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

[Matthias]

Then you should heed them since they call Christ God in many places and YHWH.

Their theology does. Tyndale and the others didn’t allow their theology to influence their translation of what John wrote in the prologue.

We call it cherry picking what you are doing.

hope this helps !!!

Not hardly. I’m reading the manuscripts the same way Tyndale and the others did.

 

[civic]

Latreruo rev 22,3

· The Father and the Son, although two distinct persons, are seen sitting one throne not two. (Rev 3:21; 22:1-3) It says throne not "thrones." This is a fatal blow to Unitarians and Jehovah's Witnesses who would logically expect there to be two thrones. They just cannot understand how the father and son are sitting on ONE throne at the same time.

· Christians are called, "bond-servants" (common word for slave) who serve the Father and the Son who are referred to as "Him" rather than "them." Yet we also know that the very first statement in the book of Revelation 1:1 is that Christians are bondservants of Christ. Then again Jesus calls Christian’s, "His bondslaves". Then again in Rev 2:20 we are called bondservants of Christ. Interestingly, in Revelation 7:3; 11:18; 19:2,5 the Christians are called bondslaves of the Father. This is very significant, because when we finally get to the end of the book, we see Christians called bondslaves of both the Father and the son USING THE SINGLULAR twice in Rev 22:3 and Rev 22:6. Revelation 22:6 Another is the continued use of the singular to refer to both the Father and the Son: "And he said to me, "These words are faithful and true"; and the Lord, the God of the spirits of the prophets, sent His angel to show to His bond-servants the things which must soon take place. " (Revelation 22:6) This is doubly emphasized by Rev 22:16, where Jesus says it was He who sent his angel to Christians.

Revelation 1:1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show to His [Christ’s] bond-servants, the things which must soon take place; and He sent and communicated it by His angel to His [Christ’s] bond-servant John,

Revelation 2:20 ‘But I have this against you, that you tolerate the woman Jezebel , who calls herself a prophetess , and she teaches and leads My [Christ’s] bond-servants astray so that they commit acts of immorality and eat things sacrificed to idols .

Revelation 22:3 There will no longer be any curse; and the throne of God and of the Lamb will be in it, and His bond-servants will serve Him [both Father and Son]

· In Rev 22:3 they will serve the Father and Son as "him" rather than "them".

· It uses the singular "face" that they see, rather than faces. Yet if both are sitting on the throne, it is obvious they see the faces of both at the same time.

· Both the Father and the Son's name is to be marked on the foreheads of Christians. (Rev 3:12; 14:1) Yet Revelation 22:4 uses the singular "His name" on the forehead, proving it refers to both although it sounds like it refers to a single individual. Another interesting observation is that Rev 14:1 uses the plural names, yet in Rev 22, where the unity is strongly emphasized, the singular name is used. This powerfully proves that both the Father and Son are served by Christians in Rev 22:3.

· In Rev 22:5, The Father and Son reign forever. Yet in Rev 20:6 the singular "Him" is applied to the two of them, as though they are one.



The parallel use of Him to refer to two people in Rev 20:6 proves Rev 22:3 refers to both Jesus and the Father.

1. Both are co-recipients of worship Heb 1:6; Rev 5:11-14; Matt 14:33; 28:9; John 9:38; Rev 19:10
2. Both are co-recipients of the kind of "service" that is only allowed to God: Matt 4:10; Rev 22:3f Greek--latreuo)
3. Notice the identical structure in Rev 20:6 speaks of Christ or both, but not the Father alone. "but they will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with Him for a thousand years." Rev 20:6
4. Both Rev 20:6 and 22:3 have the Father and the Son referred to as the singular "him". This shows the unity between the two.
5. Both Rev 20:6 and 22:3 use the singular HIM to refer to both the Father and the Son.
6. Now Notice Rev 20:4, "reigned with Christ for a thousand years"
7. What this means is that Rev 20:6 sets up a precedent that when two are mentioned, if it refers to only one of either the Father or the Son, it must refer to the latter!
8. This means that, based upon the example of Rev 20:6, the one we are said to serve in Rev 22:3 is Christ.
9. Of course we believe the singular refers to both, but Jehovah's Witnesses twist the passage to refer to only one. We are merely proving that if the singular "serve Him" rather than "serve them" refers to only one, it would be the last one mentioned... the Son. This is exactly what happens in Rev 20:6.
10. The Jehovah’s Witnesses completely ignore this fact and claim that Rev 22:3 excludes Christ. They don’t comprehend the irrefutable power of the pattern of "singular use" in the Book of Revelation and specifically Rev 20:6.

The Father and the Son, although two distinct persons, are seen sitting one throne not two. (Rev 3:21; 22:1-3) It says throne not "thrones." This is a fatal blow to unitarians who would logically expect there to be two thrones. They just cannot understand how the father and son are sitting on ONE throne at the same time. Also we see the following regarding the One God seen in the passages of Revelation as the Father/Son. We see the singular face that they see not faces faces. Both are sitting on the throne, it is obvious they see the faces of both at the same time. Both the Father and the Son' name is marked on the their foreheads in Rev 3:12 and 14:1) But we also see in 22:4 uses the singular His name on their foreheads. In Rev 14:1 we see the plural names but in Rev 22 the singular name is used. . Also in 22:5 the Father and Son together reign forever and in 20:6 the singular Him is applied to the Father/Son, because they are the One God. We see the plurality of the Godhead in display throughout the book of Revelation and that One God who is 3 Persons being described in the singular many times. Believers worship the one God on the One throne with the name of the Father/Son on their foreheads worshiping Him(Father and Son). They see His face (Father/Son). We also see Jesus tell us the same thing in Matt 28:19 when He declares to His Disciples to baptize them(plural) in the name(singular) of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. #3 Distinct Persons, One name, One God. This is exactly what we see in the book of Revelation.

Case closed! Check and Mate!

hope this helps,

 

[Matthias]

TYNDALE your authority on 1 John 5:7

Tyndale isn’t my authority on anything. Why can’t you people understand that?

For ther are thre which beare recorde in heuen the father the worde and the wholy goost. And these thre are one

See the Johannine comma discussions in commentaries. I agree with Metzger, but I also don’t have an issue with this translation.

 

[Matthias]

No. That reads the word made flesh back into the prologue.

Have any of you read Colin Brown?

 

[civic]

Have any of you read Colin Brown?

I have had his his NIDNT since 1985 along with BDAG when I was first studying NT Greek.

 

[synergy]

I clearly said I think "it" can be personal.

Also this particular word would best be translated something like "This."

It's like when you say "This one—he will change the world," or something.

I would not exalt Tyndale as the most authorative Greek Grammarian of all time though, lol.

You could have used "this one" if there were others with the possibility of being called the Word. In this case there is only one Word and so "He" is a much more appropriate pronoun.

 

[civic]

You could have used "this one" if there were others with the possibility of being called the Word. In this case there is only one Word and so "He" is a much more appropriate pronoun.

And what seems to be left out is context will determine whether it should be it or he. Its obvious the Creator of all things in not an it but a He who has life in Himself, not life form an it.

What it tells me is there is a bias when reading the bible with presuppositions that cloud the mind and heart of the truth. Its poor hermenuetics and eisegesis- reading ones own ideas into the text. Then there is the cherry picking of sources to support ones biased views.

You will notice recently I quoted Tyndales support of 1 John 5:7 with the Trinity and the Person of the Word but that was throwing the baby out with the bath water and rejected all the while taking John 1:1 from the same source as truth and 1 John 5:7 as error.

I clearly made my point for cherry picking sources.

And trying to get someone to stick to the bible rather than outside sources is like pulling teeth.

 

[Matthias]

I have had his his NIDNT since 1985 along with BDAG when I was first studying NT Greek.

Havcd you read his article on Incarnation? It was published in Ex Auditu. He writes in that article about the patent misreading of John 1:1 which trinitarians often engage in. Readers familiar with that article should have picked up on my alluding to it earlier in this thread.

 

[Matthias]

And what seems to be left out is context will determine whether it should be it or he. Its obvious the Creator of all things in not an it but a He who has life in Himself, not life form an it.

What it tells me is there is a bias when reading the bible with presuppositions that cloud the mind and heart of the truth. Its poor hermenuetics and eisegesis- reading ones own ideas into the text. Then there is the cherry picking of sources to support ones biased views.

You will notice recently I quoted Tyndales support of 1 John 5:7 with the Trinity and the Person of the Word but that was throwing the baby out with the bath water and rejected all the while taking John 1:1 from the same source as truth and 1 John 5:7 as error.

I clearly made my point for cherry picking sources.

And trying to get someone to stick to the bible rather than outside sources is like pulling teeth.

Your point wasn’t made because it is based on a false premise.

 

[Matthias]

Latreruo rev 22,3

· The Father and the Son, although two distinct persons, are seen sitting one throne not two. (Rev 3:21; 22:1-3) It says throne not "thrones." This is a fatal blow to Unitarians and Jehovah's Witnesses who would logically expect there to be two thrones. They just cannot understand how the father and son are sitting on ONE throne at the same time.

· Christians are called, "bond-servants" (common word for slave) who serve the Father and the Son who are referred to as "Him" rather than "them." Yet we also know that the very first statement in the book of Revelation 1:1 is that Christians are bondservants of Christ. Then again Jesus calls Christian’s, "His bondslaves". Then again in Rev 2:20 we are called bondservants of Christ. Interestingly, in Revelation 7:3; 11:18; 19:2,5 the Christians are called bondslaves of the Father. This is very significant, because when we finally get to the end of the book, we see Christians called bondslaves of both the Father and the son USING THE SINGLULAR twice in Rev 22:3 and Rev 22:6. Revelation 22:6 Another is the continued use of the singular to refer to both the Father and the Son: "And he said to me, "These words are faithful and true"; and the Lord, the God of the spirits of the prophets, sent His angel to show to His bond-servants the things which must soon take place. " (Revelation 22:6) This is doubly emphasized by Rev 22:16, where Jesus says it was He who sent his angel to Christians.

Revelation 1:1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show to His [Christ’s] bond-servants, the things which must soon take place; and He sent and communicated it by His angel to His [Christ’s] bond-servant John,

Revelation 2:20 ‘But I have this against you, that you tolerate the woman Jezebel , who calls herself a prophetess , and she teaches and leads My [Christ’s] bond-servants astray so that they commit acts of immorality and eat things sacrificed to idols .

Revelation 22:3 There will no longer be any curse; and the throne of God and of the Lamb will be in it, and His bond-servants will serve Him [both Father and Son]

· In Rev 22:3 they will serve the Father and Son as "him" rather than "them".

· It uses the singular "face" that they see, rather than faces. Yet if both are sitting on the throne, it is obvious they see the faces of both at the same time.

· Both the Father and the Son's name is to be marked on the foreheads of Christians. (Rev 3:12; 14:1) Yet Revelation 22:4 uses the singular "His name" on the forehead, proving it refers to both although it sounds like it refers to a single individual. Another interesting observation is that Rev 14:1 uses the plural names, yet in Rev 22, where the unity is strongly emphasized, the singular name is used. This powerfully proves that both the Father and Son are served by Christians in Rev 22:3.

· In Rev 22:5, The Father and Son reign forever. Yet in Rev 20:6 the singular "Him" is applied to the two of them, as though they are one.



The parallel use of Him to refer to two people in Rev 20:6 proves Rev 22:3 refers to both Jesus and the Father.

1. Both are co-recipients of worship Heb 1:6; Rev 5:11-14; Matt 14:33; 28:9; John 9:38; Rev 19:10
2. Both are co-recipients of the kind of "service" that is only allowed to God: Matt 4:10; Rev 22:3f Greek--latreuo)
3. Notice the identical structure in Rev 20:6 speaks of Christ or both, but not the Father alone. "but they will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with Him for a thousand years." Rev 20:6
4. Both Rev 20:6 and 22:3 have the Father and the Son referred to as the singular "him". This shows the unity between the two.
5. Both Rev 20:6 and 22:3 use the singular HIM to refer to both the Father and the Son.
6. Now Notice Rev 20:4, "reigned with Christ for a thousand years"
7. What this means is that Rev 20:6 sets up a precedent that when two are mentioned, if it refers to only one of either the Father or the Son, it must refer to the latter!
8. This means that, based upon the example of Rev 20:6, the one we are said to serve in Rev 22:3 is Christ.
9. Of course we believe the singular refers to both, but Jehovah's Witnesses twist the passage to refer to only one. We are merely proving that if the singular "serve Him" rather than "serve them" refers to only one, it would be the last one mentioned... the Son. This is exactly what happens in Rev 20:6.
10. The Jehovah’s Witnesses completely ignore this fact and claim that Rev 22:3 excludes Christ. They don’t comprehend the irrefutable power of the pattern of "singular use" in the Book of Revelation and specifically Rev 20:6.

The Father and the Son, although two distinct persons, are seen sitting one throne not two. (Rev 3:21; 22:1-3) It says throne not "thrones." This is a fatal blow to unitarians who would logically expect there to be two thrones. They just cannot understand how the father and son are sitting on ONE throne at the same time. Also we see the following regarding the One God seen in the passages of Revelation as the Father/Son. We see the singular face that they see not faces faces. Both are sitting on the throne, it is obvious they see the faces of both at the same time. Both the Father and the Son' name is marked on the their foreheads in Rev 3:12 and 14:1) But we also see in 22:4 uses the singular His name on their foreheads. In Rev 14:1 we see the plural names but in Rev 22 the singular name is used. . Also in 22:5 the Father and Son together reign forever and in 20:6 the singular Him is applied to the Father/Son, because they are the One God. We see the plurality of the Godhead in display throughout the book of Revelation and that One God who is 3 Persons being described in the singular many times. Believers worship the one God on the One throne with the name of the Father/Son on their foreheads worshiping Him(Father and Son). They see His face (Father/Son). We also see Jesus tell us the same thing in Matt 28:19 when He declares to His Disciples to baptize them(plural) in the name(singular) of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. #3 Distinct Persons, One name, One God. This is exactly what we see in the book of Revelation.

Case closed! Check and Mate!

hope this helps,

You’re wrong again. You are right about one thing though - this post of yours isn’t conversation. It’s a dialogue killer.

 

[synergy]

Have any of you read Colin Brown?

Carry on with your appeal to authorities fallacy, without any supporting argument on your part.

 

[Matthias]

Carry on with your appeal to authorities fallacy, without any supporting argument on your part.

Carry on thinking that your fellow trinitarians call God an “it”.

 

[Diserner]

Carry on thinking that your fellow trinitarians call God an “it”.

I don't mind "it" myself, but it's nonsensical to insist all Trinitarians have to agree any more than Unitarians.

Sloppy logic abounds.

 

[Matthias]

I don't mind "it" myself …

Then you recognize what your fellow trinitarians don’t but should: Tyndale and the other trinitarians do not call God an “it”.

..l but it's nonsensical to insist all Trinitarians have to agree any more than Unitarians.

Sloppy logic abounds.

There are things which all trinitarians should agree with one another on. The same is true with unitarians.

Tyndale (not to mention the other trinitarians) has been slandered by some of your fellow trinitarians. I stood up for Tyndale. Good on any and all trinitarians who have done so as well. Shame on those who know about it and don’t.

 

[Fred]

You’re wrong again.

Zero proof for your assertion concerning the fact that the Lord Jesus is the proper recipient of latreuō in Revelation 22:3 (post 322).

 

[synergy]

Carry on thinking that your fellow trinitarians call God an “it”.

My fellow Trinitarians are Apostle John, the rest of the Apostles, the Church Fathers, and everyone who adheres to them.

Who are your fellow Unitarians? You talked so much about Origen that you must be enamored by him. You know that he deliberately cut off his manhood along the way. Ouch!

 

[Diserner]

You know that he cut off his manhood along the way. Ouch!

That is actually an urban legend, there is no record of that.

Origen had his faults and strengths for sure.

 

[Matthias]

My fellow Trinitarians are Apostle John, the rest of the Apostles …

Tyndale, and the trinitarian translators of the Geneva Bible, and the trinitarian translators of the dozens of other Bibles who translated the prologue in John’s Gospel as they did are not your fellow trinitarians?

… the Church Fathers, and everyone who adheres to them.

The Church Fathers are all over the place in their theology. Reading them is more fun to me than anything Six Flags has to offer; wilder, too.

My favorite sport is baseball; college baseball in particular. It’s not very common to see fans in the stands in 20-30 degreee weather reading anything. It’s not unusual at all for me to read the Church Fathers before the game starts, between innings, and during weather delays.

Who are your fellow Unitarians?

Everyone who believes that the God and Father of Jesus of Nazareth is alone the only true God.

You talked so much about Origen that you must be enamored by him. You know that he deliberately cut off his manhood along the way. Ouch!

Me? Enamored with Origen? Not hardly.

I read Origen for numerous reasons; none of which, apparently, are known to you.

Origen is my least favorite Ante-Nicene theologian. I’d rather have a root canal than read Origen. However, he was required reading in college and he plays a pivotal role in the post-biblical formulation of the doctrine of the Trinity. Your stuck with him, whether you know and acknowledge it or not. I read him, in large part, because of that.

Last year at the prompting of a Catholic, whom I had met on an Internet discussion forum and was having a pleasant conversation with, I began re-reading the Ante-Nicene fathers. (He wanted me to start with Tertullian. Excellent!) Some of them weren’t required reading in college, and, for those that were, seldom were all that they wrote required reading.

 

[Matthias]

God is not the only one who is the object of latreuo in scripture.

Strong's Greek: 3000. λατρεύω (latreuó) -- to serve

 

[Matthias]

”In the New Testament it is never used of service or worship given to Christ. It is used of the service to God in the earthly temple and in the heavenly sanctuary. … there is no instance of latreuein which has Christ as object.”

(Arthur W. Wainwright, The Trinity In The New Testament, p. 103)