praise_yeshua
Active Member
Do you really think you're going to literally "sit" on some throne somewhere?
Your Views on The Trinity
- Thread starter Cyrus
- Start date
Do you really think you're going to literally "sit" on some throne somewhere?
synergy
Active Member
You don't know?
There is "My Throne" and "His Throne". Do the math.
Jesus' words are "done" because Jesus is omnipresent since he is God, as you confessed earlier.
Runningman
Active Member
The Father owns all of the thrones and gave them out either directly or through delegation.
Runningman
Active Member
You'll find you will be the one receiving a lesson.I see its lesson time once again on BAM.
One Throne with 2 on that one throne
Just got done telling @synergy and @Capbook about this, but in view of Revelation 3:21, the idea of Jesus sitting on the same throne of the Father doesn't work because believers are said to be sitting on the same throne as Jesus.
Revelation 3
21To the one who overcomes, I will grant the right to sit with Me on My throne, just as I overcame and sat down with My Father on His throne.
And what's your point? The Lamb isn't the one called God. Two distinct persons here in the Greek.
John 12:31-42 doesn't quote Isaiah 6:1-7, but only quotes Isaiah 6:10. The vision referenced in Isaiah 6:1 isn't about Jesus. First verse of Isaiah disproves your interpretation.
Isaiah 1
1This is the vision concerning Judah and Jerusalem that Isaiah son of Amoz saw during the reigns of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah, kings of Judah.
Just got done telling @synergy and @Capbook about this, but in view of Revelation 3:21, the idea of Jesus sitting on the same throne of the Father doesn't work because believers are said to be sitting on the same throne as Jesus.
civic
Active Member
Time for correction once again , another exegetical lesson
We know from the N.T. that Christ is the One Lord, the Only Lord. We know that Christ is also identifies as the Holy One in the N.T. and our King all titles and descriptions of YHWH in the Isaiah passages.
John 12:41
These things Isaiah said, because he saw His glory, and he spoke of Him
Isaiah 6:1-10
In the year of King, Uzziah's death, I saw the Lord sitting on a throne, lofty and exalted, with the train of His robe filling the temple. 2 Seraphim stood above Him, each having six wings; with two he covered his face, and with two he covered his feet, and with two he flew. 3 And one called out to another and said,
"Holy, Holy, Holy, is the Lord of hosts,,
The whole earth is full of His glory."
4 And the foundations of the thresholds trembled at the voice of him who called out, while the temple was filling with smoke. 5 Then I said,
"Woe is me, for I am ruined!,
Because I am a man of unclean lips,
And I live among a people of unclean lips;,
For my eyes have seen the King, the Lord of hosts."
One need only follow the pronouns and the verbs. Isaiah saw the glory of YHWH. There is only ONE time that Isaiah saw the glory of YHWH; its in Ish 6. John says that Isaiah saw "his" glory, the glory of Jesus. That Isaiah ALSO foretold the suffering and rejection of Christ is true but irrelevant. You are confusing what Isaiah foretold (Christ's suffering and rejection) with what he literally "saw" (the glory of YWHW).
The verb Isaiah used for "saw" in 6;1 is רָאָה ("ra'ah"). In the qal, it refers to the act of seeing in the literal sense, to see with the eyes (as opposed to, for example, מַחֲזֶה "machazeh", which is the act or event of an ecstatic "vision"). In referring to this event, John uses the Greek word εἶδον ("eidon") - also a verb referring to the act of seeing with the eyes in the natural sense.
We know that God the Father is invisible, "whom no man hath seen, nor can see" (1 Tim 6:16). He is transcendent and lives in unapproachable light (1 Tim 6:16). But the Son is "the image of the invisible God" (Col 1:15). Thus the one whom Isaiah "saw" in the literal sense with his eyes is the one whom he explicitly identified as "YHWH" - the same one whose glory he saw according to John (Jn 12:41). Jesus himself makes this clear at v.45 "And he that seeth me seeth him that sent me."
There is only ONE time when Isaiah saw someone he, speaking by the Holy Spirit identified as "YHWH", and John's spirit-inspired narrative of the interactions of Jesus with the Jews in the 11th and 12th chapter of his gospel, including their rejection of Christ, says that what Isaiah saw was HIS (ie Jesus') glory. This works in perfect harmony with John's whole purpose, given the FACT that John had previously identified the one who became flesh and dwelt among us (Jn 1:14) as "God" (Jn 1:1). Nowhere in the context of this narrative (ie Ch 12) does John speak of Christ's "glorification" in his rejection and crucifixion. To claim that this is what John was talking about in referring to what Isaiah SAW with his eyes ignores the grammar and the immediate context, including the clear and unmistakable words of Christ himself in that very context.
hope this helps !!
synergy
Active Member
Read Rev 3:21 again. The idea of Jesus sitting on the same throne of the Father does work because Jesus explicitly said "just as I overcame and sat down with My Father on His throne".
FreeInChrist
Active Member
To no one in particular..... and everyone in general.
1 Timothy 2:5
For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
I know of no Trinitarian that denies the distinction this verse makes. For myself... I embrace it.
#1... The verse is about economic or functional roles, not ontological essence
Fact....It’s talking about who does what in the work of redemption, not “who is God in essence.”
Fact....The Father is the one we are alienated from.
Fact.... The Son is the one who reconciles us to the Father.
Fact.... The Holy Spirit is the one who applies that reconciliation. This is classic Trinitarian “economy” (the roles in salvation), not a denial that Father, Son, and Spirit share the same divine being.
A mediator can be (and must be) both God and man To be a true mediator, Jesus has to be genuinely on both sides:
Fully human, to represent humanity and die as our substitute. And
Fully God so His death has infinite value and He can bring us all the way into the presence of God.
Ancient church fathers (Athanasius, Gregory of Nazianzus, Augustine, etc.) used this very logic: “What is not assumed is not healed.” Only God can reconcile man to God.
Paul himself calls Jesus “God” elsewhere .... very clearly
Romans 9:5 “…Christ, who is God over all, forever praised! Amen.” (most scholars take this as calling Jesus God)
Titus 2:13 “…our great God and Savior Jesus Christ” (Greek grammar forces “God and Savior” to refer to one person)
Philippians 2:6 ... Jesus existed “in the form of God” (morphē theou) and did not consider equality with God something to be grasped
Colossians 2:9 .... “In Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form”
Therefore I, and other Trin brothers and Sisters say “1 Timothy 2:5 is 100% true and beautiful, but it’s not the whole picture. It tells us Jesus’ role as mediator; other verses tell us His divine identity.”
For youu anti- Trins ....Yes, you are correct that 1 Timothy 2:5, taken in isolation, sounds very non-Trinitarian.
BUT.... “We don’t take verses in isolation. The same author (Paul) who wrote 1 Timothy 2:5 also wrote Titus 2:13 and Romans 9:5. The whole New Testament must be read together.”
This debate ultimately isn’t settled by 1 Timothy 2:5 alone ..... it’s one important piece in a much larger puzzle that has to be considered.
1 Timothy 2:5
For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
I know of no Trinitarian that denies the distinction this verse makes. For myself... I embrace it.
#1... The verse is about economic or functional roles, not ontological essence
Fact....It’s talking about who does what in the work of redemption, not “who is God in essence.”
Fact....The Father is the one we are alienated from.
Fact.... The Son is the one who reconciles us to the Father.
Fact.... The Holy Spirit is the one who applies that reconciliation. This is classic Trinitarian “economy” (the roles in salvation), not a denial that Father, Son, and Spirit share the same divine being.
A mediator can be (and must be) both God and man To be a true mediator, Jesus has to be genuinely on both sides:
Fully human, to represent humanity and die as our substitute. And
Fully God so His death has infinite value and He can bring us all the way into the presence of God.
Ancient church fathers (Athanasius, Gregory of Nazianzus, Augustine, etc.) used this very logic: “What is not assumed is not healed.” Only God can reconcile man to God.
Paul himself calls Jesus “God” elsewhere .... very clearly
Romans 9:5 “…Christ, who is God over all, forever praised! Amen.” (most scholars take this as calling Jesus God)
Titus 2:13 “…our great God and Savior Jesus Christ” (Greek grammar forces “God and Savior” to refer to one person)
Philippians 2:6 ... Jesus existed “in the form of God” (morphē theou) and did not consider equality with God something to be grasped
Colossians 2:9 .... “In Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form”
Therefore I, and other Trin brothers and Sisters say “1 Timothy 2:5 is 100% true and beautiful, but it’s not the whole picture. It tells us Jesus’ role as mediator; other verses tell us His divine identity.”
For youu anti- Trins ....Yes, you are correct that 1 Timothy 2:5, taken in isolation, sounds very non-Trinitarian.
BUT.... “We don’t take verses in isolation. The same author (Paul) who wrote 1 Timothy 2:5 also wrote Titus 2:13 and Romans 9:5. The whole New Testament must be read together.”
This debate ultimately isn’t settled by 1 Timothy 2:5 alone ..... it’s one important piece in a much larger puzzle that has to be considered.
Bible lexicons define Bible words what it means at the time it was used and can be served as evidence on interpretation.
Then how do you equate your mere opinion to those credentialed Bible lexicographers?
Debate points matters most when supported by evidence not just mere praise_yeshua's opinion.
I prefer doing it with evidence not just mere opinions.
Evidence holds water praise_yeshua, your opinions do not.
Do you interpret it again with your opinion praise_yeshua?
Can you prove your opinion with evidence, so we can discuss it more fully?
Can you support it with a verse where Jesus was in two location at the same time synergy?
Because on that verse Jesus didn't say, "I'll sit on both thrones."
Yes, and how do you understand the Father's throne in reference to Isa 66:1 Runingman?
Isa 66:1 Thus says the LORD: Heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool; so what kind of house could you build for me, what sort of place for me to rest?R1
Runningman
Active Member
Refers to the sitting next to the Father, i.e., the right hand of God. Can you show clearly where God and Jesus share the same throne? I mean, not one of the verses that ignores the context, but show where Jesus sat down on the throne of God instead of at the right hand of God.
Here, Runningman might answer to what you are asking.
Jesus sat down at the right hand of the throne of God.
Heb 12:2 fixing our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of faith, who for the joy set before Him endured the cross, despising the shame, and has sat down at the right hand of the throne of God.
synergy
Active Member
I can give you proof that Jesus is in billion places at the same time.
(Matthew 18:20) “For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them.”
(Matthew 28:20) “I am with you always, to the end of the age.”
Those statements require omnipresence. Christ is not restricted to one place since He is truly with all believers at all times.
synergy
Active Member
The only way Jesus can be at the right hand of the Father and not only the Father's Throne is if the Father's right hand has been amputated away. Unitarians are a bizarre bunch of people.
civic
Active Member
John 3:13
No one has ascended to heaven but He who came down from heaven, that is, the Son of Man who is in heaven.
FreeInChrist
Active Member
As you asked....
Rev 3:21‘He who overcomes, I will grant to him to sit down with Me on My throne, as I also overcame and sat down with My Father on His throne.
What this verse does prove.....
Jesus is not the FatherJesus does not originate authority independently
Jesus is granted exaltation
What this verse does not prove.....
It does not say
“Jesus is a created being”“Jesus is not divine in any sense”
“Jesus did not exist before His exaltation”
“Jesus shares nothing of God’s nature”
The verse is about authority and victory, not ontology.
This verse clearly shows distinction between Jesus and the Father, which I fully agree with.
But it does not address what Jesus is by nature — only how authority is exercised.
A distinction of persons does not, by itself, settle the question of deity.
Note that
If Revelation 3:21 proves Jesus is not divine because authority is given, then the same logic would mean:
Jesus is not Lord (Acts 2:36 — “God made Him Lord”)
Jesus is not King (Matt 28:18 — authority given)
Jesus is not Savior (Acts 5:31 — exalted to be Savior)
Yet Scripture still calls Him Lord, King, Savior.
So “given authority” does not equal “non-being”.
5. A balanced biblical position (no Trinity required)
@Runningman, do you know how to make a balanced biblical position ( with no Trinity required) ?The Father is the one God (1 Cor 8:6)
Jesus is distinct from the Father
Jesus is subordinate in role
Jesus is exalted, not self-appointed
Yet Jesus can still be:
Pre-existent (John 1:1–3)
God’s unique Son
The perfect image of God
Sharing divine glory by grant (John 17:5)
None of that requires the Nicene Trinity ..... but neither does it require reducing Jesus to merely a man.
Your verse of choice..... Rev 3:21
“This verse proves distinction and granted authority, not the absence of divine nature; it answers who Jesus is not, not what He is.”
amazing grace
Active Member
None of that requires the Nicene Trinity ..... but neither does it require reducing Jesus to merely a man.
And there you go people ....... that is the Trinitarian view of our Lord and Savior - if he's not God - he's NOTHING. To Unitarians scipture is clear . . . verse after verse says Jesus is a man, compares Jesus to humanity - Jesus even says he is a man. There is no mention of a God-man, no mention of a 'dual nature', no mention of prophecy saying that God was coming to earth as a man ----- all prophecy pointed to Jesus being a human being, a normal, natural human being. NOT a 'MERE MAN' but a man who entered the world through a virgin birth!!! - that in itself makes him not a 'mere man'. A man who lived his life submitting HIS will to that of his Father's . . . just from experience as a human being I KNOW HOW HARD it is to relinquish my will to that of my parents! Remember being a teen?!? YET He did it and if I can understand HIM then HE being my brother can emphasize with me having been in my shoes! He was tempted but never succumbed not because he was God, something none of us could live up to, but because of the power of the Spirit within him ---- He submitted in obedience.
Runningman
Active Member
So there is a right hand of the throne of God. Jesus was ordered to sit there after he was taken to heaven "until" the one who ordered him to sit there makes his enemies a footstool for his feet. Seeing it now?
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
Active Member
Revelation 3:21 doesn't clearly show Jesus is sharing the same throne of God because Jesus told believers to sit down there with him. If that makes them all God, then you have provided a powerful argument against trinitarianism. Now there is no trinity, but rather a pantheon of Gods. Don't go too far with your interpretations. The Bible puts up guardrails to steer you on the right course.
Similar threads
