Your Views on The Trinity

[mikesw]

I have an argument that I posted and you will not accept it. Here it is again...

John 8:58...
Jesus said "ego eimi" .... God didn't. The Greek word in Exodus 3:14 is not the same word Jesus used in John 8:58. Jesus said “ego eimi” in John 8:58. Not “ego eimi ho eimi” which means "I am the One who is" as Exodus 3:14 is written in the Septuagint. The two statements are very different. The Greek phrase in John does mean "I am" which was a common phrase in the New Testament and isn't the name of anyone. The disciples were trying to find out who would deny the Christ at the last supper. They said literally "Not I am, Lord" Matthew 26:22, 25. No one would say the disciples were trying to deny they were God because they were using the phrase "not I am." The word "I am" was a common way of designating oneself and it did not mean you were claiming to be God. The statement Jesus made in John 8:58 concerning "I am" would have to be equivalent with God's "I am" statement in Exodus 3:14 in order for the Trinitarian argument to make Jesus God. And it is not. The argument is made that because Jesus was "before" Abraham that Jesus must be God. Jesus figuratively existed in Abraham's time. He did not actually physically exist as a person, but rather he existed in the mind of God as God's plan for the redemption of man.

The trinitarian has only 3 to pick from...

1.) Use a verse from a bad translation.
2.) Use a verse that is taken out of context.
3.) Not understand how the words were used in the culture they were written in.

And basically that's all trinitarians have. And I mean 100 percent of what they have. They have nothing else.

That is not a reasonable explanation of John 8:58. You like to say a logos is not a person (which is irrelevant) and now you say John 8:58 is just a normal way of mentioning that something is in God's mind, as if you had some gnostic insight into God's mind. There is no reason to deny Jesus here by relating the point to Abraham if not preexistence. The hearers properly responded to the meaning -- of somehow Jesus claiming ancient existence. And we have that same pre-existence in the John 17:5 and John 1.

Seek for reasonable arguments if you want to make the unitarian doctrine seem possible.

 

[Runningman]

Thanks for correcting @Runningman on this.

The Word, who was God, tabernacled as Jesus on Earth. Since God can never cease to be God then Jesus is God.

Here's a correction for you and every trinitarian on earth.

Jesus has a temporary reign before being eternally made subject to God. When the Bible says of Jesus "the Son himself will be made subject to God..." it's not a democracy. This is Jesus being told how it's gonna be and not given a choice in the matter. It's all part of the plan and of course Jesus will be glad to obey his God about it.

1 Corinthians 15
24Then the end will come, when He hands over the kingdom to God the Father after He has destroyed all dominion, authority, and power. 25For He must reign until He has put all His enemies under His feet. 26The last enemy to be destroyed is death. 27For “God has put everything under His feet.” Now when it says that everything has been put under Him, this clearly does not include the One who put everything under Him. 28And when all things have been subjected to Him, then the Son Himself will be made subject to Him who put all things under Him, so that God may be all in all.

 

[Runningman]

It's hilarious how you have such difficulties understanding words such as “no end,” “reign forever,” “forever and ever,” and “everlasting,” all of which communicate eternal duration, not temporary authority. Scripture repeatedly applies these terms to Christ’s reign. Isaiah 9:7 says His government will have “no end… from henceforth even forever”. Daniel 7:14 calls His dominion an “everlasting dominion which shall not pass away”. Luke 1:33 states He will reign forever and His kingdom will have no end. Psalm 45:6, quoted in Hebrews 1:8, declares to the Son, “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever”. Revelation 11:15 affirms He shall reign “forever and ever”; and Revelation 22:1–3 shows His throne enduring eternally in the New Creation. These texts use the strongest possible Hebrew and Greek terms for unending duration, proving Christ’s reign is explicitly eternal, much to your nihilistic dismay.

Your same misunderstanding of eternal terms also shows up in limiting Jesus’ reign to the house of Jacob, as though “forever” in Luke 1:33 excludes the wider universal reign the rest of Scripture affirms. Christ indeed reigns over the house of Jacob forever, but Scripture plainly states His rule extends to all nations, all creation, and all authority everywhere. Psalm 2:8–9 gives Him the nations and the ends of the earth. Psalm 72:8, 11 says all nations serve Him. Daniel 7:14 declares that all peoples, nations, and languages serve Him. Matthew 28:18 states He has all authority in heaven and on earth. Ephesians 1:20–22 says He is exalted above all powers with all things under His feet. Revelation 17:14 and 19:16 call Him King of kings and Lord of lords and Revelation 22:3–5 depicts His eternal throne over the entire Universe. The Bible is unequivocal in the sense that his reign is eternal in duration and universal in scope, not confined to the house of Jacob alone.

Until refers to something happening up to a point then it stopping. Scripture explicitly stating Jesus sits at the right hand of God "until" is definitely the thing that destroys your argument.

 

[Capbook]

The following verse is just a bad translation and it is not from an old manuscript. These are from new Bibles written by groups who are members of a trinity church.

John 1:18 No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.

Below is from literal word for word Bible translation that aims to maintain the highest degree of accuracy to the original languages Peterlag.
From Updated American Standard Version+ (UASV+) render the same with Westcott and Hort's New Testament in the Original Greek. As I've said there are variant readings but they were not described as original wordings.
Notice the note "N7."

(UASV+)John 1:18 No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten GodN7 who is in the bosom of the Father,N8 that one has made him fully known.

N7 John 1:18 (UASV+)The original words were μονογενὴς θεός or ο μονογενης θεος “only-begotten God” or “the only-begotten God” (P66 P75 א B C* L 33 syrhmp 33 copbo) A variant reading is ο μονογενης υιος “the only begotten Son” A C3 (Ws) Θ Ψ f1, Maj syrc).

(NAS95+) John 1:18 R1NoG3762 oneG3762 has seenG3708 GodG2316 at anyG4455 timeG4455; R2the onlyG3439 begottenG3439 GodG2316 who is R3in the bosomG2859 of the FatherG3962, R4He has explainedG1834 Him.

(NT Westcott and Hort+) John 1:18 θεονG2316 N-ASM ουδειςG3762 A-NSM-N εωρακενG3708 V-RAI-3S-ATT πωποτεG4455 ADV μονογενηςG3439 A-NSM θεοςG2316 N-NSM οG3588 T-NSM ωνG1510 V-PAP-NSM ειςG1519 PREP τονG3588 T-ASM κολπονG2859 N-ASM τουG3588 T-GSM πατροςG3962 N-GSM εκεινοςG1565 D-NSM εξηγησατοG1834 V-ADI-3S

 

[Capbook]

There's nothing in the book of Philippians that says Jesus emptied himself of his Godhood. Nothing.

Another strawman argument.

What did Jesus empty himself from?

From the form of God Peterlag, and take the form of a bond-servant.
Quoted from NAS95, a literal word for word Bible translation.

Php 2:6 who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped,
Php 2:7 but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men.

What the Scriptures say he was... the son of God, the Messiah to Israel, thus, royal blood. He humbled himself from what he was and took on the role of a servant.

I just believe Jews before were more logical than today who professed as Christians.
They know that dog bears dog, and cat bears cat.
Even science adopt the name "liger" where the father is lion and the mother is tiger.
I believe Arians are just blinded by their rooted preconceived beliefs.
Don't know who really Jesus is which involved eternal life. (John 17:3)

Joh 5:18 For this reason therefore the Jews were seeking all the more to kill Him, because He not only was breaking the Sabbath, but also was calling God His own Father, making Himself equal with God.

 

[Capbook]

That's like me saying my orders were carried out by my management and therefore my thoughts became the thoughts of Mike my manager. And then some idiot comes along and says that I am Mike. And then some stupid preacher starts teaching this to his church. Nobody can be this stupid. This must be the work of the devil.

Why you always missed this response Peterlag? Is it that your analogy counter-argue your point?
You did not address my understanding to your analogy above Peterlag, I just follow your line of argument.
Do below explained better?

Is it another way of saying, the Father's expression of thoughts carried by Jesus, and some come along and say that the Father is Jesus, Peterlag?

 

[Capbook]

Yes, it's a temporary position at the right hand of God. Let's focus on that word "until" and what it means? Do you not believe what words mean?

Until heós means until (of time and place) -- even (until, unto), (as) far (as), how long, (un-)til(-l), (hither-, un-, up) to, while(-s). This is about a temporary position in time. Jesus will be at the right hand of God, up to a point, until he won't be. Starting to see clearly why Jesus isn't God according to the Bible? Scripture teaches he is not.

Hebrews 1
13Yet to which of the angels did God ever say:
“Sit at My right hand until I make Your enemies a footstool for Your feet”?

Runningman, I believe you missed to address this response? Why?
How do you understand the sequence of events here.
1. Jesus was resurrected,
2. Jesus "seated" at His right hand in the heavenly places,
3. And He put all things in subjection under His feet.

Is the progression wrong Runningman?

Eph 1:20 which He brought about in Christ, when He raised Him from the dead and seated Him at His right hand in the heavenly places,
Eph 1:21 far above all rule and authority and power and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this age but also in the one to come.
Eph 1:22 And He put all things in subjection under His feet, and gave Him as head over all things to the church,

 

[Peterlag]

Another strawman argument.

From the form of God Peterlag, and take the form of a bond-servant.
Quoted from NAS95, a literal word for word Bible translation.

Php 2:6 who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped,
Php 2:7 but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men.

I just believe Jews before were more logical than today who professed as Christians.
They know that dog bears dog, and cat bears cat.
Even science adopt the name "liger" where the father is lion and the mother is tiger.
I believe Arians are just blinded by their rooted preconceived beliefs.
Don't know who really Jesus is which involved eternal life. (John 17:3)

Joh 5:18 For this reason therefore the Jews were seeking all the more to kill Him, because He not only was breaking the Sabbath, but also was calling God His own Father, making Himself equal with God.

I'm in the form of my father and I emptied myself talking on the form of being a Bible teacher. Am I now my father?

 

[Peterlag]

Below is from literal word for word Bible translation that aims to maintain the highest degree of accuracy to the original languages Peterlag.
From Updated American Standard Version+ (UASV+) render the same with Westcott and Hort's New Testament in the Original Greek. As I've said there are variant readings but they were not described as original wordings.
Notice the note "N7."

(UASV+)John 1:18 No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten GodN7 who is in the bosom of the Father,N8 that one has made him fully known.

N7 John 1:18 (UASV+)The original words were μονογενὴς θεός or ο μονογενης θεος “only-begotten God” or “the only-begotten God” (P66 P75 א B C* L 33 syrhmp 33 copbo) A variant reading is ο μονογενης υιος “the only begotten Son” A C3 (Ws) Θ Ψ f1, Maj syrc).

(NAS95+) John 1:18 R1NoG3762 oneG3762 has seenG3708 GodG2316 at anyG4455 timeG4455; R2the onlyG3439 begottenG3439 GodG2316 who is R3in the bosomG2859 of the FatherG3962, R4He has explainedG1834 Him.

(NT Westcott and Hort+) John 1:18 θεονG2316 N-ASM ουδειςG3762 A-NSM-N εωρακενG3708 V-RAI-3S-ATT πωποτεG4455 ADV μονογενηςG3439 A-NSM θεοςG2316 N-NSM οG3588 T-NSM ωνG1510 V-PAP-NSM ειςG1519 PREP τονG3588 T-ASM κολπονG2859 N-ASM τουG3588 T-GSM πατροςG3962 N-GSM εκεινοςG1565 D-NSM εξηγησατοG1834 V-ADI-3S

Below is from literal word for word Bible translation that aims to maintain the highest degree of accuracy to the original languages Peterlag.
From Updated American Standard Version+ (UASV+) render the same with Westcott and Hort's New Testament in the Original Greek. As I've said there are variant readings but they were not described as original wordings.
Notice the note "N7."

(UASV+)John 1:18 No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten GodN7 who is in the bosom of the Father,N8 that one has made him fully known.

N7 John 1:18 (UASV+)The original words were μονογενὴς θεός or ο μονογενης θεος “only-begotten God” or “the only-begotten God” (P66 P75 א B C* L 33 syrhmp 33 copbo) A variant reading is ο μονογενης υιος “the only begotten Son” A C3 (Ws) Θ Ψ f1, Maj syrc).

(NAS95+) John 1:18 R1NoG3762 oneG3762 has seenG3708 GodG2316 at anyG4455 timeG4455; R2the onlyG3439 begottenG3439 GodG2316 who is R3in the bosomG2859 of the FatherG3962, R4He has explainedG1834 Him.

(NT Westcott and Hort+) John 1:18 θεονG2316 N-ASM ουδειςG3762 A-NSM-N εωρακενG3708 V-RAI-3S-ATT πωποτεG4455 ADV μονογενηςG3439 A-NSM θεοςG2316 N-NSM οG3588 T-NSM ωνG1510 V-PAP-NSM ειςG1519 PREP τονG3588 T-ASM κολπονG2859 N-ASM τουG3588 T-GSM πατροςG3962 N-GSM εκεινοςG1565 D-NSM εξηγησατοG1834 V-ADI-3S

I just posted for someone 24 different translations on this verse that is different from yours. Was it you I posted it to?

 

[Peterlag]

The Bible says in many verses that there is only one God and “God” does not have a God. We read in Isaiah 44:6 “…there is no God besides me” and Ephesians 4:6 says there is “one God and Father of all, who is over all.” Jesus has a God in contrast to “God” who alone is God and does not have a God. Jesus spoke about his God after the resurrection to Mary Magdalene, saying “…I ascend to my Father and your Father, and my God and your God” (John 20:17). Jesus still called God “my God” after his ascension into heaven when he was standing at the right hand of God.

There are also verses in the New Testament that clearly speak of “God” being the “God” of Jesus Christ. Romans 15:6 says “...you can, with one mouth, glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.” 2 Corinthians 1:3, Ephesians 1:3, and 1 Peter 1:3 all say “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.” So the “one God and Father” (Ephesians 4:6) is the God of Jesus Christ. The “one God” of the Bible never says He has a God because He is God, the Father, the Creator, “the Most High God” and He has no equals. Jesus is not “God” because he's a man, the last Adam, the created Son of God, and the God of Jesus is God the Father.

In John 5:44 Jesus called the Father “the only God” and The New American Standard Bible goes so far as to translate it as “the one and only God.” The straightforward reading of this verse is that Jesus did not think of himself as God. Jesus prayed to God on the night he was arrested that people would “know you, the only true God” (John 17:3). It seems disingenuous or at least confusing that Jesus would refer to his Father as “the only true God” if he knew that both he and “the Holy Spirit” were also “Persons” in a triune God and that the Father shared His position as “God” with them. It seems much more likely that Jesus spoke the simple truth when he called his Father “the only true God."

 

[Runningman]

Runningman, I believe you missed to address this response? Why?
How do you understand the sequence of events here.
1. Jesus was resurrected,
2. Jesus "seated" at His right hand in the heavenly places,
3. And He put all things in subjection under His feet.

Is the progression wrong Runningman?

Eph 1:20 which He brought about in Christ, when He raised Him from the dead and seated Him at His right hand in the heavenly places,
Eph 1:21 far above all rule and authority and power and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this age but also in the one to come.
Eph 1:22 And He put all things in subjection under His feet, and gave Him as head over all things to the church,

What I am reading is that Jesus sat somewhere he previously was not and will be there temporarily. Notice how there is no record of Jesus sitting at the right hand of God in the Old Testament. There is no evidence he was ever in that position before.

 

[synergy]

Until refers to something happening up to a point then it stopping. Scripture explicitly stating Jesus sits at the right hand of God "until" is definitely the thing that destroys your argument.

First of all, Thayer's Greek lexicon defines "until" as "something is spoken of which continued up to a certain time", but it doesn't say anything about what happens afterwards. So your assumption about "it stopping" afterwards is not supported by Thayer's definition of "until". STRIKE 1!

In fact, the Bible's usage of the word "until" debunks all your assumptions. The only thing you officially proved, with your disregarding of how the word "until" was understood in Biblical times, is that Michal had children after she died, since 2 Samuel 6:23 says, “Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no child until the day of her death.” STRIKE 2!

Even your bosom buddy and fellow compatriot @Peterlag admits that "Christ will reign forever". STRIKE 3! YERRRRRR OUT!!!

Christ will reign forever.

It's time you recognized that your Arianism is just made up of snake-oil products and that you should ditch all that in your nearest sewer.

 

[synergy]

The Bible says in many verses that there is only one God and “God” does not have a God. We read in Isaiah 44:6 “…there is no God besides me” and Ephesians 4:6 says there is “one God and Father of all, who is over all.” Jesus has a God in contrast to “God” who alone is God and does not have a God. Jesus spoke about his God after the resurrection to Mary Magdalene, saying “…I ascend to my Father and your Father, and my God and your God” (John 20:17). Jesus still called God “my God” after his ascension into heaven when he was standing at the right hand of God.

There are also verses in the New Testament that clearly speak of “God” being the “God” of Jesus Christ. Romans 15:6 says “...you can, with one mouth, glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.” 2 Corinthians 1:3, Ephesians 1:3, and 1 Peter 1:3 all say “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.” So the “one God and Father” (Ephesians 4:6) is the God of Jesus Christ. The “one God” of the Bible never says He has a God because He is God, the Father, the Creator, “the Most High God” and He has no equals. Jesus is not “God” because he's a man, the last Adam, the created Son of God, and the God of Jesus is God the Father.

In John 5:44 Jesus called the Father “the only God” and The New American Standard Bible goes so far as to translate it as “the one and only God.” The straightforward reading of this verse is that Jesus did not think of himself as God. Jesus prayed to God on the night he was arrested that people would “know you, the only true God” (John 17:3). It seems disingenuous or at least confusing that Jesus would refer to his Father as “the only true God” if he knew that both he and “the Holy Spirit” were also “Persons” in a triune God and that the Father shared His position as “God” with them. It seems much more likely that Jesus spoke the simple truth when he called his Father “the only true God."

Your error lies in assuming that if Jesus calls the Father “my God” then Jesus cannot share the Father’s divine nature. This is a category mistake where you are confusing role with nature. The New Testament repeatedly distinguishes between Jesus’s eternal divine nature (John 1:1; Heb 1:8; Col 1:16–17) and His tabernacled, mediatorial, kenotic role as the Last Adam who represents humanity (Phil 2:6–8; Heb 2:14–17). When the risen Christ says “my God” (John 20:17) or relates to the Father as God while seated at His right hand, He speaks according to His true humanity, not as a denial of His deity - just as Scripture can call the Father “the God of our Lord Jesus Christ” (Eph 1:3) while also having the Father directly address the Son as “God” with an eternal throne (Heb 1:8). Thus, your argument wrongly treats Jesus’s temporary, chosen, kenotic position of obedience as a man as if it meant He was a lesser being in His actual divine nature, while overlooking that the same Bible that affirms the Word, who now tabernacles as Jesus, was God (John 1:1c).

 

[mikesw]

Your error lies in assuming that if Jesus calls the Father “my God” then Jesus cannot share the Father’s divine nature. This is a category mistake where you are confusing role with nature. The New Testament repeatedly distinguishes between Jesus’s eternal divine nature (John 1:1; Heb 1:8; Col 1:16–17) and His tabernacled, mediatorial, kenotic role as the Last Adam who represents humanity (Phil 2:6–8; Heb 2:14–17). When the risen Christ says “my God” (John 20:17) or relates to the Father as God while seated at His right hand, He speaks according to His true humanity, not as a denial of His deity - just as Scripture can call the Father “the God of our Lord Jesus Christ” (Eph 1:3) while also having the Father directly address the Son as “God” with an eternal throne (Heb 1:8). Thus, your argument wrongly treats Jesus’s temporary, chosen, kenotic position of obedience as a man as if it meant He was a lesser being in His actual divine nature, while overlooking that the same Bible that affirms the Word, who now tabernacles as Jesus, was God (John 1:1c).

Well said! I had in mind how they miss that Jesus mostly speaks human to human. An interesting exception is obvious in Matt 23:
37 “Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were unwilling.

In that case he speaks directly as God. Only God has this history of calling the Jerusalem people together over a long history.

 

[Peterlag]

Your error lies in assuming that if Jesus calls the Father “my God” then Jesus cannot share the Father’s divine nature. This is a category mistake where you are confusing role with nature. The New Testament repeatedly distinguishes between Jesus’s eternal divine nature (John 1:1; Heb 1:8; Col 1:16–17) and His tabernacled, mediatorial, kenotic role as the Last Adam who represents humanity (Phil 2:6–8; Heb 2:14–17). When the risen Christ says “my God” (John 20:17) or relates to the Father as God while seated at His right hand, He speaks according to His true humanity, not as a denial of His deity - just as Scripture can call the Father “the God of our Lord Jesus Christ” (Eph 1:3) while also having the Father directly address the Son as “God” with an eternal throne (Heb 1:8). Thus, your argument wrongly treats Jesus’s temporary, chosen, kenotic position of obedience as a man as if it meant He was a lesser being in His actual divine nature, while overlooking that the same Bible that affirms the Word, who now tabernacles as Jesus, was God (John 1:1c).

I have handled all these verses and you continue to put them in front of me like if I never responded to them.

John 1:1 is not a teaching on the trinity or that we should believe or confess that Jesus is God. It seems difficult for people to understand that John 1:1 is introducing the Gospel of John, and not the Book of Genesis. The topic of John is God (the Father, the only God) at work in the ministry of the man Jesus of Nazareth, not the creation of rocks, trees and stars.

Jesus Christ is not a lexical definition of logos. The verse does not say "In the beginning was Jesus." The "Word" is not synonymous with Jesus, or even the "Messiah." The word logos in John 1:1 refers to God's creative self-expression... His reason, purpose and plans, especially as they are brought into action. It refers to God's self-expression or communication of Himself. This has come to pass through His creation and especially the heavens. It has come through the spoken word of the prophets and through Scripture. Most notably it has come into being through His Son. The logos is the expression of God and is His communication of Himself just as a "word" is an outward expression of a person's thoughts. This outward expression of God has now occurred through His Son and thus it's perfectly understandable why Jesus is called the "Word." Jesus is an outward expression of God's reason, wisdom, purpose and plan. For the same reason we call revelation "a word from God" and the Bible "the Word of God."

If we understand that the logos is God's expression... His plan, purpose, reason and wisdom. Then it's clear they were with Him "in the beginning." Scripture says God's wisdom was "from the beginning" and it was common in Hebrew writing to personify a concept such as wisdom. The fact that the logos "became" flesh shows it did not exist that way before. There is no pre-existence for Jesus in this verse other than his figurative "existence" as the plan, purpose or wisdom of God for the salvation of man. The same is true with the "word" in writing. It had no literal pre-existence as a "spirit-book" somehow in eternity past, but came into being as God gave the revelation to people and they wrote it down.

A friend of mine put it this way... "The word "logos" (Word) denotes (I) "the expression of thought" as embodying a conception or idea. λόγος "logos" is something said (including the thought). So the word "logos" means an expression of thought. It makes perfect sense if we use this understanding everywhere the word "logos" is used. So in John 1:1 the Word is not Jesus, but rather it became flesh, which is God's expression of thought or plan that became flesh with the coming of Jesus Christ."

Hebrews 1:8 is not a teaching on the trinity or that we should believe or confess that Jesus is God. Hebrews is saying your throne oh God is forever. Not Jesus is forever. In Hebrews it's quoted referring to Jesus having the use of that throne.

Hebrews 1:8
But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.

Psalms 45:6
Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: the sceptre of thy kingdom is a right sceptre.

“Your throne is God.” Hebrews 1:8 is an almost exact quotation from the Septuagint version of Psalm 45:6, which itself was a very good translation of the Hebrew text of Psalm 45:6, and Hebrews 1:9 is from the Septuagint of Psalm 45:7. The theme of Hebrews 1 centers around the Father’s rule and elevation of the Son over the rest of creation. God spoke through the prophets, and then through His Son, who He appointed heir of all things and who is now seated at God’s right hand as second in command under God.

The God of the Son—anointed him and set him above his companions, such that the Son now sits on God’s right hand. Hebrews exalts the Son, and in so doing exalts the Father. But in contrast to what Trinitarians say, Hebrews 1:8 (and thus Psalm 45:6) does not call Jesus “God” and does not support the Trinity. To see that fully, one must study Psalm 45. Upon examination, Psalm 45 does not support the Trinity, so when it is quoted in Hebrews 1:8 then that quotation does not support the Trinity either. The Jews read Psalm 45 for centuries and never concluded that the Messiah would be “God in the flesh” or somehow be part of a Triune God.

Colossians 1:16 is not a teaching on the trinity or that we should believe or confess that Jesus is God. Many point to Colosians 1:16 and claim it proves that Jesus is the creator of the universe. Isaiah 44:24 says God created "all alone" and "by myself." So who's telling the truth? Acts 17:24-31 says God made the world and everything in it. He will judge the world by a MAN whom He has appointed and raised from the dead.

So what does Colossians 1:16 mean? The phrase "all things were created in" and "through" and "for" Jesus is not about physical creation. It's about God's plan of redemption, which centered on the Messiah. Jesus is the foundation of God's plan, and not the architect of the cosmos. Colosians 1 isn't about Genesis 1. It's about the New Creation.

It tells you right in the verse what the all things are. They are thrones, dominions, principalities, and powers. Not planets, oceans and stars. The verse is telling us Jesus will need these things to govern in his new up-coming kingdom.

The trinitarian has only 3 to pick from...

1.) Use a verse from a bad translation.
2.) Use a verse that is taken out of context.
3.) Not understand how the words were used in the culture they were written in.

And basically that's all trinitarians have. And I mean 100 percent of what they have. They have nothing else.

 

[Peterlag]

First of all, Thayer's Greek lexicon defines "until" as "something is spoken of which continued up to a certain time", but it doesn't say anything about what happens afterwards. So your assumption about "it stopping" afterwards is not supported by Thayer's definition of "until". STRIKE 1!

In fact, the Bible's usage of the word "until" debunks all your assumptions. The only thing you officially proved, with your disregarding of how the word "until" was understood in Biblical times, is that Michal had children after she died, since 2 Samuel 6:23 says, “Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no child until the day of her death.” STRIKE 2!

Even your bosom buddy and fellow compatriot @Peterlag admits that "Christ will reign forever". STRIKE 3! YERRRRRR OUT!!!


It's time you recognized that your Arianism is just made up of snake-oil products and that you should ditch all that in your nearest sewer.

Interesting how you can tell me my ideas are made up of "snake-oil" but I can't say your ideas are made up of "devil doctrines."
cc: @civic

 

[amazing grace]

Interesting how you can tell me my ideas are made up of "snake-oil" but I can't say your ideas are made up of "devil doctrines."
cc: @civic

1 Timothy 4:1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; . . . . Oops even Timothy refers to a doctrine being taught as 'doctrines of devils' . . .
cc: @Peterlag

 

[mikesw]

I have handled all these verses and you continue to put them in front of me like if I never responded to them.

John 1:1 is not a teaching on the trinity or that we should believe or confess that Jesus is God. It seems difficult for people to understand that John 1:1 is introducing the Gospel of John, and not the Book of Genesis. The topic of John is God (the Father, the only God) at work in the ministry of the man Jesus of Nazareth, not the creation of rocks, trees and stars.

Jesus Christ is not a lexical definition of logos. The verse does not say "In the beginning was Jesus." The "Word" is not synonymous with Jesus, or even the "Messiah." The word logos in John 1:1 refers to God's creative self-expression... His reason, purpose and plans, especially as they are brought into action. It refers to God's self-expression or communication of Himself. This has come to pass through His creation and especially the heavens. It has come through the spoken word of the prophets and through Scripture. Most notably it has come into being through His Son. The logos is the expression of God and is His communication of Himself just as a "word" is an outward expression of a person's thoughts. This outward expression of God has now occurred through His Son and thus it's perfectly understandable why Jesus is called the "Word." Jesus is an outward expression of God's reason, wisdom, purpose and plan. For the same reason we call revelation "a word from God" and the Bible "the Word of God."

If we understand that the logos is God's expression... His plan, purpose, reason and wisdom. Then it's clear they were with Him "in the beginning." Scripture says God's wisdom was "from the beginning" and it was common in Hebrew writing to personify a concept such as wisdom. The fact that the logos "became" flesh shows it did not exist that way before. There is no pre-existence for Jesus in this verse other than his figurative "existence" as the plan, purpose or wisdom of God for the salvation of man. The same is true with the "word" in writing. It had no literal pre-existence as a "spirit-book" somehow in eternity past, but came into being as God gave the revelation to people and they wrote it down.

A friend of mine put it this way... "The word "logos" (Word) denotes (I) "the expression of thought" as embodying a conception or idea. λόγος "logos" is something said (including the thought). So the word "logos" means an expression of thought. It makes perfect sense if we use this understanding everywhere the word "logos" is used. So in John 1:1 the Word is not Jesus, but rather it became flesh, which is God's expression of thought or plan that became flesh with the coming of Jesus Christ."

Hebrews 1:8 is not a teaching on the trinity or that we should believe or confess that Jesus is God. Hebrews is saying your throne oh God is forever. Not Jesus is forever. In Hebrews it's quoted referring to Jesus having the use of that throne.

Hebrews 1:8
But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.

Psalms 45:6
Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: the sceptre of thy kingdom is a right sceptre.

“Your throne is God.” Hebrews 1:8 is an almost exact quotation from the Septuagint version of Psalm 45:6, which itself was a very good translation of the Hebrew text of Psalm 45:6, and Hebrews 1:9 is from the Septuagint of Psalm 45:7. The theme of Hebrews 1 centers around the Father’s rule and elevation of the Son over the rest of creation. God spoke through the prophets, and then through His Son, who He appointed heir of all things and who is now seated at God’s right hand as second in command under God.

The God of the Son—anointed him and set him above his companions, such that the Son now sits on God’s right hand. Hebrews exalts the Son, and in so doing exalts the Father. But in contrast to what Trinitarians say, Hebrews 1:8 (and thus Psalm 45:6) does not call Jesus “God” and does not support the Trinity. To see that fully, one must study Psalm 45. Upon examination, Psalm 45 does not support the Trinity, so when it is quoted in Hebrews 1:8 then that quotation does not support the Trinity either. The Jews read Psalm 45 for centuries and never concluded that the Messiah would be “God in the flesh” or somehow be part of a Triune God.

Colossians 1:16 is not a teaching on the trinity or that we should believe or confess that Jesus is God. Many point to Colosians 1:16 and claim it proves that Jesus is the creator of the universe. Isaiah 44:24 says God created "all alone" and "by myself." So who's telling the truth? Acts 17:24-31 says God made the world and everything in it. He will judge the world by a MAN whom He has appointed and raised from the dead.

So what does Colossians 1:16 mean? The phrase "all things were created in" and "through" and "for" Jesus is not about physical creation. It's about God's plan of redemption, which centered on the Messiah. Jesus is the foundation of God's plan, and not the architect of the cosmos. Colosians 1 isn't about Genesis 1. It's about the New Creation.

It tells you right in the verse what the all things are. They are thrones, dominions, principalities, and powers. Not planets, oceans and stars. The verse is telling us Jesus will need these things to govern in his new up-coming kingdom.

The trinitarian has only 3 to pick from...

1.) Use a verse from a bad translation.
2.) Use a verse that is taken out of context.
3.) Not understand how the words were used in the culture they were written in.

And basically that's all trinitarians have. And I mean 100 percent of what they have. They have nothing else.

sure you repeat that stuff. However, it did not argue sufficiently the previous times and thus will remain as bad arguments the subsequent times. Hebrews 1:8 obviously calls the Son God but you just try to say it doesn't. That is your basic tactic: deny, deny, deny.

This commentary somewhat includes Peterlag's idea:
The opening words, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever, cause a problem, for they can be taken either as a direct address to the Son in which case the implication cannot be avoided that the Son is being described as God, or less probably the words can be understood to mean ‘The throne of your God’, or ‘God is your throne’, in which case the implication that the Son is God is avoided
Donald Guthrie, Hebrews: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 15, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1983), 80.

But the less probable concept is rejected by the saying the kingdom is Christ's. This would indicate the throne is Christ's as well and that he is identified as God. The unitarian distortion then cannot be accepted as genuine.

 

[civic]

Interesting how you can tell me my ideas are made up of "snake-oil" but I can't say your ideas are made up of "devil doctrines."
cc: @civic

I don’t read every single post and I will tag @synergy on this. Let’s all defend our beliefs and not talk about the opposition as cults, demons, liars etc….. let’s make an argument, defend our beliefs and not have the name calling.

Thanks everyone for your cooperation

 

[Peterlag]

I don’t read every single post and I will tag @synergy on this. Let’s all defend our beliefs and not talk about the opposition as cults, demons, liars etc….. let’s make an argument, defend our beliefs and not have the name calling.

Thanks everyone for your cooperation

You are right and sometimes I get tired of the many digs and personal attacks on me and how 3 of them (this guy being one of them) continue to not respond to not what I write, but attack me personally. And that's when I start to give some of it back.