So Jesus is not God?

[actsfourthirty]

Matt 2:11 And when they were come into the house, they saw the young child with Mary his mother, and fell down, and worshipped him: and when they had opened their treasures, they presented unto him gifts; gold, and frankincense and myrrh.

2:12 And being warned of God in a dream that they should not return to Herod, they departed into their own country another way.

They worshiped Jesus and only God can be worshiped!

Matt 5: 21 Ye have heard that it was said of them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment:

22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

Only God have the commandments only God can change them!

Matthew 8:26
And he saith unto them, Why are ye fearful, O ye of little faith? Then he arose, and rebuked the winds and the sea; and there was a great calm.

Only God has this power!

Matt 17:1 And after six days Jesus taketh Peter, James, and John his brother, and bringeth them up into an high mountain apart,

2 And was transfigured before them: and his face did shine as the sun, and his raiment was white as the light.

Only God!

John 11:25
Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live:

Only God can be this!

John 14:6
Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

Only God!



Duet 32:6
Matt 13:32 25:3-4
Lk 11:2
1 cor 15:24
Duet 6:4-5
Mk 12:29
1 Tim 2:5

Father

Jn 14:16-17
Jn 16:7-14
Acts 5:3-4
Acts 13:2-4
Acts 21:10-11

Son
Lk 1: 76 And thou, child, shalt be called the prophet of the Highest: for thou shalt go before the face of the Lord to prepare his ways;

77 To give knowledge of salvation unto his people by the remission of their sins,

Jn 1
Jn 20:28
Jn 8:58
Acts 20:28


The Father is God
Ephesians 4:6
One God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.

Psalm 68:5
Father of the fatherless and protector of widows is God in his holy habitation.

Malachi 2:10
Have we not all one Father? Has not one God created us? Why then are we faithless to one another, profaning the covenant of our fathers?

Isaiah 63:16
For you are our Father, though Abraham does not know us, and Israel does not acknowledge us; you, O Lord, are our Father, our Redeemer from of old is your name.

2 Corinthians 1:3-4
Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of mercies and God of all comfort, who comforts us in all our affliction, so that we may be able to comfort those who are in any affliction, with the comfort with which we ourselves are comforted by God.

John 3:16
“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.

John 8:41
You are doing the works your father did.” They said to him, “We were not born of sexual immorality. We have one Father—even God.”

1 Thessalonians 3:13
So that he may establish your hearts blameless in holiness before our God and Father, at the coming of our Lord Jesus.

Jesus is God
Isaiah 7:14
All right then, the Lord himself will give you the sign. Look! The virgin will conceive a child! She will give birth to a son and will call him Immanuel (which means 'God is with us').

Isaiah 9:6
For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

Matt. 4:7
Jesus said to him, “Again it is written, ‘You shall not put the Lord your God to the test.’”

John 1:1
In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the word was God.

John 1:3
ALL things were made by HIM (Jesus); and without him was not ANY thing made that was made.

John 8:58
Jesus said unto them, “Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I AM.”

John 10:30
“I and the Father are one."

John 15:9
Jesus answered: "Don't you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, 'Show us the Father'?

John 20:28
And Thomas answered and said unto him [Jesus], “My Lord and my God!”

Acts 5:3-4
Then Peter said, “Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit and have kept for yourself some of the money you received for the land? Didn’t it belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn’t the money at your disposal? What made you think of doing such a thing? You have not lied just to human beings but to GOD.

2 Corinthians 4:4
...lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.

Philippians 2:6
...Who [Jesus], being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
Colossians 2:9
...For in him [Jesus] dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily.

1 Timothy 3:16
And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

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

Titus 2:13
Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ

The Holy Spirit is God
John 14:16-18
And I will pray the Father, and He will give you *ANOTHER Helper, that He may abide with you forever -- the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees Him nor knows Him; but you know Him, for He dwells with you and will be in you. I will not leave you orphans; I will come to you.
*This word in Greek means, “another of the SAME kind.”

Luke 12:10
And everyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven.

2 Corinthians 3:17
Now the Lord IS the Spirit; and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.

2 Corinthians 13:5
Examine yourselves as to whether you are in the faith. Test yourselves. Do you not know yourselves, that JESUS CHRIST IS IN YOU?

John 14:23
Jesus replied: "If anyone loves me, he will obey my teaching. My Father will love him and WE will come to him and make OUR home with him.

Acts 5:3-4
But Peter said, "Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and keep back part of the price of the land for yourself? "While it remained, was it not your own? And after it was sold, was it not in your own control? Why have you conceived this thing in your heart? You have not lied to men but to GOD."

Trinity
It wasn't dogmatically defined until later - but ABSOLUTELY taught in Scripture
(Gen. 1:26, Matt. 28:19, John 15:26, 1 Cor. 12:4-6, 2 Cor. 13:14, 1 John 5:7, Eph. 4:6, Psalm 68:5, Mal. 2:10, Isa. 63:16, 2 Cor. 1:3-4, John 3:16, John 8:41, 1 Thess. 3:13, Isa. 7:14, Isa. 9:6, John 1:1, John 1:3, John 8:58, John 10:30, John 15:9, John 20:28, Acts 5:3-4, 2 Cor. 4:4, Phil. 2:6, Col. 2:9, 1 Tim. 3:16, Heb. 1:8, Tit. 2:13, John 14:16-18, Luke 12:10, 2 Cor. 3:17, 2 Cor. 13:5, John 14:23, Acts 5:3-4)

Trinity

61 The mystery of the Most Holy Trinity is the central mystery of the Christian faith and of Christian life. God alone can make it known to us by revealing himself as Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

262 The Incarnation of God's Son reveals that God is the eternal Father and that the Son is consubstantial with the Father, which means that, in the Father and with the Father the Son is one and the same God.

263 The mission of the Holy Spirit, sent by the Father in the name of the Son (Jn 14:26) and by the Son "from the Father" (Jn 15:26), reveals that, with them, the Spirit is one and the same God. "With the Father and the Son he is worshipped and glorified" (Nicene Creed).

264 "The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father as the first principle and, by the eternal gift of this to the Son, from the communion of both the Father and the Son" (St. Augustine, De Trin. 15, 26, 47: PL 42, 1095).

265 By the grace of Baptism "in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit", we are called to share in the life of the Blessed Trinity, here on earth in the obscurity of faith, and after death in eternal light (cf. Paul VI, CPG § 9).

266 "Now this is the Catholic faith: We worship one God in the Trinity and the Trinity in unity, without either confusing the persons or dividing the substance; for the person of the Father is one, the Son's is another, the Holy Spirit's another; but the Godhead of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit is one, their glory equal, their majesty coeternal" (Athanasian Creed: DS 75; ND 16).

267 Inseparable in what they are, the divine persons are also inseparable in what they do. But within the single divine operation each shows forth what is proper to him in the Trinity, especially in the divine missions of the Son's Incarnation and the gift of the Holy Spirit.

——-

He declares that He will come to be the judge of all men (Matthew 25:31). In Jewish theology the judgment of the world was a distinctively Divine, and not a Messianic, prerogative.
In the parable of the wicked husbandmen, He describes Himself as the son of the householder, while the Prophets, one and all, are represented as the servants (Matthew 21:33 sqq.).
He is the Lord of Angels, who execute His command (Matthew 24:31).
He approves the confession of Peter when he recognizes Him, not as Messias — a step long since taken by all the Apostles — but explicitly as the Son of God: and He declares the knowledge due to a special revelation from the Father (Matthew 16:16-17).
Finally, before Caiphas He not merely declares Himself to be the Messias, but in reply to a second and distinct question affirms His claim to be the Son of God. He is instantly declared by the high priest to be guilty of blasphemy, an offense which could not have been attached to the claim to be simply the Messias (Luke 22:66-71).
St. John's testimony is yet more explicit than that of the Synoptists. He expressly asserts that the very purpose of his Gospel is to establish the Divinity of Jesus Christ (John 20:31). In the prologue he identifies Him with the Word, the only-begotten of the Father, Who from all eternity exists with God, Who is God (John 1:1-18). The immanence of the Son in the Father and of the Father in the Son is declared in Christ's words to St. Philip: "Do you not believe, that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me?" (14:10), and in other passages no less explicit (14:7; 16:15; 17:21). The oneness of Their power and Their action is affirmed: "Whatever he [the Father] does, the Son also does in like manner" (5:19, cf. 10:38); and to the Son no less than to the Father belongs the Divine attribute of conferring life on whom He will (5:21). In 10:29, Christ expressly teaches His unity of essence with the Father: "That which my Father hath given me, is greater than all . . . I and the Father are one." The words, "That which my Father hath given me," can, having regard to the context, have no other meaning than the Divine Name, possessed in its fullness by the Son as by the Father.

 

[tigger2]

Matt 2:11 And when they were come into the house, they saw the young child with Mary his mother, and fell down, and worshipped him: and when they had opened their treasures, they presented unto him gifts; gold, and frankincense and myrrh.

2:12 And being warned of God in a dream that they should not return to Herod, they departed into their own country another way.

They worshiped Jesus and only God can be worshiped!

.........................................................
Worship (Proskuneo - Greek and shachah (Hebrew)

The Greek word proskuneo (or proskyneo) is defined in the 1971 trinitarian United Bible Societies' A Concise Greek-English Dictionary of the New Testament, p. 154: "[Proskuneo] worship; fall down and worship, kneel, bow low, fall at another's feet."

Even the trinitarian W. E. Vine writes in his An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, p. 1247:

"PROSKUNEO ... to make obeisance, do reverence to (from pros, towards, and kuneo, to kiss), is the most frequent word rendered 'to worship'. It is used for an act of homage or reverence (a) to God ...; (b) to Christ ...; (c) to a man, Matt. 18:26."

The Hebrew word most often translated "worship" is shachah.
Unger and White say of this word: "Shachah ... 'to worship, prostrate oneself, bow down.'" And, "The act of bowing down in homage done before a superior [in rank] or a ruler. Thus David 'bowed' himself [shachah] before Saul (1 Sam. 24:8). Sometimes it is a social or economic superior to whom one bows, as when Ruth 'bowed' [shachah] to the ground before Boaz (Ruth 2:10)." - Nelson's Expository Dictionary of the Old Testament, 1980, Thomas Nelson Publ., p. 482.

Perhaps the most famous Biblical Hebrew scholar of all, Gesenius, tells us in Gesenius' Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament, p. 813, (#7812), 'Shachah':

"(1) to prostrate oneself before anyone out of honor .... Those who used this mode of salutation fell on their knees and touched the ground with the forehead ..., and this honor was not only shown to superiors, such as kings and princes, 2 Sam. 9:8; but also to equals; Gen. 23:7."

At Rev. 3:9 Jesus shows the position of authority he will give to some of his human followers when he says he will make people "worship before thy feet." - KJV. The word used there is proskuneo! The ASV again adds this footnote: "The Greek word [proskuneo] denotes an act of reverence whether paid to a creature, or the Creator."

So we see that the king of Israel, for example, could receive proskuneo or shachah in his role as a representative of a higher authority (Jehovah), or he could receive it in recognition of his own earthly position of authority that God allowed him to have. For example, at 2 Sam. 14:22 Joab "worships" 'my Lord' (King David). The Hebrew word shachah translated in most places in the Bible as "worship" is here translated "did obeisance" in the RSV.

We see the same thing at 1 Kings 1:16, 31 when Bathsheba gives shachah to her husband and king, David. Not only does the Septuagint use proskuneo for these verses (3 Kings 1:16, 31 in Sept.), but at verses 21 and 31 she calls David, "The Lord of me" ("My Lord").

Proskuneo is given to a person who (1) represents someone else in a position of higher authority or (2) occupies a position of higher authority himself (e.g., a king). Sometimes, of course, we may find a person who may receive shachah/proskuneo for both of these reasons. 1 Chron. 29:20 tells us, “And all the assembly blessed Jehovah, the God of their fathers, and bowed down their heads and worshiped [shachah] Jehovah and the king [David].” - ASV - cf. Septuagint (proskuneo). The highest position of authority, of course, is that occupied by God (the Father, Jehovah, who alone is Most High - Ps. 83:18 - and who alone deserves worship [in the most high sense of that word].)

Most if not all of your trinity proofs have been defused many times on discussions such as this. I will attempt to answer them one at a time again, but my memory and energy level are waning faster than I like.

 

[tigger2]

[QUOTE="actsfourthirty, post: 7188510, member: 72314"
Jesus is God
Isaiah 7:14
All right then, the Lord himself will give you the sign. Look! The virgin will conceive a child! She will give birth to a son and will call him Immanuel (which means 'God is with us'). /QUOTE]

.........................................
Should Jesus really be considered to be God because he was symbolically “named” Immanuel (Is. 7:14; Mt. 1:23) which means “God is with us”? No more so than Gabriel was calling himself God when he visited Mary and declared: “The Lord is with thee” - Luke 1:28. Nor did Zacharias mean that John the Baptizer (his new son) was actually God when he was asked, “I wonder what this child [John] will turn out to be?”, and he answered, “Praise the Lord, the God of Israel, for he has come to visit his people and has redeemed them.” - Luke 1:66-68, LB.

Gabriel and Zacharias (Zechariah) meant exactly what Israelites have meant throughout thousands of years when saying “God is with us” and similar statements. They meant “God has favored us” or “God is helping us”! - Gen. 21:22; Ex. 18:19; Nu. 23:21; josh. 1:9; 1 Chron. 17:2; 2 chron. 1:1; 35:21; ezra 1:3; is. 8:10. And Joshua 1:17; 1 Samuel 10:7; 2 Chron. 15:2-4, 9 (cf., Jer. 1:8; Haggai 1:13).[3] But if we insist on trinitarian-type “proof,” then Gabriel must have meant that he (Gabriel) is God! And Zacharias (whose own name means ‘Jehovah is renowned’ - p. 678, TDOTB) must have meant that John the Baptizer is God! – Also see 1 Sam. 17:37; 2 Sam. 14:17; 1 Ki. 8:57; 1 Chron. 17:2; 22:18; 2 Chron. 36:23; Is. 41:10; Amos 5:14; Zech 8:23. (Also see “Immanuel” in the Insight books.)

This understanding is seen throughout the Bible. For example, “But if all prophesy, and an unbeliever or outsider enters, he is convicted by all, he is called to account by all, the secrets of his heart are disclosed; and so, falling on his face, he will worship God and declare that God is really among you.” - 1 Corinthians 14:24-25, RSV.

Or, in a Psalm many of us apply to ourselves or our friends:

4 Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil; for thou art with me - ASV.


The widely acclaimed trinitarian Bible dictionary, The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, 1986, Vol. 2, pp. 86, 87, states:

“The name Emmanuel [or Immanuel] which occurs in Isa. 7:14 and 8:8 means lit. ‘God [is] with us’ .... In the context of the times of Isaiah and King Ahaz the name is given to a child as yet not conceived with the promise that the danger now threatening Israel from Syria and Samaria will pass ‘before the child knows how to refuse evil and choose the good.’ Thus, the child and its name is a sign of God’s gracious saving presence among his people .... [The name Emmanuel] could be a general statement that the birth and naming of the special child will indicate that the good hand of God is upon us.” - p. 86. And, “The point of the present passage [Matt. 1:23] is to see in the birth of Jesus a saving act of God, comparable with the birth of the first Emmanuel. Both births signify God’s presence with his people through a child.” - p. 87.


Or as noted trinitarian scholar Murray J. Harris tells us:

“Matthew [in Matt. 1:23] is not saying, ‘Someone who is “God” is now physically with us,’ but ‘God is acting on our behalf in the person of Jesus.’” - p. 258, Jesus as God, Baker Book House, 1992. (emphasis added)

 

[tigger2]

Isaiah 9:6
For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

.........................................
Is. 9:6

All Christians, I believe, accept this son as being the Christ. Some will tell you that since the meaning of this symbolic name includes the words "Mighty God, Eternal Father," then Jesus is the Mighty God and the Eternal Father."

But there are at least two other ways this personal name has been interpreted by reputable Bible scholars. (1) The titles found within the name (e.g., "Mighty God") are intended in their secondary, subordinate senses. (2) The titles within the name are meant to praise God the Father, not the Messiah.

….

And second, another way competent Bible scholars have interpreted the meaning of this name is with the understanding that it (as with many, if not most, of the other Israelites' personal names) does not apply directly to the Messiah (as we have already seen with "Elijah," "Abijah," etc.) but is, instead, a statement praising the Father, Jehovah God.


Personal names in the ancient Hebrew and Greek are often somewhat cryptic to us today. The English Bible translator must fill in the missing minor words (especially in names composed of two or more Hebrew words) such as "my," "is," "of," etc. in whatever way he thinks best in order to make sense for us today in English.

For instance, two of the best Bible concordances (Young's and Strong's) and a popular trinitarian Bible dictionary (Today's Dictionary of the Bible) differ greatly on the exact meaning of many Biblical personal names because of those "minor" words which must be added to bring out the intended meaning.

Strong's Exhaustive Concordance, for example, says the name "Elimelech" (which is literally just "God King") means "God of (the) King." Young's Analytical Concordance says it means "God is King." Today's Dictionary of the Bible says it means " God his king" - p. 206, Bethany House Publ., 1982.

I haven’t found any scholar/translator who says the name of Elimelech should be translated with its literal meaning of “God King.”

Those missing minor words that the translator must supply at his own discretion can often make a vital difference! - For example, the footnote for Gen. 17:5 in The NIV Study Bible: The name 'Abram' "means `Exalted Father,' probably in reference to God (i.e., `[God is] Exalted Father')."- Brackets in original.

But perhaps most instructive of all is the name given to the prophet’s child in Isaiah 8:3 shortly before his giving the name found in Is. 9:6.

Is. 8:3
Maher-shalal-hash-baz: Literally, “spoil speeds prey hastes” or “swift booty speedy prey.” Translated by various Bible scholars as: “In making speed to the spoil he hasteneth the prey” - - “swift [is] booty, speedy [is] prey” - - “the spoil speeded, the prey hasteth” - - “Speeding for spoil, hastening for plunder” - - “There will soon be looting and stealing”- - “Speeding is the spoil, Hastening is the prey” - - “The Looting Will Come Quickly; the Prey Will Be Easy” - - “Take sway the spoils with speed, quickly take the prey” - - “Swift is the booty, speedy is the prey” - - “Swift the Spoils of War and Speedy Comes the Attacker” - - “Make haste to plunder! Hurry to the spoil!” - - “Make haste to the spoil; fall upon the prey.”

And John Gill wrote:

“‘hasten to seize the prey, and to take away the spoil.’ Some translate it, ‘in hastening the prey, the spoiler hastens’; perhaps it may be better rendered, ‘hasten to the spoil, hasten to the prey.’”

Therefore, the personal name at Is. 9:6 has been honestly translated as:

"And his name is called: Wonderful in counsel is God the Mighty, the everlasting Father, the Ruler of peace" - The Holy Scriptures, JPS Version (Margolis, ed.) to show that it is intended to praise the God of the Messiah who performs great things through the Messiah.

‘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, Counselor [IS] The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.’ The two letter word ‘is,’ is usually not stated in Hebrew. Rather, the ‘is’ is understood.” - https://edward-t-babinski.blogspot.com/2016/04/prophecy-about-jesus-mighty-god.html

The Leeser Bible also translates it:

“Wonderful, counsellor of the mighty God, of the everlasting Father, the prince of peace”

Also, An American Translation (by trinitarians Smith and Goodspeed) says:
"Wonderful counselor is God almighty, Father forever, Prince of peace."

From the Is. 9:6 footnote in the trinity-supporting NET Bible:

".... some have suggested that one to three of the titles that follow ['called'] refer to God, not the king. For example, the traditional punctuation of the Hebrew text suggests the translation, 'and the Extraordinary Strategist, the Mighty God calls his name, "Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace."'"

And,

‘Wonderful in counsel is God the mighty, the Everlasting Father, the Ruler of Peace’ (Hertz 1968).

Of course it could also be honestly translated: "Wonderful Counselor and Mighty God is the Eternal Father of the Prince of Peace."

And the Tanakh by the JPS, 1985, translates it:

[1]"The Mighty God is planning grace;
[2] The Eternal Father [is] a peaceable ruler."

This latter translation seems particularly appropriate since it is in the form of a parallelism. Not only was the previous symbolic personal name introduced by Isaiah at Is. 8:1 a parallelism ("Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz" means [1]"quick to the plunder; [2] swift to the spoil" - NIV footnote) but the very introduction to this Messianic name at Is. 9:6 is itself a parallelism: [1]"For unto us a child is born; [2] unto us a son is given." It would, therefore, be appropriate to find that this name, too, was in the form of a parallelism as translated by the Tanakh above.

So it is clear, even to a number of trinitarian scholars, that Is. 9:6 does not imply that Jesus is Jehovah God.

 

[Soapy]

.........................................
Is. 9:6

All Christians, I believe, accept this son as being the Christ. Some will tell you that since the meaning of this symbolic name includes the words "Mighty God, Eternal Father," then Jesus is the Mighty God and the Eternal Father."

But there are at least two other ways this personal name has been interpreted by reputable Bible scholars. (1) The titles found within the name (e.g., "Mighty God") are intended in their secondary, subordinate senses. (2) The titles within the name are meant to praise God the Father, not the Messiah.

….

And second, another way competent Bible scholars have interpreted the meaning of this name is with the understanding that it (as with many, if not most, of the other Israelites' personal names) does not apply directly to the Messiah (as we have already seen with "Elijah," "Abijah," etc.) but is, instead, a statement praising the Father, Jehovah God.


Personal names in the ancient Hebrew and Greek are often somewhat cryptic to us today. The English Bible translator must fill in the missing minor words (especially in names composed of two or more Hebrew words) such as "my," "is," "of," etc. in whatever way he thinks best in order to make sense for us today in English.

For instance, two of the best Bible concordances (Young's and Strong's) and a popular trinitarian Bible dictionary (Today's Dictionary of the Bible) differ greatly on the exact meaning of many Biblical personal names because of those "minor" words which must be added to bring out the intended meaning.

Strong's Exhaustive Concordance, for example, says the name "Elimelech" (which is literally just "God King") means "God of (the) King." Young's Analytical Concordance says it means "God is King." Today's Dictionary of the Bible says it means " God his king" - p. 206, Bethany House Publ., 1982.

I haven’t found any scholar/translator who says the name of Elimelech should be translated with its literal meaning of “God King.”

Those missing minor words that the translator must supply at his own discretion can often make a vital difference! - For example, the footnote for Gen. 17:5 in The NIV Study Bible: The name 'Abram' "means `Exalted Father,' probably in reference to God (i.e., `[God is] Exalted Father')."- Brackets in original.

But perhaps most instructive of all is the name given to the prophet’s child in Isaiah 8:3 shortly before his giving the name found in Is. 9:6.

Is. 8:3
Maher-shalal-hash-baz: Literally, “spoil speeds prey hastes” or “swift booty speedy prey.” Translated by various Bible scholars as: “In making speed to the spoil he hasteneth the prey” - - “swift [is] booty, speedy [is] prey” - - “the spoil speeded, the prey hasteth” - - “Speeding for spoil, hastening for plunder” - - “There will soon be looting and stealing”- - “Speeding is the spoil, Hastening is the prey” - - “The Looting Will Come Quickly; the Prey Will Be Easy” - - “Take sway the spoils with speed, quickly take the prey” - - “Swift is the booty, speedy is the prey” - - “Swift the Spoils of War and Speedy Comes the Attacker” - - “Make haste to plunder! Hurry to the spoil!” - - “Make haste to the spoil; fall upon the prey.”

And John Gill wrote:

“‘hasten to seize the prey, and to take away the spoil.’ Some translate it, ‘in hastening the prey, the spoiler hastens’; perhaps it may be better rendered, ‘hasten to the spoil, hasten to the prey.’”

Therefore, the personal name at Is. 9:6 has been honestly translated as:

"And his name is called: Wonderful in counsel is God the Mighty, the everlasting Father, the Ruler of peace" - The Holy Scriptures, JPS Version (Margolis, ed.) to show that it is intended to praise the God of the Messiah who performs great things through the Messiah.

‘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, Counselor [IS] The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.’ The two letter word ‘is,’ is usually not stated in Hebrew. Rather, the ‘is’ is understood.” - https://edward-t-babinski.blogspot.com/2016/04/prophecy-about-jesus-mighty-god.html

The Leeser Bible also translates it:

“Wonderful, counsellor of the mighty God, of the everlasting Father, the prince of peace”

Also, An American Translation (by trinitarians Smith and Goodspeed) says:
"Wonderful counselor is God almighty, Father forever, Prince of peace."

From the Is. 9:6 footnote in the trinity-supporting NET Bible:

".... some have suggested that one to three of the titles that follow ['called'] refer to God, not the king. For example, the traditional punctuation of the Hebrew text suggests the translation, 'and the Extraordinary Strategist, the Mighty God calls his name, "Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace."'"

And,

‘Wonderful in counsel is God the mighty, the Everlasting Father, the Ruler of Peace’ (Hertz 1968).

Of course it could also be honestly translated: "Wonderful Counselor and Mighty God is the Eternal Father of the Prince of Peace."

And the Tanakh by the JPS, 1985, translates it:

[1]"The Mighty God is planning grace;
[2] The Eternal Father [is] a peaceable ruler."

This latter translation seems particularly appropriate since it is in the form of a parallelism. Not only was the previous symbolic personal name introduced by Isaiah at Is. 8:1 a parallelism ("Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz" means [1]"quick to the plunder; [2] swift to the spoil" - NIV footnote) but the very introduction to this Messianic name at Is. 9:6 is itself a parallelism: [1]"For unto us a child is born; [2] unto us a son is given." It would, therefore, be appropriate to find that this name, too, was in the form of a parallelism as translated by the Tanakh above.

So it is clear, even to a number of trinitarian scholars, that Is. 9:6 does not imply that Jesus is Jehovah God.

Tigger2, fantastic answers - but have you considered that the poster you are replying to might just be a malicious computer bot just spewing out random posts to support the trinity ideology - and waste your time because, though you gave great answers, Satan can tempt us to waste time by presenting purposeless nonsense and watch us furiously spend hours replying while he laughs at our defending the truth! The truth that his servants, his children, his ‘image in flesh’ will simply ignore!!

 

[tigger2]

Tigger2, fantastic answers - but have you considered that the poster you are replying to might just be a malicious computer bot just spewing out random posts to support the trinity ideology - and waste your time because, though you gave great answers, Satan can tempt us to waste time by presenting purposeless nonsense and watch us furiously spend hours replying while he laughs at our defending the truth! The truth that his servants, his children, his ‘image in flesh’ will simply ignore!!

Good point! Thanks.

However, since I don't know for sure, I'll probably persist for a while.

 

[actsfourthirty]

.........................................
Is. 9:6

All Christians, I believe, accept this son as being the Christ. Some will tell you that since the meaning of this symbolic name includes the words "Mighty God, Eternal Father," then Jesus is the Mighty God and the Eternal Father."

But there are at least two other ways this personal name has been interpreted by reputable Bible scholars. (1) The titles found within the name (e.g., "Mighty God") are intended in their secondary, subordinate senses. (2) The titles within the name are meant to praise God the Father, not the Messiah.

….

And second, another way competent Bible scholars have interpreted the meaning of this name is with the understanding that it (as with many, if not most, of the other Israelites' personal names) does not apply directly to the Messiah (as we have already seen with "Elijah," "Abijah," etc.) but is, instead, a statement praising the Father, Jehovah God.


Personal names in the ancient Hebrew and Greek are often somewhat cryptic to us today. The English Bible translator must fill in the missing minor words (especially in names composed of two or more Hebrew words) such as "my," "is," "of," etc. in whatever way he thinks best in order to make sense for us today in English.

For instance, two of the best Bible concordances (Young's and Strong's) and a popular trinitarian Bible dictionary (Today's Dictionary of the Bible) differ greatly on the exact meaning of many Biblical personal names because of those "minor" words which must be added to bring out the intended meaning.

Strong's Exhaustive Concordance, for example, says the name "Elimelech" (which is literally just "God King") means "God of (the) King." Young's Analytical Concordance says it means "God is King." Today's Dictionary of the Bible says it means " God his king" - p. 206, Bethany House Publ., 1982.

I haven’t found any scholar/translator who says the name of Elimelech should be translated with its literal meaning of “God King.”

Those missing minor words that the translator must supply at his own discretion can often make a vital difference! - For example, the footnote for Gen. 17:5 in The NIV Study Bible: The name 'Abram' "means `Exalted Father,' probably in reference to God (i.e., `[God is] Exalted Father')."- Brackets in original.

But perhaps most instructive of all is the name given to the prophet’s child in Isaiah 8:3 shortly before his giving the name found in Is. 9:6.

Is. 8:3
Maher-shalal-hash-baz: Literally, “spoil speeds prey hastes” or “swift booty speedy prey.” Translated by various Bible scholars as: “In making speed to the spoil he hasteneth the prey” - - “swift [is] booty, speedy [is] prey” - - “the spoil speeded, the prey hasteth” - - “Speeding for spoil, hastening for plunder” - - “There will soon be looting and stealing”- - “Speeding is the spoil, Hastening is the prey” - - “The Looting Will Come Quickly; the Prey Will Be Easy” - - “Take sway the spoils with speed, quickly take the prey” - - “Swift is the booty, speedy is the prey” - - “Swift the Spoils of War and Speedy Comes the Attacker” - - “Make haste to plunder! Hurry to the spoil!” - - “Make haste to the spoil; fall upon the prey.”

And John Gill wrote:

“‘hasten to seize the prey, and to take away the spoil.’ Some translate it, ‘in hastening the prey, the spoiler hastens’; perhaps it may be better rendered, ‘hasten to the spoil, hasten to the prey.’”

Therefore, the personal name at Is. 9:6 has been honestly translated as:

"And his name is called: Wonderful in counsel is God the Mighty, the everlasting Father, the Ruler of peace" - The Holy Scriptures, JPS Version (Margolis, ed.) to show that it is intended to praise the God of the Messiah who performs great things through the Messiah.

‘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, Counselor [IS] The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.’ The two letter word ‘is,’ is usually not stated in Hebrew. Rather, the ‘is’ is understood.” - https://edward-t-babinski.blogspot.com/2016/04/prophecy-about-jesus-mighty-god.html

The Leeser Bible also translates it:

“Wonderful, counsellor of the mighty God, of the everlasting Father, the prince of peace”

Also, An American Translation (by trinitarians Smith and Goodspeed) says:
"Wonderful counselor is God almighty, Father forever, Prince of peace."

From the Is. 9:6 footnote in the trinity-supporting NET Bible:

".... some have suggested that one to three of the titles that follow ['called'] refer to God, not the king. For example, the traditional punctuation of the Hebrew text suggests the translation, 'and the Extraordinary Strategist, the Mighty God calls his name, "Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace."'"

And,

‘Wonderful in counsel is God the mighty, the Everlasting Father, the Ruler of Peace’ (Hertz 1968).

Of course it could also be honestly translated: "Wonderful Counselor and Mighty God is the Eternal Father of the Prince of Peace."

And the Tanakh by the JPS, 1985, translates it:

[1]"The Mighty God is planning grace;
[2] The Eternal Father [is] a peaceable ruler."

This latter translation seems particularly appropriate since it is in the form of a parallelism. Not only was the previous symbolic personal name introduced by Isaiah at Is. 8:1 a parallelism ("Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz" means [1]"quick to the plunder; [2] swift to the spoil" - NIV footnote) but the very introduction to this Messianic name at Is. 9:6 is itself a parallelism: [1]"For unto us a child is born; [2] unto us a son is given." It would, therefore, be appropriate to find that this name, too, was in the form of a parallelism as translated by the Tanakh above.

So it is clear, even to a number of trinitarian scholars, that Is. 9:6 does not imply that Jesus is Jehovah God.

Mk 1:
3 The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.

4 John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.

5 And there went out unto him all the land of Judaea, and they of Jerusalem, and were all baptized of him in the river of Jordan, confessing their sins.

6 And John was clothed with camel's hair, and with a girdle of a skin about his loins; and he did eat locusts and wild honey;

7 And preached, saying, There cometh one mightier than I after me, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to stoop down and unloose.

8 I indeed have baptized you with water: but he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost.

9 And it came to pass in those days, that Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized of John in Jordan.

10 And straightway coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens opened, and the Spirit like a dove descending upon him:

11 And there came a voice from heaven, saying, Thou art my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

Jesus is divine

 

[tigger2]

aft wrote:
Matt. 4:7
Jesus said to him, “Again it is written, ‘You shall not put the Lord your God to the test.’”
........................................
T2: If Jesus had jumped as Satan wanted, he would be testing his Father ["the Lord your God"] who had said He would send angels to save him from his fall.

 

[actsfourthirty]

Keep wiggling bro.

Acts 9:1And Saul, yet breathing out threatenings and slaughter against the disciples of the Lord, went unto the high priest,

2 And desired of him letters to Damascus to the synagogues, that if he found any of this way, whether they were men or women, he might bring them bound unto Jerusalem.

3 And as he journeyed, he came near Damascus: and suddenly there shined round about him a light from heaven:

4 And he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?

5 And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.


Matt 24:31 his angels
Jn 1:51 his angels
Jn 6:38 came down from heaven

Matt 2:11 And when they were come into the house, they saw the young child with Mary his mother, and fell down, and worshipped him: and when they had opened their treasures, they presented unto him gifts; gold, and frankincense and myrrh.

2:12 And being warned of God in a dream that they should not return to Herod, they departed into their own country another way.

They worshiped Jesus and only God can be worshiped!

Matt 5: 21 Ye have heard that it was said of them of old time, (by God) Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment:

22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

Only God have the commandments only God can change them!

Matthew 8:26
And he saith unto them, Why are ye fearful, O ye of little faith? Then he arose, and rebuked the winds and the sea; and there was a great calm.

Only God has this power!

Matt 17:1 And after six days Jesus taketh Peter, James, and John his brother, and bringeth them up into an high mountain apart,

2 And was transfigured before them: and his face did shine as the sun, and his raiment was white as the light.

Only God!

John 11:25
Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live:

Only God can be this!

John 14:6
Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

Only God!

 

[tigger2]

aft wrote:

“John 1:1

In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God.”

….…………………………


T2: It is far from surprising that trinitarian scholars would prefer the 'God' translation at John 1:1c and ignore any other honest alternate. However, notice this:


Trinitarian Greek expert, W. E. Vine, (although, for obvious reasons, he chooses not to accept it as the proper interpretation) admits that the literal translation of John 1:1c is: “a god was the Word”. - p. 490, An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, Thomas Nelson, Inc., 1983 printing.

Professor C. H. Dodd, director of the New English Bible project, also admits this is a proper literal translation:

“A possible translation [for John 1:1c] ... would be, ‘The Word was a god.’ As a word-for-word translation it cannot be faulted.” - Technical Papers for the Bible Translator, vol. 28, Jan. 1977.

The reason Prof. Dodd rejected “a god” as the actual meaning intended by John is simply because it upset his trinitarian interpretation of John’s Gospel!

Rev. J. W. Wenham wrote in his The Elements of New Testament Greek: “Therefore as far as grammar alone is concerned, such a sentence could be printed: θεὸς ἐστιν ὁ λόγος, which would mean either, ‘The Word is a god’, or, ‘The Word is the god’.” - p. 35, Cambridge University Press, 1965.

(Of course if you carefully, properly examine this study, you will find that the grammar really shows that ‘The Word is [or “was” in John 1:1c] a god’ is what John intended.)

Trinitarian NT scholar Prof. Murray J. Harris also admits that grammatically John 1:1c may be properly translated, ‘the Word was a god,’ but his trinitarian bias makes him claim that “John’s monotheism” will not allow such an interpretation. - p. 60, Jesus as God, Baker Book House, 1992. However, his acknowledgment of the use of “god” for men at John 10:34-36 and the use of “god/gods” for angels, judges, and other men in the Hebrew OT Scriptures contradicts his above excuse for not accepting the literal translation. - p. 202, Jesus as God.


And Dr. J. D. BeDuhn in his Truth in Translation states about John 1:1c:

“ ‘And the Word was a god.’ The preponderance of evidence from Greek grammar… supports this translation.” - p. 132, University Press of America, Inc., 2003.

Trinitarian Dr. Robert Young admits that a more literal translation of John 1:1c is “and a God (i.e. a Divine Being) was the Word” - p. 54, (‘New Covenant’ section), Young’s Concise Critical Bible Commentary, Baker Book House, 1977 printing.

And popular Bible scholar, author, and Bible translator, trinitarian Dr. William Barclay wrote: “You could translate [John 1:1c], so far as the Greek goes: ‘the Word was a God’; but it seems obvious that this is so much against the whole of the rest of the New Testament that it is wrong.” - p. 205, Ever yours, edited by C. L. Rawlins, Labarum Publ., 1985.

You see, in ancient times many of God’s servants had no qualms about using the word “god” or “gods” for godly men, kings, judges, and even angels.

New Testament Greek expert Joseph H. Thayer defines theos:

““θεός is used of whatever can in any respect be likened to God or resembles him in any way: Hebraistically, i.q. God’s representative or vicegerent, of magistrates and judges.” - p. 288, Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament.


To see the proof of John’s intended meaning of “a god” at John 1:1c, see my personal studies:

Examining the Trinity or Examining the Trinity: John 1:1c Primer - For Grammatical Rules That Supposedly "Prove" the Trinity

 

[Soapy]

Good point! Thanks.

However, since I don't know for sure, I'll probably persist for a while.

That’s fine… just hitting you up. I had to ‘ignore’ one poster that was a sure ‘bot’ after trying to reply to ‘it’s’ nonsense posts for ages. I made a complaint to the moderators but they refused to ban the ‘bot posts’ and then I saw another poster futily replying to the ‘bot’ not realising it.
But yes, reply and see if sense is forthcoming - if none, then select ‘ignore’ on that profile. It can still post but you won’t waste your time in seeing it and get a clearing post listing.

 

[Soapy]

"That which my Father hath given me, is greater than all . . . I and the Father are one." The words, "That which my Father hath given me," can, having regard to the context, have no other meaning than the Divine Name, possessed in its fullness by the Son as by the Father.

actsfourthirty, how are you claiming that Jesus is God when God gave Jesus what he has:

1. Life through the Holy Spirit of God
2. Power through being baptised by the Holy Spirit of God
3. Immortality by being raised up from the dead by the God of life, the Father
4. Glory by being seated next to GOD by GOD
5. Power and Authority from the Father
6. Rulership over creation by being Heir to God

How is the Heir to God, GOD that he is heir to?
Is a Prince, heir to the king, KING that he is heir to?

Are we not told that the power that Jesus had on earth was because he was EMPOWERED so by being ANOINTED with the Holy Spirit:

• “You know what has happened throughout the province of Judea, beginning in Galilee after the baptism that John preached--how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and power, and how he went around doing good and healing all who were under the power of the devil, because God was with him.” (Acts 10:37-38)

Was Jesus God before God anointed him WITH Holy Spirit and Power?

How is Jesus God AND has ‘God in him’?

 

[tigger2]

aft wrote:

John 8:58
Jesus said unto them, “Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I AM.”

............................................
Some trinitarians claim that Jesus was declaring himself to be Jehovah God because he said “I AM” (ego eimi [egw eimi] in the original NT Greek) at John 8:58.

Their reasoning goes like this: Exodus 3:14 in some English Bible translations has Jehovah God revealing himself as “I AM WHO I AM” and “I AM.” So, they say, Jesus’ statement at John 8:58 shows him revealing himself by the same exclusive title (name? description?) as Jehovah (“I AM” at Exodus 3:14) and, therefore, he is Jehovah God!

Furthermore, some of these trinitarians say, the Jews understood perfectly that Jesus was claiming to be Jehovah when he used those two words because they immediately took up stones to kill him.

But these Jews of Judea had already decided beforehand to kill Jesus! (John 7:1, 25) They needed no further incentives. Nothing that Jesus said or did at this point would have made any difference to them.

If the Jews had really understood the phrase “I AM” (ego eimi) to mean the speaker was claiming to be Jehovah and that they should therefore kill him, they would have immediately stoned Jesus at John 8:24 or :28. (The actual Greek in the ancient Bible manuscripts is identical to John 8:58, ego eimi, but many English Bible translations properly add “he” so that it can be understood as “I am he” in English.)

We know that even his disciples didn’t believe Jesus was God simply because he said ego eimi, for he identified himself to them with these very same words at John 6:20 (usually rendered into English as “It is I”), and their reaction was certainly not that of those who had come into the presence of God! - Cf. the parallel Matt. 14:27.

We should also know that the Jews didn't believe it either. Otherwise they would have immediately stoned the ex-blind man who identified himself to the Jews by saying ego eimi: John 9:9.

As for the charge that the Jews were going to stone him because he claimed to be God, we should be aware that the Jews stoned people for many offenses. For example, a person pretending to be a “wizard” was to be stoned to death according to the Law (Lev. 20:27 - KJV, RSV, ASV, LB). Today’s Dictionary of the Bible, 1982 ed., tells us

“Wizard, a pretender to supernatural knowledge and power .... such a one was forbidden on pain of death to practice his deceptions ... Lev. 20:26, 27.” - p. 654.

There are many other capital crimes including false prophecy and Sabbath breaking.

We also know that some of the Jews wanted Jesus killed for blasphemy because he admitted to being the Messiah (Christ) - see Matt 26:59-68 and footnotes for Matt 26:65 and Luke 22:71 in The NIV Study Bible, Zondervan Publ., 1985.

“But powerful forces in the Jewish congregation, jealous of his popularity, incensed by his denunciation of some of them, and bitterly critical of his disregard for formalism, his willingness to violate some of the minor laws of the Jews, and his heretical claim that he was the Son of God, repudiated him, conspired to kill him, saw him crucified, and after his death, persecuted his followers.” - The Portable World Bible, Viking Press, p. 230.

For more (including examination of Ex. 3:14) see my personal study:
Examining the Trinity: "I AM" - Part 1

 

[tigger2]

John 8:58 (Continued)

This instance of Jesus saying ego eimi convinced some of the Jews that he was claiming to be the Messiah (so they attempted to stone him to death on the spot). Later, Jesus was taken before the high priest and all the chief priests and questioned by them (Matt. 26:59-66; Mk 14:53-64; Luke 22:66-71).

Now if Jesus had really previously claimed to be God by saying ego eimi (or if the Jews had even thought he might have been making such a claim by saying those words), what questions would they have asked him now that they had him up before the highest Jewish court? Would they have asked “Are you the Christ?”? (Remember the Christ was not believed by the Jews to actually be God himself. - NIVSB f.n. for Mark 14:61.) Wouldn’t they have concentrated on “Do you claim to be God?”?

But what did they actually ask Jesus at this most important Jewish trial where the Jews were actually seeking to find a reason, no matter how false, to kill him? Even though they searched for any and all accusers, even false accusers (Matt. 26 59-60), to give them a reason to kill Jesus, no one accused him of claiming to be God!

“Now the chief priests and the whole Council kept trying to obtain false testimony against Jesus in order that they might put him to death; .... And the high priest said to him, ‘I adjure you by the living God, that you tell us whether you are the Christ, the Son of God.’” - Matt. 26:59, 63, NASB.

C’mon, be honest now! Could any honest person reasonably conclude that Jesus had claimed to be God at John 8:58 and that the deciding question at the Jews’ trial of Jesus would then be “are you the Christ?”

There is absolutely no suggestion that the Jews thought Jesus was calling himself God here! They asked no questions concerning such a thing. This is absolutely impossible if there could have been even a possibility that ego eimi at John 8:58 could mean the speaker was claiming to be God! Remember, this high court was looking for any reason to have Jesus killed!

But if his statement at John 8:58 could mean “I am the Christ,” what would these priests and chief priests have asked him? Just exactly what they did ask him: “Are you the Christ, the Son of God?”

Furthermore notice the reaction when Jesus admitted to being the Messiah: Matt. 26:65, 66!

 

[tigger2]

John 8:58 (Continued)

"I Have Been" as Translation for Present Tense ego eimi

Yes, the NWT (and a few others) renders John 8:58 as "before Abraham came into existence, I have been (perfect tense)." Here's why:
Trinitarian NT Greek scholar, Daniel B. Wallace wrote:

A. Extending-from-Past Present (Present of Past Action Still in Progress)

1. Definition

The present tense may be used to describe an action which, begun in the past, continues in the present. ....

.... It is different from the progressive present in that it reaches back in time and usually has some sort of temporal indicator, such as an adverbial phrase [such as ‘before Abraham came into existence’], to show this past-referring element. Depending on how tightly one defines this category, it is either relatively rare or fairly common.

2. Key to Identification

The key to this usage is normally to translate the present as an English present perfect. [And the presence of a ‘temporal indicator, such as an adverbial phrase, to show this past-referring element.’] Some examples might not fit such a gloss, however. [Wallace’s examples include Luke 13:7; Luke 15:29; John 5:6; 1 Jn 3:8.] - pp. 519-520, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, Zondervan, 1996. [As in all other cases, bracketed material and emphasis are added by me.]

Another NT scholar who verifies this is Kenneth L. McKay.

[["Kenneth L. McKay graduated with honours in Classics from the Universities of Sydney and Cambridge. He has taught Greek in universities and theological colleges in Nigeria, New Zealand, and England. Mr. McKay retired from the Australian National University in 1987, after teaching there for 26 years. His articles on ancient Greek syntax in various journals and his book on classical Greek Attic, Greek Grammar for Students, have helped draw attention to the aspectual functions of the verb in Greek from the time of Homer to well beyond that of the New Testament."-back cover of the book A New Syntax of the Verb in New Testament Greek, An Aspectual Approach.]]

McKay said in his book, A New Syntax of the Verb in New Testament Greek, An Aspectual Approach:

"Tense...4.2.4. Extension from Past. When used with an expression of either past time or extent of time with past implications (but not in past narrative, for which see 4.2.5), the present tense signals an activity begun in the past and continuing to the present time: Luke 13:7...Lu 15:29....Jn 14:9 [Tosouton khronon meth muoon eimi]..have I been with you so long...? ; Ac 27:33...Jn 8:58 [prin Abraam ego eimi], I have been in existence since before Abraham was born...."

Noted trinitarian NT grammarian A. T. Robertson also agrees with this understanding of the Greek present tense. He calls it “The Progressive Present” and tells us that such a present tense verb often

“has to be translated into English by a sort of ‘progressive perfect’ (‘have been’)...” - p. 879, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research.

G. B. Winer (“the great Greek grammarian of the 19th century” - Wallace) also tells us:

“Sometimes the Present includes also a past tense (mdv. 108), viz. when the verb expresses a state which commenced at an earlier period but still continues, - a state in its duration as, Jno. xv. 27 [Jn.15:27]..., viii. 58 [Jn 8:58].” - A Grammar of the Idiom of the New Testament, Andover, 1897, p. 267.

Blass and Debrunner also list the following as NT instances of present tense verbs indicating the duration of an act up to and including the present: Lk 13:7; 15:29; Jn [8:58] (eimi); 15:27 (este); 2 Cor. 12:19. - p. 168 (#322), A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, University of Chicago Press, 1961.

Even A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament by trinitarians Dana and Mantey confirms this understanding:

“b. The present [tense] approaches its kindred tense, the perfect, when used to denote the continuation of existing results [D&M’s emphasis in italics]. Here it refers to a fact which has come to be in the past, but is emphasized as a present reality, as we say, ‘I learn that you have moved’ (that is, information has come to me in the past which I now possess). ....

“To say that this use is ‘present for perfect’ (Gildersleeve: Syntax, p. 87) is not accurately representing the case. It does approach quite closely the significance of the perfect [tense - 'I have been'], but stresses the continuance [D&M’s emphasis] of results through present time which the perfect [tense] would not do, for the perfect stresses existence of results but not their continuance. [The ‘perfect indefinite tense’ in English, however, as we have seen, does allow for such an understanding of continuance - RDB.] To say [manthano auton elthein], ‘I learn that he has gone,’ has a force which is approximated only by ... ‘I have learned that he has gone’.

“c. Sometimes the progressive present [tense] is retroactive in its application, denoting that which has begun in the past and continues into the present. For the want of a better name, we may call it the present of duration. This use is generally associated with an adverb of time [as ‘from the beginning’ in Jn 15:27 and ‘before Abraham came into existence’ in John 8:58 which both act as ‘adverbs of time’ - RDB], and may best be rendered by the English perfect. [Examples of this usage as given by Dana and Mantey are Jn. 15:27 (literally in the NT Greek: ‘from beginning with me you are’ and usually rendered into English as: ‘you have been with me from the beginning’ - RSV); Lk. 13:7; 2 Cor. 12:9 - RDB].” - pp. 182, 183, The Macmillan Company, 30th printing, 1965. [material in brackets and most emphasis has been added by me]

 

[Soapy]

John 8:58 (Continued)

"I Have Been" as Translation for Present Tense ego eimi

Yes, the NWT (and a few others) renders John 8:58 as "before Abraham came into existence, I have been (perfect tense)." Here's why:
Trinitarian NT Greek scholar, Daniel B. Wallace wrote:

A. Extending-from-Past Present (Present of Past Action Still in Progress)

1. Definition

The present tense may be used to describe an action which, begun in the past, continues in the present. ....

.... It is different from the progressive present in that it reaches back in time and usually has some sort of temporal indicator, such as an adverbial phrase [such as ‘before Abraham came into existence’], to show this past-referring element. Depending on how tightly one defines this category, it is either relatively rare or fairly common.

2. Key to Identification

The key to this usage is normally to translate the present as an English present perfect. [And the presence of a ‘temporal indicator, such as an adverbial phrase, to show this past-referring element.’] Some examples might not fit such a gloss, however. [Wallace’s examples include Luke 13:7; Luke 15:29; John 5:6; 1 Jn 3:8.] - pp. 519-520, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, Zondervan, 1996. [As in all other cases, bracketed material and emphasis are added by me.]

Another NT scholar who verifies this is Kenneth L. McKay.

[["Kenneth L. McKay graduated with honours in Classics from the Universities of Sydney and Cambridge. He has taught Greek in universities and theological colleges in Nigeria, New Zealand, and England. Mr. McKay retired from the Australian National University in 1987, after teaching there for 26 years. His articles on ancient Greek syntax in various journals and his book on classical Greek Attic, Greek Grammar for Students, have helped draw attention to the aspectual functions of the verb in Greek from the time of Homer to well beyond that of the New Testament."-back cover of the book A New Syntax of the Verb in New Testament Greek, An Aspectual Approach.]]

McKay said in his book, A New Syntax of the Verb in New Testament Greek, An Aspectual Approach:

"Tense...4.2.4. Extension from Past. When used with an expression of either past time or extent of time with past implications (but not in past narrative, for which see 4.2.5), the present tense signals an activity begun in the past and continuing to the present time: Luke 13:7...Lu 15:29....Jn 14:9 [Tosouton khronon meth muoon eimi]..have I been with you so long...? ; Ac 27:33...Jn 8:58 [prin Abraam ego eimi], I have been in existence since before Abraham was born...."

Noted trinitarian NT grammarian A. T. Robertson also agrees with this understanding of the Greek present tense. He calls it “The Progressive Present” and tells us that such a present tense verb often

“has to be translated into English by a sort of ‘progressive perfect’ (‘have been’)...” - p. 879, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research.

G. B. Winer (“the great Greek grammarian of the 19th century” - Wallace) also tells us:

“Sometimes the Present includes also a past tense (mdv. 108), viz. when the verb expresses a state which commenced at an earlier period but still continues, - a state in its duration as, Jno. xv. 27 [Jn.15:27]..., viii. 58 [Jn 8:58].” - A Grammar of the Idiom of the New Testament, Andover, 1897, p. 267.

Blass and Debrunner also list the following as NT instances of present tense verbs indicating the duration of an act up to and including the present: Lk 13:7; 15:29; Jn [8:58] (eimi); 15:27 (este); 2 Cor. 12:19. - p. 168 (#322), A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, University of Chicago Press, 1961.

Even A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament by trinitarians Dana and Mantey confirms this understanding:

“b. The present [tense] approaches its kindred tense, the perfect, when used to denote the continuation of existing results [D&M’s emphasis in italics]. Here it refers to a fact which has come to be in the past, but is emphasized as a present reality, as we say, ‘I learn that you have moved’ (that is, information has come to me in the past which I now possess). ....

“To say that this use is ‘present for perfect’ (Gildersleeve: Syntax, p. 87) is not accurately representing the case. It does approach quite closely the significance of the perfect [tense - 'I have been'], but stresses the continuance [D&M’s emphasis] of results through present time which the perfect [tense] would not do, for the perfect stresses existence of results but not their continuance. [The ‘perfect indefinite tense’ in English, however, as we have seen, does allow for such an understanding of continuance - RDB.] To say [manthano auton elthein], ‘I learn that he has gone,’ has a force which is approximated only by ... ‘I have learned that he has gone’.

“c. Sometimes the progressive present [tense] is retroactive in its application, denoting that which has begun in the past and continues into the present. For the want of a better name, we may call it the present of duration. This use is generally associated with an adverb of time [as ‘from the beginning’ in Jn 15:27 and ‘before Abraham came into existence’ in John 8:58 which both act as ‘adverbs of time’ - RDB], and may best be rendered by the English perfect. [Examples of this usage as given by Dana and Mantey are Jn. 15:27 (literally in the NT Greek: ‘from beginning with me you are’ and usually rendered into English as: ‘you have been with me from the beginning’ - RSV); Lk. 13:7; 2 Cor. 12:9 - RDB].” - pp. 182, 183, The Macmillan Company, 30th printing, 1965. [material in brackets and most emphasis has been added by me]

Hi Tigger2,

The issue of Jesus so-called claiming to be God by saying ‘I Am’ is so wide of the mark that any attempt to explain it will draw the resin into delusional or disingenuous explanations…

The reason is that the Jews did not take up stones to stone Jesus because of Jesus saying ‘I Am’, but because he replied to the Jews that he was indeed greater than the[ir] forefather, Abraham.

The anger from the Jews stems from their question to Jesus:

• "You are not yet fifty years old," they said to him, "and you have seen Abraham!"
  • This means that they regarded Jesus as ‘TOO YOUNG’ to be ‘teaching them’. It has nothing to do with the actual age of fifty.
• “Are you greater than our Father, Abraham?’
  • THIS is the critical question which Jesus answered and the only thing that makes any sense!
• “Your father Abraham rejoiced at the thought of seeing my day; he saw it and was glad."
  • This is documented by an apostle but Trinitarians refuse to acknowledge it for their own sake!!!
• “Very truly I tell you," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I am!”

Tigger2, you know that the scriptures were translated by trinitarian scholars? They tried at every stage to mistranslate what they could that would suggest a trinity… obviously it was harder than it seems - and, in any case, GOD is wiser than we are, so the scriptures are designed to ‘heal its own wounds’ from those who try to hurt God’s word. All attempts to sway a verse or narrative away from the truth can be reconstructed from other verses and narratives elsewhere. Look on it like this:

• Mankind stores data and other information in a coded form such that if any part of the original gets messed up or attempted illegal modifications made, the errored parts can be reconstructed back from multiple stored copies. Truly, if mankind can do this, should we expect that almighty God, the image of which we are, to be any less wise and not protect his word? Of course not!

So, breaking it down. The Jews are astonished at Jesus’ teachings and authority about the ancestors because of Jesus’ young age. He assures them that the words he speaks will give them eternal life but they are angered:

• “At this they exclaimed, "Now we know that you are demon-possessed! Abraham died and so did the prophets, yet you say that whoever obeys your word will never taste death.!”

Now they ask?

• Are you greater than our father Abraham? He died, and so did the prophets. Who do you think you are?"

Jesus again assures them that the glory of his authority comes from his Father, God. God, his Father, whom, like a dutiful son, he obeys.

All this emphasises that Jesus is in no way calling himself ‘God’… He calls ‘God’ his Father, and he states that he obeys his Father… how can that be calling himself the God that he is and obeys (truly, the trinity ‘god’ is a conundrum!)

Jesus then semi-quotes the scriptures, which relates Abraham saying about him:

• “Your father Abraham rejoiced at the thought of seeing my day; he saw it and was glad."

Again, this is documented to qualify Jesus’ claim. But Trinitarians go out if their way to both not consider it nor acknowledge it when it is presented to them.

• “You are not yet fifty years old and you have seen Abraham”, the Jews exclaim!

What does this mean….!!! It is sure that the Jews didn’t mean that Jesus was to have seen Abraham who died thousands of years earlier. No! What it means is,:

• ‘What do you, a man less than our age of authority in the Torah, know about our ancestors Abraham!?’

So the argument here is about GREATNESS.

Jesus tell than that he was prophesied to be great from before Abraham [was even born]:

• "Very truly I tell you," Jesus answered, "before Abraham [was born], I am!"

HOW, HOW, HOW… does Jesus saying he was prophesied from before Abraham, which even Abraham himself prophesied about, translate into a conversation about Jesus being ALMIGHTY GOD simply, as you pointed out, from the self identification, ‘I Am’?

Only a desperate mind could make such a link, and considering all the other times Jesus, and EVERYONE ELSE WHO SPEAKS A LANGUAGE says, ‘I AM’. And I also point out the man born blind who also says, ‘I AM’, but no one took up stones to stone him….! And in the garden when Jesus says, ‘I am’… yes, you guess right, the crowd fell down believing they were about to arrest and kill their creator Father and ALMIGHTY GOD?!!!??!!!

Here are some hints to the proper meaning:

• What did John the Baptist say about Jesus….
• ‘He is greater than i because he is BEFORE me!’ Yet we know from scriptures that John was six month older than Jesus… (the purpose of us knowing about John being older is pointless unless you link it to the Jesus/Abraham argument)
• What does ‘BEFORE’ mean
  • ‘I am BEFORE Abraham’

 

[Soapy]

It is an assured thing then that Jesus could not possibly be calling himself ‘God’ when he had only just told the Jews that GOD IS HIS FATHER and that he was doing what HIS FATHER had authorised and taught him to do… making him a ‘Son of God’.

This comes through loud and clear in another incident where the Jews (according to the translated scriptures) were claiming Jesus was calling himself ‘God’. But if you notice carefully, if was NOT THE JEWS that made that claim but an anonymous addition:

• “Making him equal to God”.

I created a post asking how this is considered (if being the son of God makes one equal to God) and the complete consensus is that there was no such concept among the Jews… funny, eh!!

 

[John1.12]

Really?

John 3:16...For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son...."(NASB)

And Jesus was willing to die for us; he wasn't forced to.

Jehovah didn't provide a stranger as a sacrifice...it was His First-born Son! That is love for us!

Did you ever read "The Turntable Bridge"?

Is that a literal first born Son ? Ive never heard a logical answer to this question from JW,s

 

[Soapy]

Is that a literal first born Son ? Ive never heard a logical answer to this question from JW,s

Dear readers…. Believe the truth:

• ‘Only begotten Son’ has NOTHING to do with the order of physical birth

God ADOPTED Jesus as a Holy Sinless, and Righteous human created Being made in his, God’s image:

• “This day I have become your Father, and you have become my Son” (Hebrews 5:5)

Trinitarians will naturally ignore this verse because it declares an adoption to the Father of the Son.

Almighty God created a man in his image - he created ADAM and put the nature of God in him - and if Adam were to follow in the nature of his creator Father then Adam would also be truly, a Son of God. And, indeed, until sin entered him, Adam was ‘Son of God’ (Luke 3:38).

Note that BOTH Adam and Jesus were created by means of the Holy Spirit and as such were not subject to the sinful nature of a human procreation, therefore they were both HOLY, SINLESS, AND RIGHTEOUS and followed in all that their Father, God, showed, directed, and commanded them… and they were both tempted to uphold these aspects of Sonship except that Adam failed… hence Jesus was created.

However, Jesus, did not fall to sin even when tested under the most extreme of circumstances and God was pleased with him, declaring that Jesus was truly his Son in nature.

Literal son…. No!

• God does not PROCREATE…
• God is SPIRIT…
• Spirit only CREATES…
• Man is a CREATION of God…
• In humanity, Man PROCREATES (like from like!)

Jesus is the IMAGE of God. ‘Image’ means ‘Nature’… But an IMAGE is not the thing it is an image of… (why is that so hard to understand!! If I ask for an example of an image being what it is an image of no one would answer yet Trinitarians keep saying Jesus is God because he is the image of God!!! Yikes!! But then ask them why scriptures says that MAN WAS MADE IN THE IMAGE OF GOD but trinity says they are not God!)

 

[John1.12]

Dear readers…. Believe the truth:

• ‘Only begotten Son’ has NOTHING to do with the order of physical birth

God ADOPTED Jesus as a Holy Sinless, and Righteous human created Being made in his, God’s image:

• “This day I have become your Father, and you have become my Son” (Hebrews 5:5)

Trinitarians will naturally ignore this verse because it declares an adoption to the Father of the Son.

Almighty God created a man in his image - he created ADAM and put the nature of God in him - and if Adam were to follow in the nature of his creator Father then Adam would also be truly, a Son of God. And, indeed, until sin entered him, Adam was ‘Son of God’ (Luke 3:38).

Note that BOTH Adam and Jesus were created by means of the Holy Spirit and as such were not subject to the sinful nature of a human procreation, therefore they were both HOLY, SINLESS, AND RIGHTEOUS and followed in all that their Father, God, showed, directed, and commanded them… and they were both tempted to uphold these aspects of Sonship except that Adam failed… hence Jesus was created.

However, Jesus, did not fall to sin even when tested under the most extreme of circumstances and God was pleased with him, declaring that Jesus was truly his Son in nature.

Literal son…. No!

• God does not PROCREATE…
• God is SPIRIT…
• Spirit only CREATES…
• Man is a CREATION of God…
• In humanity, Man PROCREATES (like from like!)

Jesus is the IMAGE of God. ‘Image’ means ‘Nature’… But an IMAGE is not the thing it is an image of… (why is that so hard to understand!! If I ask for an example of an image being what it is an image of no one would answer yet Trinitarians keep saying Jesus is God because he is the image of God!!! Yikes!! But then ask them why scriptures says that MAN WAS MADE IN THE IMAGE OF GOD but trinity says they are not God!)

Its three whos in one what . The 'what is where you are stumbling on .