus is also the Father.

While there are no direct quotes of Isaiah 9:6 in the NT, there are multiple quotes of the surrounding passages that are directly linked to Jesus, making the whole of Isaiah 8 and 9 refer to Jesus.

Then it's a failed prophecy in the Trinitarian version. Jesus was never called "Mighty God, Prince of Peace, Everlasting Father" or any of those titles.

Here's the LXX of Isaiaih 9:6 from Brenton's Septuagint translation. Do you agree with it?

Isaiaih 9
6For a child is born to us, and a son is given to us, whose government is upon his shoulder: and his name is called the Messenger of great counsel: for I will bring peace upon the princes, and health to him.

 

[praise_yeshua]

No contradiction at all. The Father is the only true God, right? So that rules out the Word being the only true God because the Word is not the Father. Find a different inrepretation for John 1:1. Logos theologians tend to take John 1:1 way too literally and it just contradicts the rest of the Bible.

Then it's a failed prophecy in the Trinitarian version. Jesus was never called "Mighty God, Prince of Peace, Everlasting Father" or any of those titles.

Here's the LXX of Isaiaih 9:6 from Brenton's Septuagint translation. Do you agree with it?

Isaiaih 9
6For a child is born to us, and a son is given to us, whose government is upon his shoulder: and his name is called the Messenger of great counsel: for I will bring peace upon the princes, and health to him.

Funny. A man that doesn't know Greek nor how to study it.... referencing Ancient Greek.

That "verse" (there is no context of verses in such references until 15th century)......

has the ancient Greek word "ἀρχή" which is properly translated in English as "SOVEREIGN".

Mistake after mistake... over and over again.

 

[praise_yeshua]

You are all over the place and contradicting yourself at this point. Jesus was created in John 1:14. Here's a tip, if your translation doesn't match the context you need to take another look at the translation. Also, masculine nouns don't automatically mean a he is being referred to. A word is not a person anywhere in the Bible to begin with. It's personification.

Thank God.... "personification".......

What is the difference? You're insinuating there is a difference. To a man, there is one. To a "Person" that never changes.....

Can't happen. Mistakes..... over and over again.

 

[praise_yeshua]

I find it humorous that you pick one verse out of 4 that is a comparison of God with a man, and still say that the other three (without addressing them because you know that they do say Jesus is eternal) don't say He is eternal. smh

John 17:3 cannot contradict John 1:1 which says that Jesus is also God. No fancy arguments are going to change that either.

And Isa 8:6 says that Jesus is also the Father.

While there are no direct quotes of Isaiah 9:6 in the NT, there are multiple quotes of the surrounding passages that are directly linked to Jesus, making the whole of Isaiah 8 and 9 refer to Jesus.

Hi Doug,

He is referencing ἀρχή

This word in ancient Greek is actually found in Genesis 1:1 explicitly associated with God.

Gen 1:1 In the beginning God made the heaven and the earth

It is combined with theos

It literally would read

"God the beginning"

He actually directly connected Christ with beginning of all things just like Paul and John did.

Joh 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

 

[praise_yeshua]

More Scripture won't help you at this point. I've identified your issues and it's a matter of the way you are reading the Bible. I have gathered that you typically view a literal interpretation as something naughty since it seems to always debunk trinitarianism. However, where something seems to help trinitarianism then literal is ok for you.

The issue is you actually just don't believe what you Biblical literally says. Trinitarianism is a later philosophical development. Surely you care about the truth regarding this. Why do you stick with trinitarianism when it isn't what the Bible teaches?

This battle you're having is going to force you to deal with what you are before you'll understand it. That is why the Scriptures are written the way they're written.

You have choices to make. If you keep going in this, you will find out what you really are. You will be left with "no excuse".

I'll ask one more time.

Is Jesus Christ better than you?

 

[Runningman]

Funny. A man that doesn't know Greek nor how to study it.... referencing Ancient Greek.

That "verse" (there is no context of verses in such references until 15th century)......

has the ancient Greek word "ἀρχή" which is properly translated in English as "SOVEREIGN".

Mistake after mistake... over and over again.

Your position is the Brenton's Septuagint was made by someone who doesn't know Greek or how to translate it? You're getting desperate to start attacking Scripture at this point.

 

[Runningman]

Thank God.... "personification".......

What is the difference? You're insinuating there is a difference. To a man, there is one. To a "Person" that never changes.....

Can't happen. Mistakes..... over and over again.

The word of God is personified in Hebrews poetry (Psalms) but never said to be an actual person. So the established precedent is that the word (of God) is not actually a person, but a thing personified. My interpretation of John 1:1 has a better exegetical foundation than the one you and @synergy have.

The word is personified in Hebrew poetry (Psalm 33:6; Psalm 107:20; Psalm 147:15; Isaiah 55:10-11); and consequent upon this concrete and independent representation, divine attributes are predicated of it (Psalm 34:4; Isaiah 40:8; Psalm 119:105)

Your turn. Show me where the Word is a person or being in the OT. Good luck!