Runningman
Active Member
Read the Old Testament verses that cited in Romans 10. They prove you are wrong about Jesus being YHWH.
Thomas... My Lord and my God
- Thread starter Peterlag
- Start date
Runningman
Active Member
YHWH is never called Son in all of Scripture. YHWH is called the Father, explicitly and repeatedly.
Runningman
Active Member
Proves Jesus isn't YHWH.
Runningman
Active Member
It's ok if you don't care what the Bible says. As long as you can't actually change it then it's ok for me.
YHWH performs an action, the cornerstone did not perform the action. Jesus is the cornerstone, therefore Jesus isn't YHWH. Simple enough for a child to understand.
Isaiah 28
16So this is what the Lord GOD says:
“See, I lay a stone in Zion,
a tested stone,
a precious cornerstone, a sure foundation;
the one who believes will never be shaken.
Runningman
Active Member
Head in the sand denial of scripture.
Isaiah 28
16So this is what the Lord GOD says:
“See, I lay a stone in Zion,
a tested stone,
a precious cornerstone, a sure foundation;
the one who believes will never be shaken.
Which proves Romans 10:11 is in reference to Jesus.
The same with Romans 10:12
The same with Romans 10:13.
Thanks for making this easy for me.
Runningman
Active Member
Um, the LORD (YHWH) is not the Lord Jesus. Bible basics 101.
Psalm 110
1 The LORD said to my Lord:
“Sit at My right hand
until I make Your enemies
a footstool for Your feet.”
A unitarian's concept is so easy that a first grader can know everything about God.
Peterlag
Active Member
There's no Trinity...
The verses that are used to try to teach it are all taken out of context, or not understood how the words were used in the culture they were written in, or from a bad translation. It's an evil Catholic concept that was sold to the world mostly by the power of the sword.The folks back then weren't allowed to have Bibles to read for themselves. The rejection of the Trinity often brought severe punishment including the loss of your job, intimidation, harassment, confiscation of property, jail or imprisonment, torture, and even burning at the stake.
But now I have noticed intelligent and informed input on the subject of debating the Trinity comes from the unitarian camp. It seems low intelligence, ignorance, and an incapacity for critical thought are prerequisites for membership in trinitarian circles.
Here's an example...
Concerning 1 John 5:7-8 where it has the words "In heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth" are words that are not found in any Greek Manuscript before the 15th or 16th century and in no ancient Version. - E. W. Bullinger., A Critical Lexicon and Concordance to the English and Greek New Testament: (London: Samuel Bagster & Sons, 1975), p. 11 of Appendix A.
Trinitarians...
You are changing the Scriptures. Or 2 Peter 2:21 says the Bible is not to be privately interpreted. Or why are you denying the words of the Apostles?
Doug Brents
Active Member
You keep saying such stupid things, and demonstrating through this picture that you have your eyes shut as tight as you can get them to prevent yourself from seeing the truth.
Matt 3:16-17 - "After He was baptized, Jesus came up immediately from the water; and behold, the heavens were opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending as a dove and settling on Him, 17 and behold, a voice from the heavens [Father] said, “This is My beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased.”"
Matt 28:19 - "Go, therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit"
Peterlag
Active Member
Again, this is my whole point. You folks keep using Scripture that's either taken out of context, or not understood how the words were used in the culture they were written in, or from a bad translation.
The early church was always baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus until the development of the Trinity doctrine in the 2nd century. The Catholics acknowledge baptism was changed and Scripture such as Matthew 28:19 that was never in the Bible was added by them.
Baptism was changed from the name of Jesus to the words Father, Son and Holy Ghost in the 2nd Century. -Britannica Encyclopedia, 11th Edition, Volume 3, page 365.
The early church baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus until the second century. - Canney Encyclopedia of Religion, page 53.
Christian baptism was administered using the words "in the name of Jesus." page 377. Baptism was always done in the name of Jesus until the time of Justin Martyr, page 389. - Hastings Encyclopedia of Religion,Volume 2.
Here the authors acknowledged that the baptismal formula was changed by their church. - Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume 2, page 263.
The New Testament knows only the baptism in the name of Jesus. - Schaff & Herzog Religious Encyclopedia, Volume 1, page 435.
It must be acknowledged that the three fold name of Matthew 28:19 does not appear to have been used by the primitive church, but rather in the name of Jesus, Jesus Christ or Lord Jesus. - Hastings Dictionary of Bible, page 88.
Runningman
Active Member
Here's how it works. If you quote a verse about Jesus then you're quoting a verse about Jesus. If you quote a verse about the Father then you're quoting a verse about the Father. If you quote a verse about the Holy Spirit then you're quoting a verse about the Holy Spirit. We all can agree on that much. Super simple.
What you cannot do is quote a verse about the Trinity, anything that defines God as three persons, or any such similar sort of formula that define God as three. Hence, Trinitarianism is a doctrine and a theology, not actually Scripture. The Bible doesn't invite anyone to define God outside of one person.
God is explicitly defined as one person:
John 17
1These words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee: 2As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him. 3And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.
1 Corinthians 8
6But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.
Ephesians 4
6One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.
Peterlag
Active Member
John 8:58 (“Before Abraham was, I am”)
- Traditional reading: Jesus’ use of “I am” before Abraham is taken as a claim to eternal existence (and even deity).
- Alternate understanding: Contextual linguistics and Jewish background show Jesus’ ego eimi can be emphatic “I am the one.” C.K. Barrett notes that Jesus’ “I am” does not identify Jesus with God per se, but simply draws strong attention to himself as the one God sent. In context, Jesus is emphasizing his unique role, not uttering the divine Name. As one modern commentator explains, Abraham “saw Jesus’ day” (John 8:56) not by Abraham literally time-traveling, but by faith in the promise. Thus Jesus being “before Abraham” can mean Jesus was God’s ordained Redeemer from before Abraham’s birth. John the Baptist’s cousin John (the apostle) could well have intended no more than that “Jesus was God’s plan for salvation from ancient times,” humbly recognized by John the Baptist.
For example, one writer concludes on John 1:30 (similar idea): “Jesus was… foreknown before the foundation of the world, but has appeared in these last times…”. In short, “I am before Abraham” is plausibly understood as “Jesus was in God’s plan long before Abraham”, not “Jesus personally existed 2,000 years earlier.”
Doug Brents
Active Member
There is not a single translation of Scripture that does not include all three in Matt 28:19. These words were not added, but were part of the original text of the oldest manuscripts of the book of Matthew.
Some did, as is indicated in Acts 2:38, but the majority seem to have used all three names in baptism. Canney seems to be a very biased, human authored book, and does not appear to be very reliable.
Again, a biased, human authored book.
Catholics have changed so much that the Scripture teaches that they are barely Christian at all; they are more papist than Christian. But if they are claiming to have "changed" the "baptismal formula", then it had been changed before and they were correcting it to what Scripture shows in Matt 28:19.
I find it disastrous and sad when people start to claim secular books as the source material for their doctrine over Scripture.
Doug Brents
Active Member
Let's look at this verse closely for a minute.
In bold above are two statements that are only different in the preposition, and those prepositions can both mean the same thing. The Father is the source and Jesus is the conduit, but together they are one.
Underlined are two equally similar statements. We are in the Father and by the Son. But elsewhere we are in the Son and by the Father. They are inseparable.
Further, God and Lord are interchangeable between the two. All through the OT, the Father is called Lord. And in the NT, Jesus claimed to be God on several occasions, not the least of which was John 8:58.
Similar threads
