Your Views on The Trinity

[synergy]

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.

Nope. The topic of John's Prologue is the Word. This is a massive grammatical error on your part.

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."

Nobody is claiming that "In the beginning was Jesus". Actually, "In the beginning was the Word". John 1:1 is talking about the same Word who appeared to Shemaiah and Nathan in the OT with all the attributes of a Communicative Person (Individuality, Mind, Will, etc...)

• 1 Kings 12:22 "But the Word of God came to Shemaiah the man of God, saying,"
• 1 Ch 17:3 "And it happened the same night the Word of God came to Nathan, saying,

Also, you're conveniently skipping over the fact that 'the Word was God". So the Word is not a "self-expression" nor "His reason, purpose, or plans". The Word was God. Do you understand the difference between God and a 'self-expression"?

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."

John 1:1c says "the Word was God". Nowhere is it written that the Word was "God's expression". You are gravely mistaken here.

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.

The Son (Jesus) is referred to as "O God". That clearly makes Jesus God, that's if you believe what the Father said. Thank you for forwarding that clear Trinitarian verse.

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.

There is a 4th option where Col 1:16 and Isaiah 44:24 are both true.

Colossians 1:16 and Isaiah 44:24 are fully compatible when understood properly. Isaiah emphasizes that God alone is the Creator, affirming that all things originate from Him and that no other being or idol shares in His creative work. Colossians clarifies the New Testament revelation that the Son, Jesus Christ, is through whom the Father created all things—“all things were created through him and for him.” There is no contradiction because the Father is the ultimate source of creation, and the Son acts as the instrument or agent of that creation; the Father creating “by Himself” in Isaiah naturally includes the Son as the means of accomplishing His will, consistent with other passages such as John 1:3 and Hebrews 1:2. Thus, both verses together affirm that God alone is Creator, with the Son as the divine agent through whom all creation came into being.

Listen, we're not limited to your biased list of options. As I told you before concerning your "ἐγώ εἰμι" post, there are other options that you are totally biased against. In the "ἐγώ εἰμι" case, I declared there is a 4th option which is to refer also to Deut 32:39; Isaiah 41:4, 43:10, 43:13, 46:4, 48:12, and 51:12.

For every single time "ἐγώ εἰμι" appears in an absolute sense in the LXX, it is God Himself declaring His divine identity. There are no places where an angel, a prophet, or a human says it in an absolute sense. Only YHWH uses it without a predicate as a divine self-revelation.

All these Isaiah verses support Jesus' claim of being the "I AM" in John 8:58.

As for the blind man's usage of ἐγώ εἰμι", it is used in an idiomatic way, not in an absolute (divine self-revelation) way. It is not surrounded by theological claims (eternity, salvation) and it does not echo the Isaiah (LXX) divine formula.

 

[Runningman]

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.

Paul explain what happens after Jesus is no longer at the right hand of God. He will be eternally subject to God.

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.

Christ will indeed reign forever on the human throne of Jacob, but not on the throne of God, and many others will be reigning with Christ.

2 Timothy 2
12if we endure,
we will also reign with Him;
if we deny Him,
He will also deny us;

 

[synergy]

Paul explain what happens after Jesus is no longer at the right hand of God. He will be eternally subject to God.

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.

Christ will indeed reign forever on the human throne of Jacob, but not on the throne of God, and many others will be reigning with Christ.

2 Timothy 2
12if we endure,
we will also reign with Him;
if we deny Him,
He will also deny us;

Where does it say that Christ will not reign forever on the throne of God?

 

[Runningman]

Where does it say that Christ will not reign forever on the throne of God?

Jesus has never reigned on the throne of God, but his reign at the right hand of God is temporary. Scripture explicitly says so. "He must reign until..." refers to a temporary assignment. After that, Jesus will be eternally subordinate to God.

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.

 

[Capbook]

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.

As Jesus after being raised was seated at the right hand of the Almighty God the Father in the heavenly places, is it still somewhere to you Runningman?

Did you see Kings that reign their kingdom do not ever sit on the throne Runningman? (Dan 7:13,14)


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,
Dan 7:13 "I kept looking in the night visions, And behold, with the clouds of heaven One like a Son of Man was coming, And He came up to the Ancient of Days And was presented before Him.
Dan 7:14 "And to Him was given dominion, Glory and a kingdom, That all the peoples, nations and men of every language Might serve Him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion Which will not pass away; And His kingdom is one Which will not be destroyed.

 

[Capbook]

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

As I've said those were called variant readings Peterlag, not described as derived from Bible original words.

 

[Capbook]

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?

The text is speaking about form (nature) of God and form (nature) of a servant as man.
It does not talk about work job Peterlag.

 

[Peterlag]

The text is speaking about form (nature) of God and form (nature) of a servant as man.
It does not talk about work job Peterlag.

The Greek word morphē does not refer to the essential nature of Christ in that context. If the point of the verse is to say that Jesus is God, then why not just say that? If Jesus is God, say that, don’t say he has the “essential nature of God.” Of course God has the “essential nature” of God, so why would anyone make that point? This verse does not say “Jesus being God” but rather “being in the form of God.” Paul is reminding the Philippians that Jesus represented the Father in every possible way.

From the Septuagint and their other writings, the Jews were familiar with morphē referring to the outward appearance, including the form of men and idols. To the Greeks, it also referred to the outward appearance, including the changing outward appearance of their gods and the form of statues. The only other New Testament use of morphē outside Philippians is in Mark, and there it refers to the outward appearance. Also, the words related to morphē clearly refer to an outward manifestation or appearance. The word morphē refers to an outward appearance or manifestation. Jesus Christ was in the outward appearance of God, so much so that he said, “He who has seen me has seen the Father.” Christ always did the Father’s will, and perfectly represented his Father in every way.

 

[Peterlag]

As I've said those were called variant readings Peterlag, not described as derived from Bible original words.

They were 24 different Bibles that were different from yours. Yours was 22 different Bibles that were different from mine. You don't see a problem here?

 

[synergy]

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

You've not only mishandled those verses but you have not even responded at all to my criticisms of your verses. Here are my counterarguments again.

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.

Nope. The topic of John's Prologue is the Word. This is a massive grammatical error on your part.

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."
Click to expand...

Nobody is claiming that "In the beginning was Jesus". Actually, "In the beginning was the Word". John 1:1 is talking about the same Word who appeared to Shemaiah and Nathan in the OT with all the attributes of a Communicative Person (Individuality, Mind, Will, etc...)

• 1 Kings 12:22 "But the Word of God came to Shemaiah the man of God, saying,"
• 1 Ch 17:3 "And it happened the same night the Word of God came to Nathan, saying,

Also, you're conveniently skipping over the fact that 'the Word was God". So the Word is not a "self-expression" nor "His reason, purpose, or plans". The Word was God. Do you understand the difference between God and a 'self-expression"?

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."
Click to expand...

John 1:1c says "the Word was God". Nowhere is it written that the Word was "God's expression". You are gravely mistaken here.

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.
Click to expand...

The Son (Jesus) is referred to as "O God". That clearly makes Jesus God, that's if you believe what the Father said. Thank you for forwarding that clear Trinitarian verse.

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

There is a 4th option where Col 1:16 and Isaiah 44:24 are both true. Unitarians cannot believe that both verses are true. That is evidence that a unitarian mind is given over to heresies and fairy tales.

Colossians 1:16 and Isaiah 44:24 are fully compatible when understood properly. Isaiah emphasizes that God alone is the Creator, affirming that all things originate from Him and that no other being or idol shares in His creative work. Colossians clarifies the New Testament revelation that the Son, Jesus Christ, is through whom the Father created all things—“all things were created through him and for him.” There is no contradiction because the Father is the ultimate source of creation, and the Son acts as the instrument or agent of that creation; the Father creating “by Himself” in Isaiah naturally includes the Son as the means of accomplishing His will, consistent with other passages such as John 1:3 and Hebrews 1:2. Thus, both verses together affirm that God alone is Creator, with the Son as the divine agent through whom all creation came into being.

Listen, we're not limited to your biased list of options. As I told you before concerning your "ἐγώ εἰμι" post, there are other options that you are totally biased against. In the "ἐγώ εἰμι" case, I declared there is a 4th option which is to refer also to Deut 32:39; Isaiah 41:4, 43:10, 43:13, 46:4, 48:12, and 51:12.

For every single time "ἐγώ εἰμι" appears in an absolute sense in the LXX, it is God Himself declaring His divine identity. There are no places where an angel, a prophet, or a human says it in an absolute sense. Only YHWH uses it without a predicate as a divine self-revelation.

All these Isaiah verses support Jesus' claim of being the "I AM" in John 8:58.

As for the blind man's usage of ἐγώ εἰμι", it is used in an idiomatic way, not in an absolute (divine self-revelation) way. It is not surrounded by theological claims (eternity, salvation) and it does not echo the Isaiah (LXX) divine formula.

 

[Peterlag]

You've not only mishandled those verses but you have not even responded at all to my criticisms of your verses. Here are my counterarguments again.

Nope. The topic of John's Prologue is the Word. This is a massive grammatical error on your part.

Nobody is claiming that "In the beginning was Jesus". Actually, "In the beginning was the Word". John 1:1 is talking about the same Word who appeared to Shemaiah and Nathan in the OT with all the attributes of a Communicative Person (Individuality, Mind, Will, etc...)

• 1 Kings 12:22 "But the Word of God came to Shemaiah the man of God, saying,"
• 1 Ch 17:3 "And it happened the same night the Word of God came to Nathan, saying,

Also, you're conveniently skipping over the fact that 'the Word was God". So the Word is not a "self-expression" nor "His reason, purpose, or plans". The Word was God. Do you understand the difference between God and a 'self-expression"?

John 1:1c says "the Word was God". Nowhere is it written that the Word was "God's expression". You are gravely mistaken here.

The Son (Jesus) is referred to as "O God". That clearly makes Jesus God, that's if you believe what the Father said. Thank you for forwarding that clear Trinitarian verse.


There is a 4th option where Col 1:16 and Isaiah 44:24 are both true. Unitarians cannot believe that both verses are true. That is evidence that a unitarian mind is given over to heresies and fairy tales.

Colossians 1:16 and Isaiah 44:24 are fully compatible when understood properly. Isaiah emphasizes that God alone is the Creator, affirming that all things originate from Him and that no other being or idol shares in His creative work. Colossians clarifies the New Testament revelation that the Son, Jesus Christ, is through whom the Father created all things—“all things were created through him and for him.” There is no contradiction because the Father is the ultimate source of creation, and the Son acts as the instrument or agent of that creation; the Father creating “by Himself” in Isaiah naturally includes the Son as the means of accomplishing His will, consistent with other passages such as John 1:3 and Hebrews 1:2. Thus, both verses together affirm that God alone is Creator, with the Son as the divine agent through whom all creation came into being.

Listen, we're not limited to your biased list of options. As I told you before concerning your "ἐγώ εἰμι" post, there are other options that you are totally biased against. In the "ἐγώ εἰμι" case, I declared there is a 4th option which is to refer also to Deut 32:39; Isaiah 41:4, 43:10, 43:13, 46:4, 48:12, and 51:12.

For every single time "ἐγώ εἰμι" appears in an absolute sense in the LXX, it is God Himself declaring His divine identity. There are no places where an angel, a prophet, or a human says it in an absolute sense. Only YHWH uses it without a predicate as a divine self-revelation.

All these Isaiah verses support Jesus' claim of being the "I AM" in John 8:58.

As for the blind man's usage of ἐγώ εἰμι", it is used in an idiomatic way, not in an absolute (divine self-revelation) way. It is not surrounded by theological claims (eternity, salvation) and it does not echo the Isaiah (LXX) divine formula.

I don't look at most of your stuff and for months off and on I don't even see or read anything from mikesw. I find you to just a tad bit too rude with little sarcastic digs attacking me personally. This is always done because you can't handle what I post so you mock me instead.

 

[Peterlag]

Can we talk about these seven or only just the first one...

• It was God that made Jesus "Lord" (Acts 2:36).
• Jesus would have already been the Lord if he was God.
• Romans 5:19 says a man had to pay for the sins of mankind.
• Jesus was "sanctified" by God. God does not need to be sanctified.
• In the future Jesus will be subject to the Father (1 Corinthians 15:28).
• Christ was given all authority. He would have already had all authority if he were God (Matthew 28:18).
• The idea that "the Father is God, the Son is God, the Holy Spirit is God, and together make one God" is not found in Scripture.

 

[mikesw]

Can we talk about these seven or only just the first one...

• It was God that made Jesus "Lord" (Acts 2:36).
• Jesus would have already been the Lord if he was God.
• Romans 5:19 says a man had to pay for the sins of mankind.
• Jesus was "sanctified" by God. God does not need to be sanctified.
• In the future Jesus will be subject to the Father (1 Corinthians 15:28).
• Christ was given all authority. He would have already had all authority if he were God (Matthew 28:18).
• The idea that "the Father is God, the Son is God, the Holy Spirit is God, and together make one God" is not found in Scripture.

None of these overcome the passages that point to the divinity of Christ. That is all sufficient in its destruction of the unitarian belief system.
The others (without considering more blatant errors) do not neglect that Jesus's function in the world can be expressed in human terms since that is how he appeared among humanity.
I'm not figuring out why you still push this stuff without having sufficient arguments.

 

[synergy]

I don't look at most of your stuff and for months off and on I don't even see or read anything from mikesw. I find you to just a tad bit too rude with little sarcastic digs attacking me personally. This is always done because you can't handle what I post so you mock me instead.

You responded to me many times during the last few days and now all of a sudden you stopped responding? What a lame excuse in order for you to escape from having to respond to Biblical verses that destroy your heresies. You run away from truths, that's how you handle the truths of the Bible. Suit yourself.

 

[Runningman]

As Jesus after being raised was seated at the right hand of the Almighty God the Father in the heavenly places, is it still somewhere to you Runningman?

Did you see Kings that reign their kingdom do not ever sit on the throne Runningman? (Dan 7:13,14)


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,
Dan 7:13 "I kept looking in the night visions, And behold, with the clouds of heaven One like a Son of Man was coming, And He came up to the Ancient of Days And was presented before Him.
Dan 7:14 "And to Him was given dominion, Glory and a kingdom, That all the peoples, nations and men of every language Might serve Him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion Which will not pass away; And His kingdom is one Which will not be destroyed.

These are what I quote too. So Jesus is sitting at the right hand of God with consistency through out the Bible, not on God's throne.

What about Daniel 7? Read more of the chapter dear Capbook. The song kingdom, dominion that God gave the Son of Man is the same thing God gave the others. The son of man and the saints will posses the kingdom, sovereignty, dominion and all serve the Most High together.

Daniel 7
18But the saints of the Most High will receive the kingdom and possess it forever—yes, forever and ever.’
22until the Ancient of Days arrived and pronounced judgment in favor of the saints of the Most High, and the time came for them to possess the kingdom.
27Then the sovereignty, dominion, and greatness of the kingdoms under all of heaven will be given to the people, the saints of the Most High. His kingdom will be an everlasting kingdom, and all rulers will serve and obey Him.’

 

[Capbook]

The Greek word morphē does not refer to the essential nature of Christ in that context. If the point of the verse is to say that Jesus is God, then why not just say that? If Jesus is God, say that, don’t say he has the “essential nature of God.” Of course God has the “essential nature” of God, so why would anyone make that point? This verse does not say “Jesus being God” but rather “being in the form of God.” Paul is reminding the Philippians that Jesus represented the Father in every possible way.

As Jesus being in the "form of a servant" and being in the likeness of man, is He in the nature of man or not Peterlag?
Why the honest and logical answer to that question cannot be applied to Jesus as in the "form of God?"
I believe the Jews on Jesus time possessed sharp logic that they understand what "Son of God" means.
They believe dog bears dog and cat bears cat as being their nature.

John 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

From the Septuagint and their other writings, the Jews were familiar with morphē referring to the outward appearance, including the form of men and idols. To the Greeks, it also referred to the outward appearance, including the changing outward appearance of their gods and the form of statues. The only other New Testament use of morphē outside Philippians is in Mark, and there it refers to the outward appearance. Also, the words related to morphē clearly refer to an outward manifestation or appearance. The word morphē refers to an outward appearance or manifestation. Jesus Christ was in the outward appearance of God, so much so that he said, “He who has seen me has seen the Father.” Christ always did the Father’s will, and perfectly represented his Father in every way.

Ok, when Jesus takes the "form (morphe) of a servant," is He in the appearance of man or really in the nature of man?
I'll wait for your answer Peterlag.

 

[Capbook]

They were 24 different Bibles that were different from yours. Yours was 22 different Bibles that were different from mine. You don't see a problem here?

The big difference is that the "various readings" you are relying to did not derived from the Bible's original wordings.
Do that truth hard to sink in Peterlag?

 

[Peterlag]

The big difference is that the "various readings" you are relying to did not derived from the Bible's original wordings.
Do that truth hard to sink in Peterlag?

So your saying my 24 Bibles are not good but your 22 Bibles are.

 

[Capbook]

So your saying my 24 Bibles are not good but your 22 Bibles are.

Which would you prefer to believe Peterlag, original wordings from the Bible or not?

 

[Peterlag]

Which would you prefer to believe Peterlag, original wordings from the Bible or not?

How is it your newer translations get to be original and my older ones are not?

The following are the oldest English Bibles that I know of and all of them say son. Not God...

Geneva Bible of 1587
No man hath seene God at any time: that onely begotten Sonne, which is in the bosome of the Father, he hath declared him.

Bishops' Bible of 1568
No man hath seene God at any tyme: The onely begotten sonne which is in the bosome of the father, he hath declared hym.

Coverdale Bible of 1535
No man hath sene God at eny tyme. The onely begotte sonne which is in the bosome of the father, he hath declared the same vnto vs.

Tyndale Bible of 1526
No ma hath sene God at eny tyme. The only begotte sonne which is in ye bosome of ye father he hath declared him.