Those who deny the Lord Jesus is God (=YHWH) are not saved (2 Corinthians 11:4)

[Matthias]

I only looked at what was written about Rev 19:11-16 and I could only gasp at the article's DD ineptitude. It abstracted away Rev 19:11-16 based on what was written in Rev 19:10. Actually, Rev 19:10 was written to explain why we should not worship angels, not to abstract away the Word of God. John was not to worship the angel but God alone. Since John was worshiping the angel in response to the prophecy given, the angel ensured that John understands that Jesus is the source of the communication and He alone is worthy of that worship (cf. Luke 4:8; Acts 14:11–15). We are to worship not the purveyor of the message but the Source of the message. And that is a perfect lead-in verse into the Word of God as vividly presented in Rev 19:11-16.

Rev 19:11-16 conclusively proves that the Word of God is a "He" and not an "it".

Revelation 19:11-16 confirms that the word of God made flesh is a “he” and not an “it”.

You’re still left with the argument that the trinitarian scholars who translated John’s prologue in the same or similar manner as William Tyndale were grammar illiterates. The Pilgrims? Grammar illiterates. All who read the Bible of the Protestant Reformation? All grammar illiterates.

The trinitarians who told you that the Geneva Bible is “a superb translation”? They must be grammar illiterates too.

You can believe that until the cows come home. I don’t.

 

[synergy]

Revelation 19:11-16 confirms that the word of God made flesh is a “he” and not an “it”.

You’re still left with the argument that the trinitarian scholars who translated John’s prologue in the same or similar manner as William Tyndale were grammar illiterates. The Pilgrims? Grammar illiterates. All who read the Bible of the Protestant Reformation? All grammar illiterates.

The trinitarians who told you that the Geneva Bible is “a superb translation”? They must be grammar illiterates too.

You can believe that until the cows come home. I don’t.

There you go again brandishing your appeal to authority fallacy. Instead of justifying your claim, you keep forwarding names of supposed authority figures, hoping that just their name is enough to justify your belief. That might work around your circles but not around here.

 

[Matthias]

There you go again brandishing your appeal to authority fallacy. Instead of justifying your claim, you keep forwarding names of supposed authority figures, hoping that just their name is enough to justify your belief. That might work around your circles but not around here.

You said what you said about them. You slandered your spiritual forefathers.

You’re a trinitarian throwing other trinitarians under the proverbial bus in order to maintain your position.

They‘re better than you. You can either fix that or let it ride.

 

[synergy]

You said what you said about them. You slandered your spiritual forefathers.

You’re a trinitarian throwing other trinitarians under the proverbial bus in order to maintain your position.

They‘re better than you. You can either fix that or let it ride.

Let's look at the defining attributes of the noun (the Word) that the pronoun οὗτος points to.

First of all, "the Word was God". Only Greek language illiterates would call God an "it".

I can list out more reasons, just from John 1:1, that prove that the Word is not an "it" if you continue to disregard that the Word was God.

(John 1:1) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(John 1:2) He (οὗτος) was in the beginning with God.

That's why John penned οὗτος (He) instead of αυτό (it).

Carry on with your appeal to authority fallacy. Instead of justifying your claim, you keep forwarding names of supposed authority figures, hoping that just their name is enough to justify your belief. That might work around your circles but not around here.

 

[Matthias]

Let's look at the defining attributes of the noun (the Word) that the pronoun οὗτος points to.

First of all, "the Word was God". Only Greek language illiterates would call God an "it".

I can list out more reasons, just from John 1:1, that prove that the Word is not an "it" if you continue to disregard that the Word was God.

(John 1:1) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(John 1:2) He (οὗτος) was in the beginning with God.

That's why John penned οὗτος (He) instead of αυτό (It).

See Tyndale and find out what he knew that you don’t.

He doesn’t call God an ‘it’. The translators of the Geneva Bible don’t call God an “it”. I don’t call God an “it”.

 

[synergy]

See Tyndale and find out what he knew that you don’t.

Carry on with your appeal to authority fallacy. Instead of justifying your claim, you keep forwarding names of supposed authority figures, hoping that just their name is enough to justify your belief. That might work around your circles but not around here.

 

[Matthias]

Carry on with your appeal to authority fallacy. Instead of justifying your claim, you keep forwarding names of supposed authority figures, hoping that just their name is enough to justify your belief. That might work around your circles but not around here.

I’m not appealing to authority. I’m appealing to trinitarians.

 

[civic]

I don’t recall now where I read it on this forum, but someone posted here that the NT is a Jewish book. That’s an excellent observation. The Hebrew Bible and the NT combined, the Bible, is a Jewish book.

The Bible isn’t a trinitarian book. Trinitarianism came much later in history and is read back into the Bible. It leaves those who do it with a deity who is not the God of the Jews.

Trinitarianism, as Gregory of Nyssa explicitly says, destroys the Jewish dogma.

A Jewish book written in Greek lol.

 

[civic]

Carry on with your appeal to authority fallacy. Instead of justifying your claim, you keep forwarding names of supposed authority figures, hoping that just their name is enough to justify your belief. That might work around your circles but not around here.

bingo as we appeal to Scripture as our authority.

 

[synergy]

I’m not appealing to authority. I’m appealing to trinitarians.

Who is a better Trinitarian than John?

 

[civic]

Who is a better Trinitarian than John?

Jesus

 

[Matthias]

A Jewish book written in Greek lol.

It is a Jewish book written in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek.

 

[Matthias]

Jesus

Jesus is a unitarian.

 

[Matthias]

Who is a better Trinitarian than John?

John is a unitarian.

 

[Matthias]

bingo as we appeal to Scripture as our authority.

You don’t think Tynadle and the other trinitarians who translated the prologue of John’s Gospel in the same or similar manner that he did didn’t appeal to scripture as their authority? (That’s a rhetorical question.)

I appealed to what those trinitarians did. The response has been “only a grammar illiterate” would have done what those trinitarians did.

 

[Matthias]

As for why those trinitarians did what they did, I’ve answered that question multiple times, and in various ways.

It doesn’t matter to trinitarians who are unwilling to look into it for themselves. It’s easier for them to slander their trinitarian forefathers. Easier and satisfying.

I have greater respect for those trinitarians than the trinitarians posting in this thread do. That ought not to be. Shame on these uneducated trinitarians. Shame.

They should be embarrassed by what they’re saying about their trinitarians ancestors. They’re not.

 

[civic]

As for why those trinitarians did what they did, I’ve answered that question multiple times, and in various ways.

It doesn’t matter to trinitarians who are unwilling to look into it for themselves. It’s easier for them to slander their trinitarian forefathers. Easier and satisfying.

I have greater respect for those trinitarians than the trinitarians posting in this thread do. That ought not to be. Shame on these uneducated trinitarians. Shame.

They should be embarrassed by what they’re saying about their trinitarians ancestors. They’re not.

My loyalty is with the inspired Apostles and Jesus and not with uninspired men.

 

[Diserner]

I appealed to what those trinitarians did. The response has been “only a grammar illiterate” would have done what those trinitarians did.

Not my response though.

 

[civic]

You don’t think Tynadle and the other trinitarians who translated the prologue of John’s Gospel in the same or similar manner that he did didn’t appeal to scripture as their authority? (That’s a rhetorical question.)

I appealed to what those trinitarians did. The response has been “only a grammar illiterate” would have done what those trinitarians did.

I appeal to the original Greek, Jesus and the Apostles. I'm no respecter of persons. They had their place in history but were not inspired by God like the Apostles who are my authority. You can continue trusting in uninspired men I will not.

 

[Matthias]

Not my response though.

Bless you for speaking up. What their doing to the trinitarians who came before them is unconscionable.

Better to remain silent than to accuse those translators of being grammar illiterates. That’s rock bottom.