Your Views on The Trinity

[TomL]

Already addressed it.

I didn't say "calls the Word of life eternal life means christ is a thing" so that is a strawman argument.

So it looks like you're just repeating the same old addressed arguments and making up false accusations at this point. I have you right where I want you. I am just going to keep hounding this for years and years and years and years like I have been already.

So why do you disagree with the Word being a thing as 1 John 1:1-3 explicitly states? Where is your comeback about the Word being something people can taste and handle even though it isn't a physical thing?

LOL these are your words

"calls the Word of life eternal life means christ is a thing"

Hello

Were you not able to support your claim?

.1 John 5:20 And we know that the Son of God has come, and has given us understanding so that we may know Him who is true; and we are in Him who is true, in His Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal life.

Who is the true God here?

You did not answer

Why?

The one you believe?

According to your logic, he must be a thing because he is called eternal life.

And if you deny it is God the Father, then Jesus is the true God

Either way, your argument stands refuted.

So where have you addressed the above which addressed your argument?

So instead of addressing this you want to pretend you did not so argue when you did and were busted

As for 1John we already saw it did not support you

1 John 1:1–3 (KJV 1900) — 1 THAT which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life; 2 (For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us 3 That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ.

Once again the disciples had heard him, and they had seen seen, him looked upon him with their eyes and handled him with their hands

Christ was, in fact, heard and looked upon and seen with the eyes of the 12 and many more.

That you can imagine there is a shred of evidence here supporting you shows how far from reality you have departed.

1 John does not state Christ was a thing

And there is no tasting in 1 John 1:1-3

Will you now do what you did with your other argument and pretend you did not say so?

 

[Runningman]

LOL these are your words

"calls the Word of life eternal life means christ is a thing"

Hello

Were you not able to support your claim?

.1 John 5:20 And we know that the Son of God has come, and has given us understanding so that we may know Him who is true; and we are in Him who is true, in His Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal life.

Who is the true God here?

You did not answer

Why?

The one you believe?

According to your logic, he must be a thing because he is called eternal life.

And if you deny it is God the Father, then Jesus is the true God

Either way, your argument stands refuted.

So where have you addressed the above which addressed your argument?

So instead of addressing this you want to pretend you did not so argue when you did and were busted

As for 1John we already saw it did not support you

1 John 1:1–3 (KJV 1900) — 1 THAT which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life; 2 (For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us 3 That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ.

Once again the disciples had heard him, and they had seen seen, him looked upon him with their eyes and handled him with their hands

Christ was, in fact, heard and looked upon and seen with the eyes of the 12 and many more.

That you can imagine there is a shred of evidence here supporting you shows how far from reality you have departed.

1 John does not state Christ was a thing

And there is no tasting in 1 John 1:1-3

Will you now do what you did with your other argument and pretend you did not say so?

Already searched my posts and that isn't a quote by me. I said the Word is a thing in line with what John explicitly stated. Jesus isn't a thing, but a person. You're just making things up at this point because you have reached a dead end in your theology because Logos theology is an extremely barren theological position. You literally have John 1:1 which probably explains why you keep quoting it long after the conversation has moved on and several Bible verses have debunked your interpretation.

So 1 John 1:1-3 is still there calling the Word a thing. It's ok if you don't agree with it. I am not trying to change your mind, but the show must go on. That debunks the deity of Jesus. Got any other arguments to bring forward against Scripture?

 

[TomL]

Already searched my posts and that isn't a quote by me. I said the Word is a thing in line with what John explicitly stated. Jesus isn't a thing, but a person. You're just making things up at this point because you have reached a dead end in your theology because Logos theology is an extremely barren theological position. You literally have John 1:1 which probably explains why you keep quoting it long after the conversation has moved on and several Bible verses have debunked your interpretation.

So 1 John 1:1-3 is still there calling the Word a thing. It's ok if you don't agree with it. I am not trying to change your mind, but the show must go on. That debunks the deity of Jesus. Got any other arguments to bring forward against Scripture?

Sorry but you do not search very well

Posts 2885, and 2909 have your words

Address this right now and stop running away.

1 John 1:1-3 calls the Word of life eternal life. So it's a thing. Also, the Word is called a that, which, this, what and an it, not a he, him, who, etc. John spoke of the word as an immaterial thing. That isn't going anywhere so cease your arguments trying to change what the Bible says. The buck stops here, you can't gaslight me into changing my mind about it.

You certainly did so say.

and you were clearly refuted in that argument.

So just give it up

 

[Runningman]

Sorry but you do not search very well

Posts 2885, and 2909 have your words

Address this right now and stop running away.

1 John 1:1-3 calls the Word of life eternal life. So it's a thing. Also, the Word is called a that, which, this, what and an it, not a he, him, who, etc. John spoke of the word as an immaterial thing. That isn't going anywhere so cease your arguments trying to change what the Bible says. The buck stops here, you can't gaslight me into changing my mind about it.

You certainly did so say.

and you were clearly refuted in that argument.

So just give it up

You might want to get your eyes checked because that's not something I would say, not something I agree with, and I even went back to check if I had made any typing mistakes and what you said is not there. Since you have tripled down, I assume you are just sinning because you had your idol snatched out of your hands and you are utterly powerless to do anything about it. What I would recommend is you convert to Christianity and become a believer. The Father is the only true God. John 17:3, 1 Corinthians 8:6, Eph. 4:6. Checkmate.

1 John 1:1-3 is still there calling the Word a thing. When you are ready to be honest I am here waiting.

1 John 1
1That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our own eyes, which we have gazed upon and touched with our own hands—this is the Word of life.
2And this is the life that was revealed; we have seen it and testified to it, and we proclaim to you the eternal life that was with the Father and was revealed to us.
3We proclaim to you what we have seen and heard, so that you also may have fellowship with us. And this fellowship of ours is with the Father and with His Son, Jesus Christ.

 

[Capbook]

Doesn't work as a person and no translators have translated 1John 1:1-3 that way. Doesn't make sense with the context either. The Word is a eternal life, eternal life is a thing, not a person. Playing with the Greek to try to find a whole new version is a tell-tale sign this passage makes you uncomfortable.

As Jesus said, He is the life "eternal life" is He a thing to you?

John 14:6 Jesus *said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me.

 

[Peterlag]

Chromosomes not braincells. But the good news is they are doing brain-transplants now.

I never cared for the Catholic doctrine or the philosophy of its protestant sisters.

There's no verse in the Bible that says we should believe or confess that Jesus is God.

 

[Capbook]

You having not did your due diligence to look up the evidence is not related to there being no evidence. This discussion has already been had before many times for decades. There being those who haven't learned about 1 Tim 3:16 doesn't change anything.

Ellicott: “God was manifest in the flesh. - Here, in the most ancient authorities, the word “God” does not occur. We must, then, literally translate the Greek of the most famous and trustworthy MSS. as follows: He who was manifested in the flesh.”

Cambridge (Bible for Schools and Colleges): “God was manifest in the flesh] The controversy is well known which has so long prevailed as to the original reading; whether the passage should begin ‘God’ or ‘who’: … Since the minute inspection of the Alexandrine ms. by Bps Lightfoot, Ellicott, and others, there is no doubt of its original reading being ‘who,’ as is also the reading of א, and all the Versions older than the 7th century, of Origen, Epiphanius, Jerome, Theodore, and Cyril.”

Barnes: “The question which has excited so much controversy is, whether the original Greek word was Θεὸς Theos, “God,” or whether it was ὅς hos, “who,” or ὁ ho, “which.” … The Vulgate and the Syriac read it: ‘who,’ or ‘which.’”

Why not addressed John 1:18 as together with 1Tim 3:16 also proves Jesus as God, being the "only begotten God" supported by the oldest manuscripts, the papyri 66 and 75, described as the original wordings. You can present other rendition but as "variant reading" not as the "original words" of the text.

 

[Capbook]

I told (EDIT By Admin) there are Greek Manuscripts that have 1 Timothy 3:16 reading “God appeared in the flesh.” And that Trinitarian scholars admit that these Greek texts were altered by scribes in favor of the Trinitarian position. And he (EDIT By Admin} continues to tell me it's in the Greek.

But it's not only 1Tim 3:16 that proves that Jesus is God.
In support to the text above, John 1:18, Jesus as the "only begotten God" supported by the oldest manuscripts, the papyri 66 and 75, described as "original words" of the text. You can present other rendition but described as "variant reading" not the original wordings.

 

[Capbook]

Like I already posted. And again, Some Greek manuscripts have passed into some English versions, and the King James Version is one of them.

Yes, it was translated from the Byzantine text type manuscripts.

And from Alexandrian text type manuscripts, Jesus as the "only begotten God" also supports 1Tim 3:16.

Google Search

 

[Peterlag]

But it's not only 1Tim 3:16 that proves that Jesus is God.
In support to the text above, John 1:18, Jesus as the "only begotten God" supported by the oldest manuscripts, the papyri 66 and 75, described as "original words" of the text. You can present other rendition but described as "variant reading" not the original wordings.

Did not we already handle this? Was it you on one of these forms that I gave you 22 different translations that do not have only begotten God?

 

[TomL]

You might want to get your eyes checked because that's not something I would say, not something I agree with, and I even went back to check if I had made any typing mistakes and what you said is not there. Since you have tripled down, I assume you are just sinning because you had your idol snatched out of your hands and you are utterly powerless to do anything about it. What I would recommend is you convert to Christianity and become a believer. The Father is the only true God. John 17:3, 1 Corinthians 8:6, Eph. 4:6. Checkmate.

1 John 1:1-3 is still there calling the Word a thing. When you are ready to be honest I am here waiting.

1 John 1
1That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our own eyes, which we have gazed upon and touched with our own hands—this is the Word of life.
2And this is the life that was revealed; we have seen it and testified to it, and we proclaim to you the eternal life that was with the Father and was revealed to us.
3We proclaim to you what we have seen and heard, so that you also may have fellowship with us. And this fellowship of ours is with the Father and with His Son, Jesus Christ.

Rather, you are the one who better check your eyes and your affirmation of honest truth.


This is now Post 2872

And your comments

Post in thread 'Your Views on The Trinity'

Nov 8, 2025

Sorry but you are repeating an absurdity for which you failed to address the rebuttal below


1 John 1:1–3 (NASB95) — 1 What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and touched with our hands, concerning the Word of Life— 2 and the life was manifested, and we have seen and testify and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was manifested to us— 3 what we have seen and heard we proclaim to you also, so that you too may have fellowship with us; and indeed our fellowship is with the...

• Runningman

Address this right now and stop running away. (Note I Tom bolded it) so you can see it

1 John 1:1-3 calls the Word of life eternal life. So it's a thing. Also, the Word is called a that, which, this, what and an it, not a he, him, who, etc. John spoke of the word as an immaterial thing. That isn't going anywhere so cease your arguments trying to change what the Bible says. The buck stops here, you can't gaslight me into changing my mind about it.

So since we know that the Word is a thing, we know that the Word in John 1:1 is not God. John was a Jew and familiar with the holy writ Scriptures. John was speaking of the word in line with Hebrew poetry.

The Logos-idea developed out of the Old Testament (especially the creation via divine word in Genesis) and then is influenced by Hellenistic philosophy. Many trinitarians agree with this.

Meyer's NT Commentary agree that the Word (Logos) is a thing and not God:
The investigation of the Logos idea can only lead to a true result when pursued by the path of history. But here, above all, history points us to the O. T.,[64] and most directly to Genesis 1, where the act of creation is effected by God speaking. The reality contained in this representation, anthropomorphic as to its form, of the revelation of Himself made in creation by God,.......................

Now you need to deal with who has been actually honest and correct here.

It is not you

My objection to your claim was

1 John 5:20 (NASB95) — 20 And we know that the Son of God has come, and has given us understanding so that we may know Him who is true; and we are in Him who is true, in His Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal life.

If the True God here is the Father then you must affirm the Father as a thing

if not then you must affirm Christ as the true God

So no matter how you choose, your argument is refuted

 

[Red Baker]

I don't care what you call it. Protestantism, another group that we think is different from the Catholics, the new church down the street.

You do not listen very well ~ again, Christians are not protestants, and certainty not of the RCC. One who takes his teaching from the word of God "only" is of God, which neither you, or @Runningman, nor the many others false cults in the religious part of Mystery Babylon practice.

Most likely you cannot find many of God's very elect among any of the churches in Mystery Babylon, they have fled from them, or been pushed out of them. They are not welcome and neither do they desire to be part of them. 2nd Timothy 3:5; etc.

 

[Capbook]

Did not we already handle this? Was it you on one of these forms that I gave you 22 different translations that do not have only begotten God?

Yes, but they were recorded as "variant reading" not described as the "original wordings" of the text.

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).

 

[Red Baker]

@Runningman

First of all, Jesus being the everlasting Father is something he taught against. We can go more into Isaiah 9:6 later, but that verse is never stated by anyone in the Bible to be about Jesus.

As far as his humanity, he always refer to himself as the Son of God, which of itself made him equal with God and even his enemies understood this truth, why do you reject this truth? Jesus never denied (or taught against has you claim) that he was not the everlasting Father of all things. Again, Jesus' enemies understood that if Jesus was the Son of God, then that made him equal to God.

John 5:18​

"Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God.”

We can go more into Isaiah 9:6 later

Why not not now? Later, means you have not true biblical answer for Isaiah 9:6, or you desire to stay free of that scriptures since it exposes you lying doctrine of rejecting Jesus' deity as the God of Genesis 1:1.

Isaiah 9:6​

“For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.”

So, @Runningman and @Peterlag @amazing grace who is this child that is born and this son that was given, whom the prophet Isaiah said was the mighty God? It was no other then Emmanuel...God with us!

Isaiah 7:14​

“Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.”

Matthew 1:23​

“Behold, a virgin shall be with child, (Isaiah 9:6) and shall bring forth a son, (Isaiah 9:6) and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.”

Let's talk more concerning Isaiah 9:6 with both you and @Peterlag. ASAP.

Revelation 1:8 isn't about Jesus. Read from Revelation 1:4-8 and let me know if you see how Jesus is distinct from the One described as "the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come."

These are the words of Christ himself, appearing at once, and confirming what John had said of him, concerning his person, offices, and future coming: Alpha is the first letter, and Omega the last in the Greek alphabet, and signifies that Christ is the first and the last, as it is interpreted in ( Revelation 1:11 Revelation 1:17 ) , and is a character often given to the divine Being in prophetic writings; see ( Isaiah 41:4 ) ( 44:6 ) ( 48:12 ) ; and is no small proof of the proper deity of Christ. We can go into this more with you and @Peterlag.

 

[amazing grace]

@Runningman

As far as his humanity, he always refer to himself as the Son of God, which of itself made him equal with God and even his enemies understood this truth, why do you reject this truth? Jesus never denied (or taught against has you claim) that he was not the everlasting Father of all things. Again, Jesus' enemies understood that if Jesus was the Son of God, then that made him equal to God.

John 5:18​

"Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God.”

In referring to being the Son of God, the Messiah, Jesus was not making him equal with God - A Son is not equal to his Father in any scenario. The language here - 'making himself equal to God'; at John 10:33 - If you are the Christ, tell us plainly - I did tell you and you did not believe . . . 'you a man make yourself God' and at John 19:7 . . . 'because he has made himself the Son of God', then verse 12 'who makes himself a king opposed Caesar', Jesus making himself to be King of the Jews.
In each case the UNBELIEVING Jews are accusing Jesus of making himself out to be something he is not . . . the accusations are that Jesus is a fake, a false Messiah, he's not who he says he is, a liar.
Yet Jesus is the Son of God, the Messiah the King of the Jews - they just don't believe him.

Why not not now? Later, means you have not true biblical answer for Isaiah 9:6, or you desire to stay free of that scriptures since it exposes you lying doctrine of rejecting Jesus' deity as the God of Genesis 1:1.

Isaiah 9:6​

“For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.”

So, @Runningman and @Peterlag @amazing grace who is this child that is born and this son that was given, whom the prophet Isaiah said was the mighty God? It was no other then Emmanuel...God with us!

Isaiah 7:14​

“Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.”

Matthew 1:23​

“Behold, a virgin shall be with child, (Isaiah 9:6) and shall bring forth a son, (Isaiah 9:6) and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.”

Let's talk more concerning Isaiah 9:6 with both you and @Peterlag. ASAP.

Does this mean that the child, the son given IS THE ALMIGHTY GOD because his name shall be called 'the mighty God '. . . el gibbor. This is a theophoric name - a name bearing the name 'God'.

Gabriel's name means 'mighty God' - el gibbor . . . Do we also want to say that this makes him God? I think not.
Daniel's name means 'God is Judge'; Eli = 'My God'; Elijah = 'My God is Yahweh'; Elisha = 'My God is salvation' and there are others. Immanuel - 'God was with us'.

The child to be born in the future will eventually rule in God's kingdom which is addressed in this passage (9:7). In his role as ruler of the kingdom - he will be, he will fulfill all of those things by the 'zeal of Yahweh'.

These are the words of Christ himself, appearing at once, and confirming what John had said of him, concerning his person, offices, and future coming: Alpha is the first letter, and Omega the last in the Greek alphabet, and signifies that Christ is the first and the last, as it is interpreted in ( Revelation 1:11 Revelation 1:17 ) , and is a character often given to the divine Being in prophetic writings; see ( Isaiah 41:4 ) ( 44:6 ) ( 48:12 ) ; and is no small proof of the proper deity of Christ. We can go into this more with you and @Peterlag.

The phrase 'Alpha and Omega' in Revelation is used 3x - refers twice to the Father at 1:8 and 21:6; and once to Christ at 22:13.
The phrase - 'who is and who was and who is to come' - all refer to the Father 1:4, 1:8 and 4:8.
The phrase - 'the first and the last' - all refer to Christ 1:17, 2:8, and 22:13.
The phrase - 'the beginning and the end' - one to the Father Rev. 21:6 and the other to Christ 22:13.
Yes, the Bible calls God and Christ "Alpha and the Omega" and 'the first and the last'.
Isaiah's 44:6; 41:4; 48:12 --- refer to Yahweh - He is the eternal One, or at least He preexisted all living things.
Calling Jesus Christ 'the first and the last' probably means the same as in Rev. 3:14, which Christ calls himself - 'the Beginning of the creation of God. These terms when referring to Christ designate Jesus as the 'head' or 'chief' of the new creation of God because he is the first one resurrected from the dead.
Both God and Christ calling themselves 'the Alpha and the Omega' and 'the beginning and the end' do not make Christ God, just as calling both God and Christ 'Lord' does not make Christ God.

(Info paraphrased from The Restitution, Biblical Proof Jesus is NOT God; Kermit Zarley, p 478)

 

[Runningman]

As Jesus said, He is the life "eternal life" is He a thing to you?

John 14:6 Jesus *said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me.

I doubt Jesus meant it in that sense since he clearly stated he got his way, truth, and life from God the Father.

John 8
40But now you are trying to kill Me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God. Abraham never did such a thing.

John 5
19So Jesus replied, “Truly, truly, I tell you, the Son can do nothing by Himself, unless He sees the Father doing it. For whatever the Father does, the Son also does.
26For as the Father has life in Himself, so also He has granted the Son to have life in Himself.

 

[Peterlag]

Yes, but they were recorded as "variant reading" not described as the "original wordings" of the text.

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).

There are no original words because nobody has any original manuscripts. Not even copies but rather copies of copies.

 

[Peterlag]

You do not listen very well ~ again, Christians are not protestants, and certainty not of the RCC. One who takes his teaching from the word of God "only" is of God, which neither you, or @Runningman, nor the many others false cults in the religious part of Mystery Babylon practice.

Most likely you cannot find many of God's very elect among any of the churches in Mystery Babylon, they have fled from them, or been pushed out of them. They are not welcome and neither do they desire to be part of them. 2nd Timothy 3:5; etc.

Your so-called-Christians that you say only learn from the Scriptures and are not Protestants and certainty not from the Catholics believe the same thing that the Catholics believe. They believe and probably you too that...

1.) There is a trinity.
2.) Dead people are alive.
3.) God is in control of everything that happens.
4.) The four gospels are written to Christians.
5.) Water baptism is relevant.
6.) We have a sin nature.

Perhaps it is you who is unable to listen well.

 

[Runningman]

@Runningman

As far as his humanity, he always refer to himself as the Son of God, which of itself made him equal with God and even his enemies understood this truth, why do you reject this truth? Jesus never denied (or taught against has you claim) that he was not the everlasting Father of all things. Again, Jesus' enemies understood that if Jesus was the Son of God, then that made him equal to God.

John 5:18​

"Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God.”

They also said he sinned by breaking the Sabbath. Do you believe all of their accusations against Jesus?

Why not not now? Later, means you have not true biblical answer for Isaiah 9:6, or you desire to stay free of that scriptures since it exposes you lying doctrine of rejecting Jesus' deity as the God of Genesis 1:1.

Isaiah 9:6​

“For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.”

So, @Runningman and @Peterlag @amazing grace who is this child that is born and this son that was given, whom the prophet Isaiah said was the mighty God? It was no other then Emmanuel...God with us!

What about it? Jesus isn't the everlasting Father or Might God. He was never called that. That's a bad translation.

Isaiah 7:14​

“Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

Matthew 1:23​

“Behold, a virgin shall be with child, (Isaiah 9:6) and shall bring forth a son, (Isaiah 9:6) and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.”

Let's talk more concerning Isaiah 9:6 with both you and @Peterlag. ASAP.

These are the words of Christ himself, appearing at once, and confirming what John had said of him, concerning his person, offices, and future coming: Alpha is the first letter, and Omega the last in the Greek alphabet, and signifies that Christ is the first and the last, as it is interpreted in ( Revelation 1:11 Revelation 1:17 ) , and is a character often given to the divine Being in prophetic writings; see ( Isaiah 41:4 ) ( 44:6 ) ( 48:12 ) ; and is no small proof of the proper deity of Christ. We can go into this more with you and @Peterlag.

Read Isaiah 7:15, Jesus didn't automatically know the difference between good and evil, which is something he should already know and understand on spiritual level, regardless of being a human, if he was God incarnate. God is already spiritually developed, but Jesus had to spiritually developed. The spirit of Jesus is the sprit of a human, the Spirit of God is of God.

 

[Red Baker]

@amazing grace

In referring to being the Son of God, the Messiah, Jesus was not making him equal with God - A Son is not equal to his Father in any scenario.

To which we fully agree, thereby we reject the eternal Sonship doctrine of Jesus Christ. We said back a few months ago in refuting the eternal Sonship doctrine:

If Jesus Christ be the eternal Son of God, or if he was eternally begotten/generated, according to his Divine nature, then he CAN NOT be the Eternal God that inhabiteth eternity.

The reason why is this: "son" implies a father; and father in reference to a son, precedency in time, if not in nature as well. Father and son imply the ideal of generation~generation implies a time, in which it was effected, and time is also antecedent to such generation.

We know that Jesus Christ was both God that inhabiteth eternity and the Son of God that had a beginning when he was conceived by the Holy Ghost!

The eternal Sonship position is against the witness of God himself concerning his Son.

The incarnate Sonship protects the Deity of the Son of God, and confesses that he is both the I am that I am, and the Son of God and the Son of man.

The language here - 'making himself equal to God'; at John 10:33 - If you are the Christ, tell us plainly - I did tell you and you did not believe . . . 'you a man make yourself God' and at John 19:7 . . . 'because he has made himself the Son of God', then verse 12 'who makes himself a king opposed Caesar', Jesus making himself to be King of the Jews.
In each case the UNBELIEVING Jews are accusing Jesus of making himself out to be something he is not . . . the accusations are that Jesus is a fake, a false Messiah, he's not who he says he is, a liar.
Yet Jesus is the Son of God, the Messiah the King of the Jews - they just don't believe him.

You are not making very much sense with this point, maybe you need to try this again, it is hard to comment on something that makes no sense. What is point in saying what you are saying????

Does this mean that the child, the son given IS THE ALMIGHTY GOD because his name shall be called 'the mighty God '. . . el gibbor. This is a theophoric name - a name bearing the name 'God'.

Gabriel's name means 'mighty God' - el gibbor . . . Do we also want to say that this makes him God? I think not.
Daniel's name means 'God is Judge'; Eli = 'My God'; Elijah = 'My God is Yahweh'; Elisha = 'My God is salvation' and there are others. Immanuel - 'God was with us'.

The child to be born in the future will eventually rule in God's kingdom which is addressed in this passage (9:7). In his role as ruler of the kingdom - he will be, he will fulfill all of those things by the 'zeal of Yahweh'.

You are imposing your own ideas and perspectives into Isaiah 9:6, this is called eisegesis of God's word which Peter said: "which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction." Paul added: "by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;"

Does this mean that the child, the son given IS THE ALMIGHTY GOD because his name shall be called 'the mighty God

Yes, because he was, and prove it by many infallible works that no man could do, unless they were indeed God manifest in the flesh. John 1:48; John 2, he turned water into the very best of wine! He walked on water; the sea and winds obeyed his voice. He knew men's inward thought, etc. etc.

Enough for now.