• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Is Deuteronomy 18:18 Jesus?

Skywalker

Well-Known Member
Let me say it again – there’s NOT a single verse in the whole Bible that unequivocally said the Angel of the Lord is Jesus – this fact can only mean the belief that the Angel of the Lord is Jesus, is only based on assumption, just like most of the other Trinitarians’ beliefs. The fact is Jesus was not in existence throughout the OT although he’s already in God’s Mind and Plan, and he only came into existence when God formed him in the womb of Mary (Matthew 1:18).

Still, the question is why would the Trinitarian preachers preach that the Angel of the Lord is Jesus ? The answer is quite obvious – since the Trinitarians also assume and believe that Jesus is God and at the same time a distinctive human (incarnated, no less) who is co-equal and co-eternal with God from the beginning of time, but yet Jesus was never unequivocally mentioned in the Old Testament, so the only way to make people believe that Jesus is pre-existent with God is to preach Jesus is with God from the beginning of time as the Angel of the Lord !!

And if you refer to the folks at GotQuestions.org (which, of course, you did), they will say “The angel of the Lord speaks as God, identifies Himself with God, and exercises the responsibilities of God”, therefore, God must also be the Angel of the Lord !! Well, what can I say but simply pure assumptions without a single scriptural evidence !!


Then, you might ask, if the Angel of God is not God, why did the Angel of the Lord speaks as God, identifies itself with God and did exercise the responsibilities of God, and sometimes even addressed to as God or the Lord?? Well, to know that first, you need to understand that angels, or anyone who are sent by God, are agents of God. Second, you need to understand the Jewish Law of agency. According to the Jewish understanding of agency, THE AGENT WAS REGARDED AS THE PERSON HIMSELF. This is well documented in The Encyclopedia of the Jewish Religion:

Agent (Heb. Shaliah): The main point of the Jewish law of agency is expressed in the dictum, “a person’s agent is regarded as the person himself” (Ned. 72b; Kidd. 41b). Therefore any act committed by a duly appointed agent is regarded as having been committed by the principal, who therefore bears full responsibility for it with consequent complete absence of liability on the part of the agent.

In Exodus 4:16, God told Moses his brother, Aaron will speak for Moses as if Moses was speaking. Likewise, the Angel of the Lord was also speaking for God as if God was speaking Himself.

By the way, can you find any verse in the whole Bible where God made Jesus God to anyone ??? Well, in Exodus 7:1, Moses was made God to Pharaoh and Aaron, his prophet. In Exodus 4:16, Moses is God to Aaron. Yet, Trinitarians, without any scriptural evidence, but merely conjectures and assumptions, make claim Jesus is God and also the Angel of the Lord !! UNBELIEVABLE !!

The term Trinity is not be mentioned in the Bible but the term Godhead is. Colossians 2:9

For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. The word Trinity is not found in the Bible | carm.org

Some critics of the Trinity doctrine claim that since the word “trinity” is not found in the Bible, it isn’t true. Furthermore, some assert that if God wanted us to believe in the Trinity, He would have stated the doctrine clearly.

First of all, it is illogical to claim that since the word “Trinity” is not found in the Bible, that its concept is not taught therein. This kind of objection usually demonstrates a prejudice against the teaching of the Trinity. Instead, the person should look to God’s word to see if it is taught or not.

Second, there are many biblical concepts that people believe in that don’t have a specific word describing them used in the Bible. For example, the word “Bible” is not found in the Bible, but we use it anyway to describe the Bible. Likewise, “omniscience” which means “all-knowing,” “omnipotence” which means “all-powerful,” and “omnipresence” which means “present everywhere,” are words not found in the Bible either, but we use them to describe the attributes of God. We don’t have to see a specific word in the Bible in order for the concept it describes to be true. Why should this be any different for the word “Trinity” and the concept that it represents?

The following are other words that the Bible does not use, but the concepts are mentioned:

  • Atheism is the teaching that there is no God. “The fool has said in his heart, ‘There is no God'” (Psalm 14:1).(see atheism)
  • Divinity which means divine quality or godlike character. Yet, we speak of the godlike quality of the Lord God. See Psalm 139.
  • Incarnation which means the word (God) who became flesh. Yet, this is definitely taught in the Bible (John 1:1, 14).
  • Monotheism is the teaching that there is only one God (Isaiah 43:10; 44:8).
  • Rapture is the teaching that the Christians who are alive when Jesus returns will be caught up to meet Him in the air (1 Thess. 4:16-18).
So, to say that the Trinity isn’t true because the word “Trinity” isn’t in the Bible is an invalid argument. Furthermore, to say that–if God wanted us to believe in the Trinity He would have clearly taught it in scripture–is also an invalid argument. Something does not have to be clearly formulated in the Bible to be valid. Not all things taught in the Bible are perfectly clear. Take a look at the book of Revelation. It contains many things that are cryptic that must be interpreted after examining all of the Bible. Even then, there are disagreements as to what some things mean. Yet, we know that the truths there are true whether or not we discover them.
 

JerryMyers

Active Member
The term Trinity is not be mentioned in the Bible but the term Godhead is. Colossians 2:9
For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. The word Trinity is not found in the Bible | carm.org
It’s NOT about whether it’s mentioned in the Bible or not, it’s about whether it’s preached by any prophet of God, including Jesus. The term trinity is not in the Bible nor is the concept because it’s NOT divine preaching but it’s a man-made concept and that’s why Jesus nor any prophet of God, ever preached trinity in their respective lifetime.

As for the term ‘Godhead’, the question you should be asking is “did Jesus himself ever once mention ‘Godhead’ in any of his preaching or in his interactions with the disciples ???

Clearly, by yourself, you don’t have any understanding of your own belief and that’s why you keep posting links in your responses, with the hope that the ‘links’ can ‘clarify’ on your behalf. Unfortunately, the links you provided (to carm.org, GotQuestions.org, answering-islam.org, etc) do NOT provide any real scriptural evidence of the Trinitarians’ claim, but just conjectures and assumptions. In other words, you only have conjectures and assumptions of other people to hang on to your traditional Trinitarian belief.
 

Skywalker

Well-Known Member
It’s NOT about whether it’s mentioned in the Bible or not, it’s about whether it’s preached by any prophet of God, including Jesus. The term trinity is not in the Bible nor is the concept because it’s NOT divine preaching but it’s a man-made concept and that’s why Jesus nor any prophet of God, ever preached trinity in their respective lifetime.

As for the term ‘Godhead’, the question you should be asking is “did Jesus himself ever once mention ‘Godhead’ in any of his preaching or in his interactions with the disciples ???

Clearly, by yourself, you don’t have any understanding of your own belief and that’s why you keep posting links in your responses, with the hope that the ‘links’ can ‘clarify’ on your behalf. Unfortunately, the links you provided (to carm.org, GotQuestions.org, answering-islam.org, etc) do NOT provide any real scriptural evidence of the Trinitarians’ claim, but just conjectures and assumptions. In other words, you only have conjectures and assumptions of other people to hang on to your traditional Trinitarian belief.

Jesus mentioned the Godhead. What is the Godhead? | GotQuestions.org

Because the Godhead dwells bodily in Christ, Jesus could rightly claim that He and the Father are “one” (John 10:30). Because the fullness of God’s divine essence is present in the Son of God, Jesus could say to Philip, “Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father” (John 14:9).

In summary, the Godhead is the essence of the Divine Being; the Godhead is the one and only Deity. Jesus, the incarnate Godhead, entered our world and showed us exactly who God is: “No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God and is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known” (John 1:18; cf. Hebrews 1:3).

A lot of concepts are mentioned in the Bible without the word for it being mentioned. That is why Jesus didn't use the term Godhead in the Bible. The word Trinity is not found in the Bible | carm.org

The following are other words that the Bible does not use, but the concepts are mentioned:

  • Atheism is the teaching that there is no God. “The fool has said in his heart, ‘There is no God'” (Psalm 14:1).(see atheism)
  • Divinity which means divine quality or godlike character. Yet, we speak of the godlike quality of the Lord God. See Psalm 139.
  • Incarnation which means the word (God) who became flesh. Yet, this is definitely taught in the Bible (John 1:1, 14).
  • Monotheism is the teaching that there is only one God (Isaiah 43:10; 44:8).
  • Rapture is the teaching that the Christians who are alive when Jesus returns will be caught up to meet Him in the air (1 Thess. 4:16-18).
 

JerryMyers

Active Member
Jesus mentioned the Godhead. What is the Godhead? | GotQuestions.org

A lot of concepts are mentioned in the Bible without the word for it being mentioned. That is why Jesus didn't use the term Godhead in the Bible. The word Trinity is not found in the Bible | carm.org
To know the truth of God in the scripture is to really understand what the prophets of God, including Jesus, said and preached in their respective lifetime, NOT on the likes of what Paul, GotQuestions.org, carm.org, said.

As I said before, by yourself, you don’t have any understanding of your own belief. You are too dependent on the conjectures and assumptions of other people. In fact, from your comments, you don’t even know what to believe – first you said “Jesus mentioned the Godhead” and then, you said “That is why Jesus didn’t use the term Godhead” – so, did Jesus ever mention/use the term Godhead or not ? Or is your answer dependent on whether you are reading from GotQuestions.org or carm.org ??
 

Skywalker

Well-Known Member
To know the truth of God in the scripture is to really understand what the prophets of God, including Jesus, said and preached in their respective lifetime, NOT on the likes of what Paul, GotQuestions.org, carm.org, said.

As I said before, by yourself, you don’t have any understanding of your own belief. You are too dependent on the conjectures and assumptions of other people. In fact, from your comments, you don’t even know what to believe – first you said “Jesus mentioned the Godhead” and then, you said “That is why Jesus didn’t use the term Godhead” – so, did Jesus ever mention/use the term Godhead or not ? Or is your answer dependent on whether you are reading from GotQuestions.org or carm.org ??

Matthew 12:28
“But if I [Jesus] cast out demons by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God has come upon you.”

Matthew 28:19
“Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit . . .”

Luke 3:22
“And the Holy Spirit descended upon Him [Jesus] in bodily form like a dove, and a voice came out of heaven, “You are My [the Father’s] beloved Son, in You I am well-pleased.”

John 14:26
“But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My [Jesus’] name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you.”

John 15:26
“When the Helper comes, whom I [Jesus] will send to you from the Father, that is the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify about Me . . .”

Acts 1:4
“Gathering them together, He [Jesus] commanded them not to leave Jerusalem, but to wait for what the Father had promised, “Which,” He said, “you heard of from Me . . .”
 

JerryMyers

Active Member
Matthew 12:28
“But if I [Jesus] cast out demons by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God has come upon you.”

Matthew 28:19
“Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit . . .”

Luke 3:22
“And the Holy Spirit descended upon Him [Jesus] in bodily form like a dove, and a voice came out of heaven, “You are My [the Father’s] beloved Son, in You I am well-pleased.”

John 14:26
“But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My [Jesus’] name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you.”

John 15:26
“When the Helper comes, whom I [Jesus] will send to you from the Father, that is the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify about Me . . .”

Acts 1:4
“Gathering them together, He [Jesus] commanded them not to leave Jerusalem, but to wait for what the Father had promised, “Which,” He said, “you heard of from Me . . .”
You want to explain how the above verses (especially those spoken by Jesus) you quoted are interpreted as Jesus is God or Angel of God or Jesus preaching trinity and what have you ??? Quoting verses from the scripture don’t make you right, so, don’t quote verses just for the sake of quoting, anyone can do that.
 

Skywalker

Well-Known Member
You want to explain how the above verses (especially those spoken by Jesus) you quoted are interpreted as Jesus is God or Angel of God or Jesus preaching trinity and what have you ??? Quoting verses from the scripture don’t make you right, so, don’t quote verses just for the sake of quoting, anyone can do that.

Jesus mentioned the Trinity in those verses. Was the Holy Trinity Invented in the Fourth Century?

Was the Holy Trinity Invented in the Fourth Century?

Was the Holy Trinity ‘invented’ in the fourth century? Sceptics, and sadly some liberal theologians, claim that the Holy Trinity was invented in the fourth century, during the council of Nicaea in 325 A.D. No, the Holy Trinity was not ‘invented’ in the fourth century. The Holy Trinity was not a later addition or invention of the church. See the truth below and let truth set you free (John 8:32).

The Holy Trinity at the annunciation
The first revelation of the Holy Trinity is at the annunciation. The angel Gabriel appeared to Mary with good news that God chose to assume a human form. This is how Luke describes the event:

“You will be with child and give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus. He will be great and will be called the Son of Most High (Luke 1:31, 32)……..The angel answered, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So, the Holy one to be born will be called the Son of God” (Luke 1:36)
 

JerryMyers

Active Member
Jesus mentioned the Trinity in those verses.
You call that an explanation ???! I ask you to explain ‘how the above verses (especially those spoken by Jesus) you quoted are interpreted as Jesus is God or Angel of God or Jesus preaching trinity and what have you', and your ‘explanation’ is ‘Jesus mentioned the trinity in those verses’ ???! That’s NOT an explanation – that’s a statement !!
Try again ! ....And this time try to explain instead of making baseless statements !!


Was the Holy Trinity Invented in the Fourth Century?
You're kidding me, right ???
 

Skywalker

Well-Known Member
You call that an explanation ???! I ask you to explain ‘how the above verses (especially those spoken by Jesus) you quoted are interpreted as Jesus is God or Angel of God or Jesus preaching trinity and what have you', and your ‘explanation’ is ‘Jesus mentioned the trinity in those verses’ ???! That’s NOT an explanation – that’s a statement !!
Try again ! ....And this time try to explain instead of making baseless statements !!


You're kidding me, right ???

Jesus is not an angel. Jesus is God incarnated. Answering Judaism: The Angel of the Lord

The Angel of the Lord This is often a point of contention among many people, whether they be Jew, Christian, Muslim or who else. It has long been believed by the church that this mysterious entity is Jesus Christ in his prehuman existence. Justin Martyr himself not only identifies Christ as such in his Dialogue with Trypho the Jew, he identifies Jesus as the LORD of hosts. Most Jews would object to the idea of God taking on human flesh with verses like Numbers 23:19, Hosea 11:9 and other passages, same with cult groups and Muslims. Although none of these passages actually deal with what Trinitarians believe. Yes, God is not a man, but that doesn't mean he cannot take on human flesh and not cease being God (to point of fact the context of those verse deal with God's trustworthiness that he will not lie).

Biblical Christianity believes, that God the Son came down and took on flesh, but did not cease being God in heaven. The Father is not the Son, The Son is not the Spirit and the Spirit is not the Father. I had a conversation with Funkdude regarding the Trinity and of course went to some relevant texts like Genesis 18 and Genesis 22. I said to him about Genesis 22 being argued 2 ways, that the angel is God or he is the representative. But I forgot that I am a Trinitarian, not a Unitarian.

After contemplating on Genesis 22, I remembered that the members of the Godhead, specifically the Son and the Spirit can speak on behalf of the Father in heaven. In other words, Genesis 22 still confirms to my realisation that it doesn't refute my position on the Angel of the LORD as God. First of all, Jesus is not the Father, he is distinct from the Father, that is first an foremost. Furthermore, it is important to remember that even though the Angel of the LORD speaks on behalf of the LORD, that is not what makes him God, it's when someone identifies himself as such.
 
Last edited:

JerryMyers

Active Member
Jesus is not an angel. Jesus is God incarnated. Answering Judaism: The Angel of the Lord
In Post #146, I am asking you to explain ‘how the above verses (especially those spoken by Jesus) you quoted are interpreted as Jesus is God or Angel of God or Jesus preaching trinity and what have you’ and your first ‘explanation’ is ‘Jesus mentioned the trinity in those verses’ (Post #147)! Now, you are responding to the same question with ‘Jesus is not an angel. Jesus is God incarnated’ ???!! Then doing the only thing you know – gave yet another link hoping the link will ‘speaks’ for you… don’t you think it’s time you speak for yourself on what you really believe ??

By the way, in Post #139, you said, ‘Jesus is the Angel of the Lord. Who is the angel of the Lord? | GotQuestions.org’ – so, clearly the Angel of the Lord is an angel whom you said is Jesus, but now, at a snap of the finger, you changed your mind and said Jesus is not an angel ??!!
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Skywalker

Well-Known Member
In Post #146, I am asking you to explain ‘how the above verses (especially those spoken by Jesus) you quoted are interpreted as Jesus is God or Angel of God or Jesus preaching trinity and what have you’ and your first ‘explanation’ is ‘Jesus mentioned the trinity in those verses’ (Post #147)! Now, you are responding to the same question with ‘Jesus is not an angel. Jesus is God incarnated’ ???!! Then doing the only thing you know – gave yet another link hoping the link will ‘speaks’ for you… don’t you think it’s time you speak for yourself on what you really believe ??

By the way, in Post #139, you said, ‘Jesus is the Angel of the Lord. Who is the angel of the Lord? | GotQuestions.org’ – so, clearly the Angel of the Lord is an angel whom you said is Jesus, but now, at a snap of the finger, you changed your mind and said Jesus is not an angel ??!!

The Angel of the Lord in the Old Testament doesn't refer to an angel, it refers to God. The term angel comes from the Greek word angelos, a translation of a Hebrew word meaning "messenger."
Who is the angel of the Lord? | GotQuestions.org

Question: "Who is the angel of the Lord?"

Answer:
The precise identity of the “angel of the Lord” is not given in the Bible. However, there are many important “clues” to his identity. There are Old and New Testament references to “angels of the Lord,” “an angel of the Lord,” and “the angel of the Lord.” It seems when the definite article “the” is used, it is specifying a unique being, separate from the other angels. The angel of the Lord speaks as God, identifies Himself with God, and exercises the responsibilities of God (Genesis 16:7-12; 21:17-18; 22:11-18; Exodus 3:2; Judges 2:1-4; 5:23; 6:11-24; 13:3-22; 2 Samuel 24:16; Zechariah 1:12; 3:1; 12:8). In several of these appearances, those who saw the angel of the Lord feared for their lives because they had “seen the Lord.” Therefore, it is clear that in at least some instances, the angel of the Lord is a theophany, an appearance of God in physical form.

The appearances of the angel of the Lord cease after the incarnation of Christ. Angels are mentioned numerous times in the New Testament, but “the angel of the Lord” is never mentioned in the New Testament after the birth of Christ. There is some confusion regarding Matthew 28:2, where the KJV says “the angel of the Lord” descended from heaven and rolled the stone away from Jesus’ tomb. It is important to note that the original Greek has no article in front of angel; it could be “the angel” or “an angel,” but the article must be supplied by the translators. Other translations besides the KJV say it was “an angel,” which is the better wording.

The term angel of the Lord is a reference to the the Sonship of Jesus, not Jesus being an angel. Jesus as the Son of God

Biblical Meaning of "Son of God"

The term "son of God" too is used in a variety of ways in the Holy Bible. As creator, God is the "Father" of Adam and of all mankind (Luke 3:38; Isaiah 64:8; Malachi 2:10; etc.). However, a more specific "Father-son" relationship is achieved by the gracious choice of the Father and the faithful obedience and service of the son, not by creation and certainly not by procreation. In this sense, the following are some of those referred to as "son(s) of God" in the Bible:

1. The people chosen by God (Exodus 4:22f.; Jeremiah 31:9,20; Hosea 11:1; Romans 8:14; II Corinthians 6:18; Galatians 3:26; Hebrews 2:10; Revelation 21:7)

2. Heavenly beings (Job 1:6)

3. Kings and rulers (II Samuel 7:14; Psalm 2:7; 82:6; 89:26f.)

4. Pious, godly individuals (Matthew 5:9; Luke 6:35)

If the meaning of the term "Son of God" in the case of Jesus would be limited to the same significance that it has in these cases above, even the Muslims might agree with its use. In fact, some Sufis speak of God as "Father" and humanity as "God's children". Other Muslims, of course, might question this terminology, preferring the use of "servant" instead of "son". Still, the fact remains that God being Father and humanity being His children, apart from any sexual connotation, is an idea compatible with the thinking of some Muslims.

To equate the Sonship of Jesus with the sonship of the above mentioned beings, however, would be denying the plain truth of the Holy Bible and the very essence of the Christian faith. Jesus is more than one of God's chosen people, more than one of His heavenly messengers, more than one who rules on God's behalf on earth, more than one who pleases God, although He is all of those also.

The teaching that Jesus is an angel against what the Bible says in John 1:1. The beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God, and it goes against Jesus dying for our sins. Jesus is the only one that could die in our place. Why? Because he's infinite. He could pay it in a finite amount of time.
Angel of the Lord - Wikipedia
There's a lot of false teachings out there that tries to deny the divinity of Jesus. There is so much evidence that Christ existed that people can't deny it, so instead of saying that he didn't exist, they say that Jesus was a good man, a prophet, a sage. There is no historical evidence of a pre-Christian celestial angel named Jesus. Did A Pre-Christ Celestial Angel Named Jesus Exist? | Reasons for Jesus

Regarding Carrier’s claim concerning Philo of Alexandria, he draws on Philo’s work On the Confusion of Tongues to demonstrate that the common language used by Philo to describe the logos is the same used by the Apostle Paul (our earliest Christian writer) and that this is evidence of a shared belief in a heavenly being called Jesus.

According to Carrier, this “proves that some Jews already believed that God had a firstborn son in heaven, a preexistent being through whom God created the universe, the very image of God, the supreme of all beings next to God, whose name could already be identified as Jesus, and who advocates on our behalf to procure forgiveness of sins, and that all earthly priests were but a copy of him” (6).

As Gullotta counter, however, this claim of a pre-Christian celestial Jesus is unconvincing on the grounds that there is no literary or archeological evidence within the “entirety of the Mediterranean world and Second Temple period that validates the existence of this pre-Christian celestial Jesus” (7).

In fact, work in the field of angelology concerning Jewish first-century belief in angels conflicts with Carrier’s argument. Historians have noted that Second Temple Judaism presents a shift in the way some Jews understood angels with a major change being in the use of distinctive names when angels are addressed or referenced. Scholars having surveyed references to angels at this time found that one of the most common features in these names is the appearance of the element of ‘el’ (8).

Gullotta refers to 1 Enoch where the nineteen rebel angels in 6:7, sixteen of them and all seven names of archangels in 20:1-8 are compounds with ‘el’ (9). Research drawing on archaeological and literary evidence from this period evidences the most common angelic figures to have been named Michael, Gabriel, Sariel/Uriel, and Raphael (10). This analysis demonstrates that the name Jesus does not conform to the way angelic beings were designated. In other words, Jesus is never associated with an angelic figure and Carrier’s argument is rendered problematic.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

JerryMyers

Active Member
The Angel of the Lord in the Old Testament doesn't refer to an angel, it refers to God. The term angel comes from the Greek word angelos, a translation of a Hebrew word meaning "messenger."
Who is the angel of the Lord? | GotQuestions.org
Clearly, GotQuestions.org just GotConfused !! Who said the Angel of the Lord in the OT refers to God and not to an angel ?? Messengers of God can be man or angels. In fact, the Bible told you the Angel of the Lord, who is primarily given the task of delivering important messages on behalf of God is the angel Gabriel, NOT God, NOT Jesus. Your trusted link, GotQuestions.org said so too - What does the Bible say about the angel Gabriel? | GotQuestions.org

The term angel of the Lord is a reference to the the Sonship of Jesus, not Jesus being an angel. Jesus as the Son of God
Nonsense. ‘Son of God’ is a reference to those who are holy, righteous and are guided by the Spirit of God, and Jesus is such a man. Anyone who are holy, righteous and guided by the Spirit of God are called the son of God. Even Paul acknowledged that – “For all who are being led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God” – Romans 8:14. Angels too are called the sons of God (Job 38:7). Adam, the first man, being a direct creation of God, is also the son of God” (Luke 3:38). In John 1:12-13, we read about believing Jews who became “the children of God…children born out of God – so, who said only Jesus was born out of God ???

The teaching that Jesus is an angel against what the Bible says in John 1:1. The beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God, and it goes against Jesus dying for our sins. Jesus is the only one that could die in our place. Why? Because he's infinite. He could pay it in a finite amount of time.
Angel of the Lord - Wikipedia
There's a lot of false teachings out there that tries to deny the divinity of Jesus. There is so much evidence that Christ existed that people can't deny it, so instead of saying that he didn't exist, they say that Jesus was a good man, a prophet, a sage. There is no historical evidence of a pre-Christian celestial angel named Jesus. Did A Pre-Christ Celestial Angel Named Jesus Exist? | Reasons for Jesus
Why are you so dependent on the words of other people to know Jesus when Jesus himself has told you who he is in your own Bible?? If you want to be certain whether Jesus was crucified and died for your sin or not, then listen to what Jesus said and did not say when he appeared to his disciples AFTER the supposedly ‘crucifixion and resurrection’ in your own Bible – it’s as simple as that !!
 

Skywalker

Well-Known Member
Clearly, GotQuestions.org just GotConfused !! Who said the Angel of the Lord in the OT refers to God and not to an angel ?? Messengers of God can be man or angels. In fact, the Bible told you the Angel of the Lord, who is primarily given the task of delivering important messages on behalf of God is the angel Gabriel, NOT God, NOT Jesus. Your trusted link, GotQuestions.org said so too - What does the Bible say about the angel Gabriel? | GotQuestions.org


Nonsense. ‘Son of God’ is a reference to those who are holy, righteous and are guided by the Spirit of God, and Jesus is such a man. Anyone who are holy, righteous and guided by the Spirit of God are called the son of God. Even Paul acknowledged that – “For all who are being led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God” – Romans 8:14. Angels too are called the sons of God (Job 38:7). Adam, the first man, being a direct creation of God, is also the son of God” (Luke 3:38). In John 1:12-13, we read about believing Jews who became “the children of God…children born out of God – so, who said only Jesus was born out of God ???


Why are you so dependent on the words of other people to know Jesus when Jesus himself has told you who he is in your own Bible?? If you want to be certain whether Jesus was crucified and died for your sin or not, then listen to what Jesus said and did not say when he appeared to his disciples AFTER the supposedly ‘crucifixion and resurrection’ in your own Bible – it’s as simple as that !!

The Angel or Word of God as the Memra is understood to be the Messiah. Zechariah 3:1-9 shows the Angel as Judge and is identified as YHVH and the Angel of the Lord. Log into Facebook

The term Son of God has different meanings depending on the context. Jesus as the Son of God

Biblical Meaning of "Son"
To understand the Biblical meaning of Jesus as "the Son of God", first we must examine the Biblical use of the word "son". In the Bible, "son" is a term expressing an intimate relationship with someone or something; basically, it indicates origin, but it is also used to express close association or identification with persons or things. Even when indicating origin, this term does not limit oneself to one's father and mother. One may be called the "son" of the following: his father and mother, his family, his tribe, his people, his place of birth (city or country), and the time or circumstance of his birth. The if "father-son" terminology is also used in connection with kings and their vassals or subjects, masters and servants, teachers and disciples, and almost any situation in which someone is subordinate to or dependent on someone else. The basic requirement of the "son" is to honour and obey his "father", but he should also love him and emulate him.
The term "son" is used in many other ways in the Bible, some of which are connected with origin but others of which mainly express some sort of association with or resemblance to persons or things. A large, somehow homogeneous group may be called "sons" (occupational and ethnic groups especially). Sometimes characteristics or qualities themselves are personified and regarded as having "sons" - those who possess that same characteristic or quality. Still also other uses of the term "son" in the Bible reflect the versatile and imaginative use of this term especially in the Hebrew language.

Other languages also use the term "son" in a variety of ways. Thus, in the Arabic language of the Qur'an "son" need not mean only a direct male issue or descendant. A familiar example is ibnu's sabil ("son of the road"), which means "a traveller". Another example with which many are familiar is "the son of Satan" a vivid descriptive for any mischief-maker (cf. also Acts 13:10). Obviously Satan does not have a wife in order to have a son! The name implies that the mischief maker is like Satan, an embodiment of Satan, a "Satan with us". Worthy of remembrance is also the Arabic term ummu'l kitab (literally "the mother of the book") the heavenly Scripture from which all Scripture with us on earth is derived, as if each Scripture were her child.

In the light of the above, let us turn to well known verses of the Qur'an: "He is Allah, the One.... He begetteth not nor was begotten...." (Pickthall, The Meaning of the Glorious Koran, surah 112:1-4). This surah clearly states that God has no son and that no son can be God. Why? "How can He have a child, when there is for Him no consort?..." (surah 6:102). As these and other verses suggest, even to imagine that God would have a wife and sexual intercourse with her would be absolute folly. But do these Quranic verses actually address the Biblical meaning of Jesus' Sonship? Does the Bible affirm that God has a wife and through procreation a son, whose name is Jesus? Our response to these questions will become more intelligible after we consider in greater depth the Biblical meaning of "son of God".

Biblical Meaning of "Son of God"

The term "son of God" too is used in a variety of ways in the Holy Bible. As creator, God is the "Father" of Adam and of all mankind (Luke 3:38; Isaiah 64:8; Malachi 2:10; etc.). However, a more specific "Father-son" relationship is achieved by the gracious choice of the Father and the faithful obedience and service of the son, not by creation and certainly not by procreation. In this sense, the following are some of those referred to as "son(s) of God" in the Bible:

1. The people chosen by God (Exodus 4:22f.; Jeremiah 31:9,20; Hosea 11:1; Romans 8:14; II Corinthians 6:18; Galatians 3:26; Hebrews 2:10; Revelation 21:7)

2. Heavenly beings (Job 1:6)

3. Kings and rulers (II Samuel 7:14; Psalm 2:7; 82:6; 89:26f.)

4. Pious, godly individuals (Matthew 5:9; Luke 6:35)

If the meaning of the term "Son of God" in the case of Jesus would be limited to the same significance that it has in these cases above, even the Muslims might agree with its use. In fact, some Sufis speak of God as "Father" and humanity as "God's children". Other Muslims, of course, might question this terminology, preferring the use of "servant" instead of "son". Still, the fact remains that God being Father and humanity being His children, apart from any sexual connotation, is an idea compatible with the thinking of some Muslims.

To equate the Sonship of Jesus with the sonship of the above mentioned beings, however, would be denying the plain truth of the Holy Bible and the very essence of the Christian faith. Jesus is more than one of God's chosen people, more than one of His heavenly messengers, more than one who rules on God's behalf on earth, more than one who pleases God, although He is all of those also.

Jesus as the Unique Son of God

What, then, is the evidence for this tremendous claim? Is it because Jesus, though a man born of a woman, was yet born of a virgin? Some Christians, it is true, might conclude that because Jesus was born of the virgin Mary, therefore He is the Son of God. Likewise, some Muslims, while denying that Jesus is the Son of God, might consider the virgin birth of Jesus to be the basis for Christian belief that Jesus is the Son of God. Biblically speaking, however, Jesus' Sonship does not rest upon His being born of the virgin Mary. On the contrary, as we shall later see more clearly, His virgin birth rests upon His Sonship. Before Mary ever was, the Son of God is. Jesus does not become the Son of God, but the Son of God becomes Jesus. Thus Jesus, as the Son, speaks to the Father about "the glory I had with You before the world began" (John 17:5; cf. Colossians 1:13-20), long before Mary ever was. This eternal Son of God entered into the limitations of time and space by the power of God working through the virgin Mary and was born as a man, called Jesus, in Bethlehem some nineteen centuries ago.

Similarly, Jesus is not the Son of God because of His mighty works and wonderful words. On the contrary, He does His mighty works and speaks His wonderful words because He is the Son of God.
 

JerryMyers

Active Member
The Angel or Word of God as the Memra is understood to be the Messiah. Zechariah 3:1-9 shows the Angel as Judge and is identified as YHVH and the Angel of the Lord. Log into Facebook
There’s nothing in Zechariah 3:1-9 that even implied the angel of the Lord is God Himself. The angel of the Lord is a messenger of God, therefore at times, he speaks and acts as if he’s God Himself as he was speaking and acting on behalf of God, sent by God and represents God. Likewise, the Vice President of The United States can speak and act on behalf of the President of the United State as if he/she is the President him/herself.

And why are you capitalizing the ‘a’ (Angel) when in Zechariah 3:1-9, it's just ‘angel of the LORD’ ?? Not that it really matters as the original texts from which the English-translated Bibles are translated, are in Greek Latin/Hebrew and there’s NO distinction between UPPERCASE and lowercase case alphabets in Latin Greek/Hebrew. So, the fact that you can find CAPITALISED ‘s’ as in ‘Son of God’ for Jesus in the English-translated Bibles only shows how Christians try to ‘tailor-fit’ their belief (that Jesus is God the Son) into the scripture.

The term Son of God has different meanings depending on the context. Jesus as the Son of God
Not really, but let me ask you – Do Trinitarians believe ‘S/son of God’ when applied to Jesus, means Jesus is God the Son ???
 

Skywalker

Well-Known Member
There’s nothing in Zechariah 3:1-9 that even implied the angel of the Lord is God Himself. The angel of the Lord is a messenger of God, therefore at times, he speaks and acts as if he’s God Himself as he was speaking and acting on behalf of God, sent by God and represents God. Likewise, the Vice President of The United States can speak and act on behalf of the President of the United State as if he/she is the President him/herself.

And why are you capitalizing the ‘a’ (Angel) when in Zechariah 3:1-9, it's just ‘angel of the LORD’ ?? Not that it really matters as the original texts from which the English-translated Bibles are translated, are in Greek Latin/Hebrew and there’s NO distinction between UPPERCASE and lowercase case alphabets in Latin Greek/Hebrew. So, the fact that you can find CAPITALISED ‘s’ as in ‘Son of God’ for Jesus in the English-translated Bibles only shows how Christians try to ‘tailor-fit’ their belief (that Jesus is God the Son) into the scripture.


Not really, but let me ask you – Do Trinitarians believe ‘S/son of God’ when applied to Jesus, means Jesus is God the Son ???

That's like saying that The Word isn't the Word of God. MEMRA - JewishEncyclopedia.com John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
—In the Targum:

In the Targum the Memra figures constantly as the manifestation of the divinepower, or as God's messenger in place of God Himself, wherever the predicate is not in conformity with the dignity or the spirituality of the Deity.

Instead of the Scriptural "You have not believed in the Lord," Targ. Deut. i. 32 has "You have not believed in the word of the Lord"; instead of "I shall require it [vengeance] from him," Targ. Deut. xviii. 19 has "My word shall require it." "The Memra," instead of "the Lord," is "the consuming fire" (Targ. Deut. ix. 3; comp. Targ. Isa. xxx. 27). The Memra "plagued the people" (Targ. Yer. to Ex. xxxii. 35). "The Memra smote him" (II Sam. vi. 7; comp. Targ. I Kings xviii. 24; Hos. xiii. 14; et al.). Not "God," but "the Memra," is met with in Targ. Ex. xix. 17 (Targ. Yer. "the Shekinah"; comp. Targ. Ex. xxv. 22: "I will order My Memra to be there"). "I will cover thee with My Memra," instead of "My hand" (Targ. Ex. xxxiii. 22). Instead of "My soul," "My Memra shall reject you" (Targ. Lev. xxvi. 30; comp. Isa. i. 14, xlii. 1; Jer. vi. 8; Ezek. xxiii. 18). "The voice of the Memra," instead of "God," is heard (Gen. iii. 8; Deut. iv. 33, 36; v. 21; Isa. vi. 8; et al.). Where Moses says, "I stood between the Lord and you" (Deut. v. 5), the Targum has, "between the Memra of the Lord and you"; and the "sign between Me and you" becomes a "sign between My Memra and you" (Ex. xxxi. 13, 17; comp. Lev. xxvi. 46; Gen. ix. 12; xvii. 2, 7, 10; Ezek. xx. 12). Instead of God, the Memra comes to Abimelek (Gen. xx. 3), and to Balaam (Num. xxiii. 4). His Memra aids and accompanies Israel, performing wonders for them (Targ. Num. xxiii. 21; Deut. i. 30, xxxiii. 3; Targ. Isa. lxiii. 14; Jer. xxxi. 1; Hos. ix. 10 [comp. xi. 3, "the messenger-angel"]). The Memra goes before Cyrus (Isa. xlv. 12). The Lord swears by His Memra (Gen. xxi. 23, xxii. 16, xxiv. 3; Ex. xxxii. 13; Num. xiv. 30; Isa. xlv. 23; Ezek. xx. 5; et al.). It is His Memra that repents (Targ. Gen. vi. 6, viii. 21; I Sam. xv. 11, 35). Not His "hand," but His "Memra has laid the foundation of the earth" (Targ. Isa. xlviii. 13); for His Memra's or Name's sake does He act (l.c. xlviii. 11; II Kings xix. 34). Through the Memra God turns to His people (Targ. Lev. xxvi. 90; II Kings xiii. 23), becomes the shield of Abraham (Gen. xv. 1), and is with Moses (Ex. iii. 12; iv. 12, 15) and with Israel (Targ. Yer. to Num. x. 35, 36; Isa. lxiii. 14). It is the Memra, not God Himself, against whom man offends (Ex. xvi. 8; Num. xiv. 5; I Kings viii. 50; II Kings xix. 28; Isa. i. 2, 16; xlv. 3, 20; Hos. v. 7, vi. 7; Targ. Yer. to Lev. v. 21, vi. 2; Deut. v. 11); through His Memra Israel shall be justified (Targ. Isa. xlv. 25); with the Memra Israel stands in communion (Targ. Josh. xxii. 24, 27); in the Memra man puts his trust (Targ. Gen. xv. 6; Targ. Yer. to Ex. xiv. 31; Jer. xxxix. 18, xlix. 11).

Mediatorship.

Like the Shekinah (comp. Targ. Num. xxiii. 21), the Memra is accordingly the manifestation of God. "The Memra brings Israel nigh unto God and sits on His throne receiving the prayers of Israel" (Targ. Yer. to Deut. iv. 7). It shielded Noah from the flood (Targ. Yer. to Gen. vii. 16) and brought about the dispersion of the seventy nations (l.c. xi. 8); it is the guardian of Jacob (Gen. xxviii. 20-21, xxxv. 3) and of Israel (Targ. Yer. to Ex. xii. 23, 29); it works all the wonders in Egypt (l.c.xiii. 8, xiv. 25); hardens the heart of Pharaoh (l.c. xiii. 15); goes before Israel in the wilderness (Targ. Yer. to Ex. xx. 1); blesses Israel (Targ. Yer. to Num. xxiii. 8); battles for the people (Targ. Josh. iii. 7, x. 14, xxiii. 3). As in ruling over the destiny of man the Memra is the agent of God (Targ. Yer. to Num. xxvii. 16), so also is it in the creation of the earth (Isa. xlv. 12) and in the execution of justice (Targ. Yer. to Num. xxxiii. 4). So, in the future, shall the Memra be the comforter (Targ. Isa. lxvi. 13): "My Shekinah I shall put among you, My Memra shall be unto you for a redeeming deity, and you shall be unto My Name a holy people" (Targ. Yer. to Lev. xxii. 12). "My Memra shall be unto you like a good plowman who takes off the yoke from the shoulder of the oxen"; "the Memra will roar to gather the exiled" (Targ. Hos. xi. 5, 10). The Memra is "the witness" (Targ. Yer. xxix. 23); it will be to Israel like a father (l.c. xxxi. 9) and "will rejoice over them to do them good" (l.c. xxxii. 41). "In the Memra the redemption will be found" (Targ. Zech. xii. 5). "The holy Word" was the subject of the hymns of Job (Test. of Job, xii. 3, ed. Kohler).

see Philo), paved the way for the Christian conceptions of the Incarnation ("the Word become flesh") and the Trinity. The Word which "the unoriginated Father created in His own likeness as a manifestation of His own power" appears in the Gnostic system of Marcus (Irenæus, "Adversus Hæreses," i. 14). In the ancient Church liturgy, adopted from the Synagogue, it is especially interesting to notice how often the term "Logos," in the sense of "the Word by which God made the world, or made His Law or Himself known to man," was changed into "Christ" (see "Apostolic Constitutions," vii. 25-26, 34-38, et al.). Possibly on account of the Christian dogma, rabbinic theology, outside of the Targum literature, made little use of the term "Memra." See Logos.
 

JerryMyers

Active Member
That's like saying that The Word isn't the Word of God. MEMRA - JewishEncyclopedia.com John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Well, if the word is uttered by God, then, it IS the Word of God, if the word was uttered by you, then, it is the word of a person who likes to be known as ‘Skywalker’ – that should NOT be TOO difficult for you to understand.

In John 1, the English word ‘Word’ was translated from the Greek word ‘logos’ and a word must be uttered to initiate an action or a form of communication.

The phrase ‘W/word (logos) of God’ is also mentioned in other verses too. In Matthew 15:6, we read “you nullify the W/word (logos) of God for the sake of your tradition” which means you nullify the Command of God for the sake of your tradition, NOT that ‘you nullify Jesus’, and Hebrew 13:7 “leaders who spoke the W/word (logos) of God” which means leaders who spoke what God had spoken, NOT that the leaders who spoke Jesus.

Maybe you are not aware, the Greek word ‘logos’ is also a masculine noun and so, at times, it was also referred to as a ‘he/him’. In John 1:3, it was NOT Jesus created all things, but it was God who created all things, and God creates by just uttering a word which is the ‘he’ in John 1:3.

Even John used a past-tense verb in John 1:1 – “And the Word WAS God” meaning the word was only divine when God uttered it but when the creation (of Jesus) was completed, the word, that is, the commanding word to create Jesus, was no longer divine. If ‘the Word of God’ is truly and literally Jesus and that makes him God, as perceived by most Christians, then John would have written, “And the Word IS God”.

By the way, you have NOT answered my question - Do Trinitarians believe ‘S/son of God’ when applied to Jesus, means Jesus is God the Son ???
 

Skywalker

Well-Known Member
Well, if the word is uttered by God, then, it IS the Word of God, if the word was uttered by you, then, it is the word of a person who likes to be known as ‘Skywalker’ – that should NOT be TOO difficult for you to understand.

In John 1, the English word ‘Word’ was translated from the Greek word ‘logos’ and a word must be uttered to initiate an action or a form of communication.

The phrase ‘W/word (logos) of God’ is also mentioned in other verses too. In Matthew 15:6, we read “you nullify the W/word (logos) of God for the sake of your tradition” which means you nullify the Command of God for the sake of your tradition, NOT that ‘you nullify Jesus’, and Hebrew 13:7 “leaders who spoke the W/word (logos) of God” which means leaders who spoke what God had spoken, NOT that the leaders who spoke Jesus.

Maybe you are not aware, the Greek word ‘logos’ is also a masculine noun and so, at times, it was also referred to as a ‘he/him’. In John 1:3, it was NOT Jesus created all things, but it was God who created all things, and God creates by just uttering a word which is the ‘he’ in John 1:3.

Even John used a past-tense verb in John 1:1 – “And the Word WAS God” meaning the word was only divine when God uttered it but when the creation (of Jesus) was completed, the word, that is, the commanding word to create Jesus, was no longer divine. If ‘the Word of God’ is truly and literally Jesus and that makes him God, as perceived by most Christians, then John would have written, “And the Word IS God”.

By the way, you have NOT answered my question - Do Trinitarians believe ‘S/son of God’ when applied to Jesus, means Jesus is God the Son ???

Jesus is the memra. You have to put a distance between God and man. When God is coming to touch, to communicate in certain ways, its the memra, its the Word of the Lord, thats what memra means in Aramaic, so its the Word of the Lord that's active in creation, its the Word of the Lord that's speaking and acting. So John 1:1, in the beginning was the memra, and the memra was with God, the memra was God, God is invisible and cannot be seen, and yet He's seen, at different times. The elders of Israel, 74 people, see the God of Israel on Mount Sinai, in Exodus the 24th chapter. How is it that God is unseen and yet seen? It's through His Son, He's complex in His unity. THE GODHEAD

The Godhead is Comprised of Three Distinct, Individual, Persons
John 1:1-2, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God.”
How can the Word (Jesus - John 1:14) be WITH God and also BE God? The answer is THE GODHEAD!!! Jesus is a member of the Godhead, yet individually exists as God the Son. 1st John 5:7, “For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.” Amen!

In the Beginning Was the Memra | Messianic Bible

“From the beginning with wisdom the Memra (Word) of the Lord created and perfected the heavens and the earth … And the Memra (Word) of the LORD said, ‘Let there be light’; and there was light by His Memra (Word). A(Genesis 1:1–3; Targum Neofiti)

In this Targum, the Word or Memra is doing, being, and acting as God and yet we see that he is also with God, a distinct essence apart from Him.

In fact, the Memra is the one who rested after all his work:

“On the seventh day, the Memra of the LORD completed his work which he had created, and there was Sabbath.” (Genesis 2:3; Targum Neofiti)

The Apostle John grabbed hold of this very Jewish understanding of the Memra (Word of the LORD) to introduce Messiah Yeshua, who is God and yet a distinct essence apart from God. He writes:

“In the beginning was the Memra (Word), and the Memra (Word) was with God, and the Memra (Word) was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came into being through him, and without him not one thing came into being.” (John 1:1–3)

John is telling Jewish readers that Yeshua as the Word of God is responsible for bringing forth life from the very beginning of our world. But John doesn’t stop there. He reveals even deeper truths about this Word using the Jewish understanding of light.

The concept of the Trinity in the Bible doesn't originate from pagan religions. Pagan religions copied the Bible. THE GODHEAD

These Scriptures cannot be thrown away. Several false religions, such as Jehovah's Witnesses, deny the Godhead. The argument is that the Trinity originated in pagan ancient Babylon. However, a distinct difference must be noted between the masculine Godhead of the Word of God, and the pagan goddess worship which originated with Nimrod and Semiramis. It was not Christianity that imitated paganism; but paganism Christianity. Furthermore, there is no ancient pagan religion which taught the Biblical doctrine of the Godhead. There are an abundance of Scriptural references to “God the father,” and to the “Son of God.” Clearly, they are two distinguished individuals.

Jesus established his distinction from God the Father. THE GODHEAD

Again, carefully notice the clear distinction between God the Father and God the Son. John 5:30-32, “I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me. If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true. There is another that beareth witness of me; and I know that the witness which he witnesseth of me is true.” These are two distinct individuals.

Jesus is God the Son and the Son of God. Romans 1:20 mentions the Trinity. Biblical Evidence for the Godhead

The Bible, God’s Word, proclaims that there is ONE God (Deuteronomy 6:4), Who has revealed Himself to mankind in three distinct Persons; namely, God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit. Although the term “Trinity” is not found in the Scriptures, the word “Godhead” most certainly is — in 3 places!

Romans 1:19, 20 states…

“Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and GODHEAD; so that they are without excuse.”

The term Trinity isn't used anywhere in the entire Bible, but like the second coming, the evidence is there supporting it. The prophecies require certain events to happen-like atonement and the visit to the temple-before other events can happen, like the Messiah bringing peace to the earth. The first act precedes the second act and prepares the way for it. First atonement for sin, then peace on the earth.
 

JerryMyers

Active Member
Jesus is the memra. You have to put a distance between God and man. When God is coming to touch, to communicate in certain ways, its the memra, its the Word of the Lord, thats what memra means in Aramaic, so its the Word of the Lord that's active in creation, its the Word of the Lord that's speaking and acting. So John 1:1, in the beginning was the memra, and the memra was with God, the memra was God, God is invisible and cannot be seen, and yet He's seen, at different times. The elders of Israel, 74 people, see the God of Israel on Mount Sinai, in Exodus the 24th chapter. How is it that God is unseen and yet seen? It's through His Son, He's complex in His unity. THE GODHEAD
In the Beginning Was the Memra | Messianic Bible
The concept of the Trinity in the Bible doesn't originate from pagan religions. Pagan religions copied the Bible. THE GODHEAD
Jesus established his distinction from God the Father. THE GODHEAD
Jesus is God the Son and the Son of God. Romans 1:20 mentions the Trinity. Biblical Evidence for the Godhead
The term Trinity isn't used anywhere in the entire Bible, but like the second coming, the evidence is there supporting it. The prophecies require certain events to happen-like atonement and the visit to the temple-before other events can happen, like the Messiah bringing peace to the earth. The first act precedes the second act and prepares the way for it. First atonement for sin, then peace on the earth.
When are you going to stop listening to the words of other people and listen to the words of Jesus in your own Bible ?? You need to read and understand the Bible through reasoning and from the perspective of what God and His prophets said and did not said.

Jesus himself had NEVER said nor has he ever implied that he’s literally the Word of God !! Figuratively speaking, everything created (Man, Light, the Universe, etc) IS the Word of God because God, by His Will, initiates the process of creation, by just uttering a word. Light too is the Word of God because it was created or came into existence by God simply saying, “Let there BE Light”.

Not only Jesus NEVER claimed he’s the Word of God (in the literal sense), he NEVER claimed nor even implied he’s God the Son either!! More revealing is, not only Jesus NEVER claimed he’s God the Son, the phrase ‘God the Son’ NEVER appeared, not even once, in the whole Bible, let alone, applied to Jesus !!

In contrast, the phrase 'God the Father' occurs many times in the Bible. Why is that the Bible is so clear of who the Father is when it identified the Father as ‘God the Father’ but never identified Jesus as ‘God the Son’?? Are we to believe that Jesus is God the Son in the same context as God is the Father when in the Bible, the Father is identified as “God the Father” many times, and yet Jesus is NOT even once identified as ‘God the Son’? The only logical explanation to that is – the scripture itself has NEVER identified Jesus as God the Son, but it’s only the other people who claimed that and through conjectures, assumptions and misinterpretation of Jesus’ words, they try to ‘tailor-fit’ their belief into the scripture.

Jesus is called ‘S/son of God’ just like any other holy, righteous man who is guided by the Spirit of God is called ‘S/son of God’.

This is what I don't understand with Trinitarians - if Jesus himself had said that when he said he's ‘God’s S/son’ or 'S/son of God', he's NOT claiming he's God/God the Son, then why are Trinitarians like you still claiming Jesus is God/God the Son ?? It does NOT make any sense !! Do you think Jesus did not know what he was talking about ??

Try to understand Jesus from his own words NOT from the words of other people which are just conjectures, assumptions, and outright misinterpretations of Jesus' words.
 

Skywalker

Well-Known Member
When are you going to stop listening to the words of other people and listen to the words of Jesus in your own Bible ?? You need to read and understand the Bible through reasoning and from the perspective of what God and His prophets said and did not said.

Jesus himself had NEVER said nor has he ever implied that he’s literally the Word of God !! Figuratively speaking, everything created (Man, Light, the Universe, etc) IS the Word of God because God, by His Will, initiates the process of creation, by just uttering a word. Light too is the Word of God because it was created or came into existence by God simply saying, “Let there BE Light”.

Not only Jesus NEVER claimed he’s the Word of God (in the literal sense), he NEVER claimed nor even implied he’s God the Son either!! More revealing is, not only Jesus NEVER claimed he’s God the Son, the phrase ‘God the Son’ NEVER appeared, not even once, in the whole Bible, let alone, applied to Jesus !!

In contrast, the phrase 'God the Father' occurs many times in the Bible. Why is that the Bible is so clear of who the Father is when it identified the Father as ‘God the Father’ but never identified Jesus as ‘God the Son’?? Are we to believe that Jesus is God the Son in the same context as God is the Father when in the Bible, the Father is identified as “God the Father” many times, and yet Jesus is NOT even once identified as ‘God the Son’? The only logical explanation to that is – the scripture itself has NEVER identified Jesus as God the Son, but it’s only the other people who claimed that and through conjectures, assumptions and misinterpretation of Jesus’ words, they try to ‘tailor-fit’ their belief into the scripture.

Jesus is called ‘S/son of God’ just like any other holy, righteous man who is guided by the Spirit of God is called ‘S/son of God’.

This is what I don't understand with Trinitarians - if Jesus himself had said that when he said he's ‘God’s S/son’ or 'S/son of God', he's NOT claiming he's God/God the Son, then why are Trinitarians like you still claiming Jesus is God/God the Son ?? It does NOT make any sense !! Do you think Jesus did not know what he was talking about ??

Try to understand Jesus from his own words NOT from the words of other people which are just conjectures, assumptions, and outright misinterpretations of Jesus' words.

The complex unity of the Trinity is mentioned in the Old Testament and not a solitary unity.
The Trinity is like an egg having a shell, a white, and a yolk, Trinity: Oneness in unity not in number: Yachid vs. Echad

Genesis 2:24 "the two shall become one [echad] flesh" it is the same word for "one" that was used in Deut 6:4.

This is most troubling for Jews and Anti-Trinitarians since the word yachid, the main Hebrew word for solitary oneness, is never used in reference to God.

A. Jews, after the rise of Christianity, were compelled to change the Hebrew word for "one" from echad to yachid:

  1. For any Jew to use "Yachid" to refer to the oneness of God is UNBIBLICAL because the Holy Spirit never willed that any scripture in the Bible uses the word YACHID in reference to God.
  2. It is claimed by Jews who attack Christian theology that the use of the word ECHAD in Deut 6:4 causes them no problem since the word ECHAD is used in other places in the Old Testament to refer to a clearly single person. But this ignores the powerful argument made by Christians, namely that the word YACHID, which always means one and only one, is never used of God.
  3. If the use of "echad" instead of "yachid" in Deut 6:4 gave no help to the early Christians in proving to the Jews that Yahweh of the Old Testament was the multi-personal God of the Christians (Father, Son, Holy Spirit) then Jews would not have felt compelled replace the word in their dogmas and statements of faith. If it is really that insignificant, then they would have told us the argument Christians were using to prove trinity is invalid to native Hebrews who know and speak the language.
  1. Modern Jewish prayer books use the UNBIBLICAL word "yachid" to describe God.
    1. Remember, by UNBIBLICAL, we do not mean that Yachid is not used in the Bible.
    2. By UNBIBLICAL we mean that YACHID is never used to describe God's oneness in the Torah or anywhere in the entire Old Testament.

The Bible teaches that Jesus is the Word of God. John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. Jesus said in John 10:30 I and my Father are one. Jesus mentioned the complex unity of the Godhead (mentioned in Colossians 2:9-For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.)

Revisiting “Where Did Jesus Say ‘I am God’” – A Response to the Muhammedan Site “Do Not Say Trinity”

Revisiting the issue of why Jesus Didn’t Say the Exact Words “I am God”

DNST cites numerous Old Testament texts where God says “I am God” or something close to that (Gen. 35:11; Gen. 46:3; Exo. 6:7; Exo. 16:12; Lev. 11:44 etc). Because it is a repeated theme for God to say “I am God” in the Old Testament the argument is that Christ should have come out and said “I am God” with those exact words as well. DNST argues that this phrase “has always been an insignia of traditional Judeo-Christian God” and thus we would expect Christ to use it without hesitation if He were truly God.

The problem is that if Jesus were to come out and say “I am God” without clearly and forcefully establishing his personal distinction from the Father, and His deity in relation to that fact, people would think He was claiming to be the same person as the Father. This is because God was used primarily in reference to the Father and virtually served as His proper name. In other words, to come out and say “I am God” instead of first establishing His distinction from the Father, would lead His followers into thinking He was making himself out to be the Father in heaven.(1) This is why Jesus didn’t just walk around saying “I am God” as the Muslims demand.

Thus, Jesus needed to communicate His deity in such a way that His audience would know that He wasn’t claiming to be the Father, even though He was claiming to be God. In light of this, there was no better way for Jesus to affirm the fact that He is God then by the way the Gospels report he did, e.g. the unique Son of God and divine Son of Man who is coequal with the Father in essence, and also by applying divine titles and metaphors to Himself.

For instance, Jesus applied an Old Testament title “I Am” to himself, which is significant since he was basically making himself out to be the OT figure known as the Angel of the Lord, the “I Am” of Exodus 3:14! There were many different Jewish strands at that time that already maintained that this figure was God and yet distinct from God.(2) Thus, by using the title “I Am” Jesus was affirming both His deity as well as His distinction from the Father since in the Old Testament “I Am” was applied to both God (cf. Deuteronomy 32:39; Isaiah 43:13) and the Angel of the Lord (cf. Exodus 3:14). One needs to understand intertestimental Jewish thinking in order to understand these issues properly. Without this pre-Christian Jewish backdrop in mind Muslims will be unable to understand why Jesus did what He did and said the things He said.

In summary, although Christ didn’t say “I am God” without qualification, which would have led people to think he was the Father, he did apply numerous Old Testament titles of God to Himself while going out of his way to affirm that He is not the Father.

Therefore, it is understandable why Jesus didn’t say “I am God” during His earthly ministry. That would severely complicate things and lead to a mistaken notion of the Godhead. Jesus affirmed the equivalent of “I am God” in a brilliant way while safeguarding the fact that He and the Father are personally distinct from each other.
 

JerryMyers

Active Member
The complex unity of the Trinity is mentioned in the Old Testament and not a solitary unity.
The Trinity is like an egg having a shell, a white, and a yolk, Trinity: Oneness in unity not in number: Yachid vs. Echad
Definition of trinity is ‘God (the Father) is the son (Jesus) and God is also the Holy Spirit, but, the son is NOT the Father nor is he the Holy Spirit AND the Holy Spirit is NOT the Father nor is he the son – they are three distinct persons and they can coexist independently at the same time and space’.

So, using your analogy – “The Trinity is like an egg having a shell, a white, and a yolk”, which one is assuming the role of the Father, the son, and the Holy Spirit ?? Let’s say the shell is assuming the role of the Father - can we say the shell is the white and also the yolk, but the white is not the shell nor is it the yolk and the yolk is not the shell nor is it the white ?? If that sounds like nonsense, that’s because it is nonsense! Trinity is a MAN-MADE doctrine developed long after Jesus' departure and that’s why no prophet of God, including Jesus, ever preach trinity in their respective lifetime.

The Bible teaches that Jesus is the Word of God. John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. Jesus said in John 10:30 I and my Father are one. Jesus mentioned the complex unity of the Godhead (mentioned in Colossians 2:9-For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.)

No, the Bible did NOT teach you Jesus is literally the Word of God, it’s your church and preachers that teach you that by misinterpreting the scripture and Jesus’ words to ‘tailor-fit’ their preaching into the scripture.


Jesus NOT SAYING outright “I am God” in the whole Bible is NOT, I repeat, NOT, the key indicator that tells us Jesus is NOT God/God the Son, it’s when Jesus OUTRIGHT DENY that he’s God/God’s Son/God the Son that tells us, without a shadow of a doubt, he (Jesus) is NOT God. Why? Because Jesus denied it himself - and you can find that in your own Bible !!

I can understand why Trinitarian like yourself will turn a blind eye on Jesus’ denial that he’s God the Son, even it’s there in your own Bible, because if Jesus is NOT God/God the Son, then, your trinity doctrine and everything that stands on Jesus’ divinity will just collapse like the domino cards.
 
Top