God is 1 vs God is 3

[Shermana]

I will be more than happy to go over every one of those those Trinity Proof texts. But before I do, I wanna ask you something about Jesus. According to Christian theology, Jesus was morally perfect. Now my question is, was it possible for Jesus to sin, or was it impossible for Jesus to sin? Please answer this question.

It was indeed possible for him to sin.

Jesus isn't the one rendering it, it is the author of John that lets the readers know that the actions that are taking place in that context was a prophecy from Zechariah. Second, I find it hard to believe that whoever translated John wouldn't have quoted the Zechariah scripture the same way it was rendered in Zechariah 12:10.

No, AGAIN you misunderstand. Jesus quotes it, without changing it, he says "As the scripture says", he is not changing what it says when he says "The one". I don't find it hard to believe this, since translators make errors especially when doctrine is concerned. I know enough about Hebrew to tell you that Zechariah's "Me" is not a definite "Me", it is a pronoun indicator that can mean a variety of things. You are saying that Jesus wasn't reading the verse as it says when he specifially says that he's quoting it word for word. You are making Jesus out as if he's changing the text. And your interpretation wouldn't even make sense, since he would say "me" if he was indicating that it was him who it was talking about. Why would he even say "The one" or "him"? Notice that even the Greek translations when quoting that sometimes differ between "the one" and "him".

Jesus says "As the scripture will be fulfilled" right before this. Now notice that the translations below can't even decide on if it's "him" or "The one".

New International Version (©2011)
and, as another scripture says, "They will look on the one they have pierced."
New Living Translation (©2007)
and "They will look on the one they pierced."

English Standard Version (©2001)
And again another Scripture says, “They will look on him whom they have pierced.”

New American Standard Bible (©1995)
And again another Scripture says, "THEY SHALL LOOK ON HIM WHOM THEY PIERCED."

You ask me how I am able to discuss Greek grammar without being totally fluent in it. But you don't even know the reasons for the claims in question such as this. The point is that the word "Eth" is not "me", it's an "untransalatable" pronoun indicator. It's not always clear how it's used exactly, but Jesus, when quoted by John, makes it overwhelmingly, undeniably, without question or doubt, clear that it was not meant as "me", but as either "him" or "The one".

http://biblesuite.com/hebrew/853.htm

Now please read the following link before even trying to dispute this.

http://www.biblicalunitarian.com/verses/zechariah-12-10

First of all, let me say that whoever adds words to or omit words from the bible is WRONG. Flat out wrong. Second, besides the New World's Translation (the JW bible), I am not aware of any translation that renders those Trinity text scriptures the way that they do. And if there are some translations out there, they are few and far between. You can feel free to go on biblegateway.com and look up all the Trinity proof texts and see how many of those translations renders those verses the way that you do. Unless you are saying that every single one of those translations are “Pro-Trinity”, how are you so certain that your view is the correct view and theirs are not, unless you are proficient in the Ancient Greek language.

Because I have scholars who agree with me that I base my view on. It's not a matter of appeal to a numerical authority, it's about the fact that non-church-aligned scholars have disagreements with the way the Trinitarian church-aligned scholars translate the Greek. They basically call them out saying that they resort to distorting the Greek itself to promote their doctrine, because the Greek when correctly clearly goes against what they're saying.

I posted a link that shows many translations that render John 1:1 as such. I can understand why you're not familiar with many translations that render it similarly, since the grand majority of mainstream translations are church-aligned. The market for intellectually honest non-church-biased scholarly translations is pretty much a niche.

Once again I ask, have you studied the Ancient Greek language?

I don't have to be fluent to say the same things as those who have studied it say.

You are coming across as if you are a subject matter expert on the language as you keep talking about “grammar” issues.

I don't have to be an expert to say the same things that independent non-church aligned experts do.

What I am saying is, once again, of ALL the different translations that there are on biblegateway.com, none of them agree with you,

It may be a shock to you, but all the mainstream translations on Biblegateway are church-aligned translations and they probably wouldn't dare link to any of the independent scholarly non-church-aligned translations. I wouldn't be surprised if this is the first time you've heard that there are hundreds of translations written by independent Greek scholars that you probably have never heard of.

but they all agree with me.

Yes, again, the majority of mainstream translations, especially those listed on sites like that, are the Church-aligned ones written for mainstream use in churches.

So either you are in a dream state at which you are stuck in a world where no one really agrees with you, or you should let the bible speak for itself. Just...relax a bit lol.

What's clear as day is that you're in a fantasy land when you have no clue that there are such things as other Bible translations than the ones listed on Biblegateway.com.

I take it those “hardcore” Greek scholars are not 10+ bible translators that translate it much differently.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by this statement, but there are hundreds, not just 10+ that translate various verses differently.

If you're referring to the selection of mainstream church-affiliated translations like the King James, NIV, RSV, Good News Bible, etc, no, they're not on those.

I'm even referring to Trinitarian scholars like Moffatt and Goodspeed and Wallace who you probably have not heard of before judging by your previous replies.

I hope you can learn to appreciate that there are other Bible versions than the mainstream ones listed on Biblegateway.com and that there is a whole world of Bible scholarship which is at odds with the Conservative view in how to read the Dead-language of Koine.

If you are not proficient in Greek how do you know whether grammar is being distorted?

Because you don't have to know fluent Greek to know basic grammar principles that the experts discuss. The grammar in Greek is not far removed from grammar in other languages. If you are not proficient in Greek how do you know that these independent non-church-aligned Scholars are wrong? What about Trinitarians themselves who argue against the grammar choices by other Trinitarians like Wallace?

I can't wait to get to the rest of the Trinity Proof texts.

I'll be here tomorrow, feel free.

 

[Ibraahiym]

There Is No Way To Have A Trinity Without First Separating Each Of The Three Things Indivdually To Declare Then A Trinity . By That I Mean , You Have To First Establish That There Is A Father One Thing And A Son Another Thing And A Holy Ghost The Thrid Thing , In order For These Things To Totally Mix And Become One Thing .

They Would Have To Start Off Equal In Rank , Quantity . Space , Density , Authority , Or Existence . In Admitting That The Son Came From The Father , Time Make The Difference , The Father Would Have To Had Been First , Before The Son . This WThere Is No Way To Have A Trinity Without First Separating Each Of The Three Things Indivdually To Declare Then A Trinity .

By That I Mean , You Have To First Establish That There Is A Father One Thing And A Son Another Thing And A Holy Ghost The Thrid Thing , In order For These Things To Totally Mix And Become One Thing . They Would Have To Start Off Equal In Rank , Quantity . Space , Density , Authority , Or Existence . In Admitting That The Son Came From The Father , Time Make The Difference , The Father Would Have To Had Been First , Before The Son .

This Would Make Them Unequal And Incapable Of Becoming A Balanced Triad . No It Did Not Mean That When It Said God The Father ,,, God The Son , And God The Holy Ghost = One God .. Because Three Cannot Go Into One .would Make Them Unequal And Incapable Of Becoming A Balanced Triad . No It Did Not Mean That When It Said God The Father ,,, God The Son , And God The Holy Ghost = One God .. Because Three Cannot Go Into One .

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Definitions of a translation pertain to the context especially when there are multiple definitions for a word that is a loose translation of the Greek or Hebrew.

Right, but the word "Divine" would nonetheless apply as it was intended to apply, as in pertaining to what we could call "A divine being", it's still in the indefinite case defining such a being.

Ok, so the question is what does the word MEAN in the context that it is used in??? If Jesus was divine, what does that imply?

An Angel or a Divine being, as I said. The word "Elohim" refers to Angels in the text, like in Psalm 8:5, which the book of Hebrews quotes, rendering "Elohim" as "Angels."

Psalm 8:5

21st Century King James Version (KJ21)
5 For Thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honor.

So he “made him a little lower than the gods” Makes no sense.

So if he made him a little lower than the gods, what was he before that transition?

That is correct.

It is correct based on what?

His being the Firstborn Created spiritual being, the Logos, the chief of the Sons of god, the Prime Created Divine being.

There is no biblical evidence that Jesus was created by the Father, that is your theology, however, that is not supported by the bible.

Ummm, Paul does indeed call Satan a god. "The god of this age" in fact.

Cmon now, that is just a figure of speech as to how much influence Satan has in this world. That does not mean that Paul is literally calling Satan a god. If Jesus is “a god”, and Satan is “a god”, then what is the difference? To call Satan the god of this age, is that not to say that Jesus isn't the god of this age? Are they both the gods of this age? Which is it? Let you tell it, before God created mankind he was having a “godfest” in his creation. He created his son to be a god, he created Satan to be a god, and he created the angels to be a god. It was just a god-haven in heaven.

No, he was already second in command and lowered himself from there. Was I not clear?

The question was if he was a servant of his Father from the day of his creation, why would he need to lower himself to become what he already was? The scripture is clear, he lowered himself first, and by lowering himself he BECAME a servant. If you work it backwards, he raises himself up and is therefore not a servant.

Being on Earth means he is now no longer in charge of Angels for the time being. Even if he can call on legions of Angels, it's not quite the same as being in charge. This is why he needed to return to the Glory He once held with the Father.

Oh, so he couldn't multi-task? Lol How was he no longer in charge of the angels when he stated that all authority in heaven and on earth was given to him (Matt 28:18). Aren't the angels in heaven? Hmmm

Which is kind of what I'm saying, his position relative to the Father changed he came to Earth, he no longer held the Glory he once had.

Once again, Matt 28:18...he said all authority in heaven and on earth was given to him, and this was WHILE he was on earth lol.

Feel free to explain why it should read not read "Form of Slave" instead of "form of a slave" after you read this.

Examining the Trinity: PHIL 2:6

Ernst Haenchen translates it as "A divine being" which is the same thing. On this issue one must actually examine the Greek grammar itself and not just rely on the majority translations.

Well, in this particular scripture it doesn't matter whether you include the indefinite article or not, because it is evident that however you render it, “a slave is what Jesus took the form of”. Not only that, he had to lower himself to reach that subordinate position, as the context indicates.

See Acts 12:22 if you have any disagreement.

Right, they said “this is the voice of a god”. This makes sense, since it was coming from the mouths of pagan believers, who worship many gods. No Christian would use “a god” because there is only one God. If God appeared to me one morning and I went to tell my Pastor, I wouldn't say “Pastor, a god appeared to me this morning”....I would say “Pastor, God appeared to me this morning” That is a big difference.

Oh yes indeed they do in fact fabricate Grammar rules, if you'd like to debate Colwell's and Sharp's rule, start a new thread. Trust me, I have debated EvERY one of your objections multiple times.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

You're not even familiar with one of the basics like the Comma Johanneum, so I can understand that this may be the first time you've come across these objections to the Trinity.

Comma Johanneum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I have debated many JW's on the Trinity, so far from “the first time” I've come across these objections. The issues you are raising are more from a grammatical standpoint, while their issues are more from a theological standpoint. But as I said before, those many translations of the bible that are out there, everyone has their own translators of the original Greek scriptures, and I refuse to believe that all the translators were pro-trinity as you seem to be asserting.

I am indeed prejudiced, my prejudice is based on a factual knowledge of the controversial grammar issues at stake, not just my Theological confirmation bias. You don't even seem to be familiar with the issues at stake.

Well, until you get a degree in the Ancient Greek language I don't think you are an authority to say what is grammatically correct or not. The fact of the matter is, there are a very few translations that render those scriptures the way that you do. Very few, in fact.

Attributing something to the Holy Spirit when it's not may in fact be as blasphemous towards it as attributing something to demons when it's the Spirit. I'm willing to take the risk of saying it was not the Spirit motivating you to have those "Sirens" go off. People all over the world of different religions have "Sirens" go off at various times, is that the Spirit guiding them too?

LOL look, every religion is faith based. I am telling you what I BELIEVE based on my religion. I believe that I worship the one true God, and if I am given reading material that is contrary to his word then he will tell me. You say you disagree with this, which is fine, I wouldn't expect anyone that doesn't believe in Jesus Christ to agree with a Christian stating that the Holy Spirit is speaking to him/her.

Is a Mormon being motivated by the Spirit when he has Sirens go off when people try to convert him from Mormonism? Do you honestly expect people to believe that every single emotional or psychological issue is related to it?

Do Mormons believe that Jesus Christ is the Savior and that he died on the cross for their sins? If the answer is no, then the answer to your question is no.

I don't think there's such thing as over-analyzing, I think there's such thing as garnering incorrect analyzing. I think one could write off scholarly arguments that poke holes in their position as "over analyzing" as a way to dodge out of the arguments.

I think over-analyzing leads to “garnering incorrect analyzing”. And I DON'T think anyone has poked holes through the doctrine of the Trinity. For example, if you read the bible, and you read the story of Joseph and how the Pharaoh of Egypt, on his birthday, had a man killed. Ok, fine. Then you read Gospel and stumble across the fact that King Herod, on his birthday, killed John the Baptist. Now based on these two events that happened on these men's birthday, if you are going to determine that it is morally wrong people to celebrate birthdays because in the bible, two men killed on their birthday, then you are over-analyzing the situation, clearly. You have analyzed beyond necessity. Clearly, it does not follow.

So apparently the Bible can only speak for itself when you find the translation easy to read?
So the Bible was written to speak for itself on some issues and not others? The thing is, the Bible seems to "speak for itself" for everyone depending on how they want to translate it. It's a matter of translating it correctly and getting the right context through a variety of methods of analyzing.

No, my point was let the bible speak for itself. You do this by NOT making a doctrine based off one scripture. You seem to be stuck on this “bible speaking for itself” deal. So let me elaborate. In Col 1:15, it states...referring to Jesus...

15 The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16 For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. 17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

Since JW's believe that Jesus was created by God, in their New World's Translation, they add the word “other” inside brackets...so their bible will read “for him all [other] things were created”.....”he is before all [other] things, and in him all [other] things hold together”. Now instead of LETTING THE BIBLE SPEAK FOR ITSELF, which would allude to the fact that Christ created all things, they have to add a word to it to fit their own theology, clearly changing the whole context of the scripture. That is what I mean, and it is very evident. Not only is that a bad interpretation in light of the other scriptures, that is just bad ethics overall. If the author wanted to say “other”, he would have wrote “other”. That is bad business.

Of course I have an interpretation. However, my interpretation involves, in my interpretation, no contradictions. Yours does. The idea of God being three persons in one being does not add up with Hebrew Theology in my interpretatation. Your view that Jesus cannot be "a god" contradicts what the Bible says about the existence of other beings called "gods" as well as the traditional interpretation of the Logos Theology.

My view is Jesus is “the God”, along with the Father and the Holy Spirit. My view is Jesus is equal to the Father in power and glory. And the scriptures seem to agree with me.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

It was indeed possible for him to sin.

So if it was possible for him to sin, but he didn't, he lived a perfect life. But I thought no one was perfect but God? How is it that Jesus was able to do something that no other "created" person was able to do? Who can live a sinless life but God alone?

No, AGAIN you misunderstand. Jesus quotes it, without changing it, he says "As the scripture says", he is not changing what it says when he says "The one". I don't find it hard to believe this, since translators make errors especially when doctrine is concerned. I know enough about Hebrew to tell you that Zechariah's "Me" is not a definite "Me", it is a pronoun indicator that can mean a variety of things. You are saying that Jesus wasn't reading the verse as it says when he specifially says that he's quoting it word for word. You are making Jesus out as if he's changing the text. And your interpretation wouldn't even make sense, since he would say "me" if he was indicating that it was him who it was talking about. Why would he even say "The one" or "him"? Notice that even the Greek translations when quoting that sometimes differ between "the one" and "him".

Jesus is not the one speaking in John 19:37, the scripture CLEARLY states...

36 These things happened so that the scripture would be fulfilled: “Not one of his bones will be broken,”[c] 37 and, as another scripture says, “They will look on the one they have pierced.”[d]

Jesus is not speaking here. Second, you do agree that Zechariah does state "me", referring to the SPEAKER. If I tell you "I think she likes me", who does she like, ME, THE SPEAKER.


Jesus says "As the scripture will be fulfilled" right before this. Now notice that the translations below can't even decide on if it's "him" or "The one".

New International Version (©2011)
and, as another scripture says, "They will look on the one they have pierced."
New Living Translation (©2007)
and "They will look on the one they pierced."

English Standard Version (©2001)
And again another Scripture says, “They will look on him whom they have pierced.”

New American Standard Bible (©1995)
And again another Scripture says, "THEY SHALL LOOK ON HIM WHOM THEY PIERCED."

Well, I just looked at the New American Standard Bible on biblegateway.com, and it states...

Zechariah 12:10
New American Standard Bible (NASB)

10 “I will pour out on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem, [a]the Spirit of grace and of supplication, so that they will look on Me whom they have pierced

"Me" is in that text, but it isn't in yours. Something is fishy here...

You ask me how I am able to discuss Greek grammar without being totally fluent in it. But you don't even know the reasons for the claims in question such as this. The point is that the word "Eth" is not "me", it's an "untransalatable" pronoun indicator. It's not always clear how it's used exactly, but Jesus, when quoted by John, makes it overwhelmingly, undeniably, without question or doubt, clear that it was not meant as "me", but as either "him" or "The one".

It doesn't matter, all the John scripture was aimed to do is tell readers that the prophecy was fulfilled, and if Jesus was the predicate in John, that makes him the subject in Zechariah, as "me" referred to the speaker.

Strong's Hebrew: 853. ???? (eth) -- untranslatable mark of the accusative case.

Now please read the following link before even trying to dispute this.

Zechariah 12:10 - A Verse Used to Support the Trinity | BiblicalUnitarian.com

Showing links doesn't do anything. I could give you links that back my position as well.

Because I have scholars who agree with me that I base my view on. It's not a matter of appeal to a numerical authority, it's about the fact that non-church-aligned scholars have disagreements with the way the Trinitarian church-aligned scholars translate the Greek. They basically call them out saying that they resort to distorting the Greek itself to promote their doctrine, because the Greek when correctly clearly goes against what they're saying.

So every Greek translator that translated differently that your sources are pro-trinity, gotcha.

I posted a link that shows many translations that render John 1:1 as such. I can understand why you're not familiar with many translations that render it similarly, since the grand majority of mainstream translations are church-aligned. The market for intellectually honest non-church-biased scholarly translations is pretty much a niche.

As I said before, the bible has to harmonize. I disagree with the rendering of John 1:1 because it contradicts the rest of the scriptures.

I don't have to be fluent to say the same things as those who have studied it say.

I have my sources too.

I don't have to be an expert to say the same things that independent non-church aligned experts do.

Yup, it is a big pro-trinity conspiracy with the Christian Church.

It may be a shock to you, but all the mainstream translations on Biblegateway are church-aligned translations and they probably wouldn't dare link to any of the independent scholarly non-church-aligned translations. I wouldn't be surprised if this is the first time you've heard that there are hundreds of translations written by independent Greek scholars that you probably have never heard of.

It goes beyond translations, the whole concept of salvation could only be true if Jesus was God incarnate, as only a morally perfect being could come on earth and live a morally perfect life. Not to mention the fact that Jesus did things that only God could do, and had attributes that only God could have. This goes beyond translations, this is based on mere Christianity, mere concepts.

What's clear as day is that you're in a fantasy land when you have no clue that there are such things as other Bible translations than the ones listed on Biblegateway.com.

Not at all, my point is; of all the translations that are on there, all of them happen to agree with me and not you.

I'm even referring to Trinitarian scholars like Moffatt and Goodspeed and Wallace who you probably have not heard of before judging by your previous replies.

I hope you can learn to appreciate that there are other Bible versions than the mainstream ones listed on Biblegateway.com and that there is a whole world of Bible scholarship which is at odds with the Conservative view in how to read the Dead-language of Koine.

As I said, it goes beyond translations.

 

[Shermana]

Ok, so the question is what does the word MEAN in the context that it is used in??? If Jesus was divine, what does that imply?

It means he was an Angelic/Heavenly being, a powerful Spiritual being. Like the other "divine beings". Josephus frequently uses the term "Divine angel" for the messenger Angels, so along those lines.

So if he made him a little lower than the gods, what was he before that transition?

One of the gods.

It is correct based on what?

Based on correct grammar and correct ancient Israelite theological context.

There is no biblical evidence that Jesus was created by the Father, that is your theology, however, that is not supported by the bible.

Sure there is, it says that "Wisdom", which is the "Logos", was the First created incarnated being, see Proverbs 8. It's completely supported by the Bible, especially the traditional pre-Protestant Bible which includes WIsdom of Solomon and Sirach which extensively discuss this.

Cmon now, that is just a figure of speech as to how much influence Satan has in this world.

It's not just a figure of speech. And if it is a figure of speech, then it shows just how the word "god" can be employed.

That does not mean that Paul is literally calling Satan a god.

Sure it does.

If Jesus is “a god”, and Satan is “a god”, then what is the difference?

Their roles.

To call Satan the god of this age, is that not to say that Jesus isn't the god of this age?

Satan is the one who has mastery over those who aren't in the Kingdom. Jesus is the god over the ones who have broken free. However, as we see in the Septuagint version of Deuteronomy 32:8, and as I discussed with Pegg, all the nations have their own (lesser) gods to rule over them, Israel is unique in that THE god is their god.

Are they both the gods of this age?

No. Only Satan is. Jesus is the god of those who have broken free from the dark god Satan.

Which is it? Let you tell it, before God created mankind he was having a “godfest” in his creation.

Depending on what you mean by "godfest", then yes, there was indeed a "godfest", this was also standard ancient Jewish interpretation even by Josephus's time.

He created his son to be a god, he created Satan to be a god, and he created the angels to be a god. It was just a god-haven in heaven.

Pretty much.

The question was if he was a servant of his Father from the day of his creation, why would he need to lower himself to become what he already was?

To be a servant to more than just The God but to all of Creation.

The scripture is clear, he lowered himself first, and by lowering himself he BECAME a servant. If you work it backwards, he raises himself up and is therefore not a servant.

Again, by your logic, only God is not a servant. Jesus was not really a "Servant" of God in the same sense that a human would be a servant. The Logos is more or less the second in command of Heaven, not just a "servant".

Oh, so he couldn't multi-task? Lol How was he no longer in charge of the angels when he stated that all authority in heaven and on earth was given to him (Matt 28:18). Aren't the angels in heaven? Hmmm

The mere fact that it says the authority was GIVEN to him implies that someone ELSE gave it to him. Besides, you're ignoring the point I made about him not having the glory he had in heaven.

Once again, Matt 28:18...he said all authority in heaven and on earth was given to him, and this was WHILE he was on earth lol.

I don't really see how this defeats my point, and you're still not addressing the fact that he no longer held the glory he had while WITH God in Heaven, who GAVE him his power.

Well, in this particular scripture it doesn't matter whether you include the indefinite article or not, because it is evident that however you render it, “a slave is what Jesus took the form of”.

Of course it matters, we're talking about why the grammar suddenly changes from one word to another with the same case. You're changing it to a Theological-philosophical issue.

Not only that, he had to lower himself to reach that subordinate position, as the context indicates.

Right, and he wasn't necessarily a "Servant" in the same sense while in Heaven.

Right, they said “this is the voice of a god”. This makes sense, since it was coming from the mouths of pagan believers, who worship many gods.

Ahem....we're talking about the grammar.

No Christian would use “a god” because there is only one God.

No Christian would according to your Trinitarian presumptions. Regardless, we're talking about the grammar, not the Theological presuppositions. The grammar doesn't change to suit the Theology. Although the issue of theology altering and influencing Grammar is a good discussion when discussing the shift to Modern Greek.

If God appeared to me one morning and I went to tell my Pastor, I wouldn't say “Pastor, a god appeared to me this morning”....I would say “Pastor, God appeared to me this morning” That is a big difference.

Perhaps you should learn about why God is called THE god in so many cases, then we can discuss the grammatical connotation.

 

[Shermana]

So if it was possible for him to sin, but he didn't, he lived a perfect life. But I thought no one was perfect but God? How is it that Jesus was able to do something that no other "created" person was able to do? Who can live a sinless life but God alone?

Actually the text say there were people who lived blameless before God and thus did not sin.

Luke 1:6

New International Version (©2011)
Both of them were righteous in the sight of God, observing all the Lord's commands and decrees blamelessly.

Jesus is not the one speaking in John 19:37, the scripture CLEARLY states...

You're right it's John speaking, and he says as the Scripture says.

Jesus is not speaking here. Second, you do agree that Zechariah does state "me", referring to the SPEAKER. If I tell you "I think she likes me", who does she like, ME, THE SPEAKER.

No, I specifically was saying I do NOT agree that Zechariah says "Me".

Well, I just looked at the New American Standard Bible on biblegateway.com, and it states...

Looks like you didn't read the link I asked you to specifically read before disputing this, expected.

"Me" is in that text, but it isn't in yours. Something is fishy here...

Yes, what's fishy is the translations who put Doctrine over theology. Now try actually reading the link this time before disputing this.

It doesn't matter, all the John scripture was aimed to do is tell readers that the prophecy was fulfilled, and if Jesus was the predicate in John, that makes him the subject in Zechariah, as "me" referred to the speaker.

John was quoting the scripture word for word.

Showing links doesn't do anything. I could give you links that back my position as well.

I see. So basically you don't even want to read the link. I'm sure you have links that could say what you want to say. I WOULD however, read them and tell you where they're wrong. So if you're going to reject what I say and go by the authority alone of your particular translations and deliberately avoid examining any of my links or sources that disagree with yours, I think we're done here.

So every Greek translator that translated differently that your sources are pro-trinity, gotcha.

Not every one, I even mentioned that the JPS does so as well but that they are criticized for doing so in that they merely follow the KJ tradition.

As I said before, the bible has to harmonize. I disagree with the rendering of John 1:1 because it contradicts the rest of the scriptures.

And I disagree, I say that it doesn't contradict the rest of scriptures, rather, the traditional rendition is what contradicts.

I have my sources too.

Yes, but my sources discuss what your sources say and prove them wrong, I've seen many of the sources your side uses, and they have no answer to what my sources attack them on.

Yup, it is a big pro-trinity conspiracy with the Christian Church.

Indeed. Talking about Conspiracies in the historic Christian Church is not exactly crazy talk.

It goes beyond translations, the whole concept of salvation could only be true if Jesus was God incarnate, as only a morally perfect being could come on earth and live a morally perfect life.

That's not based on any actual textual basis, and even then, the text doesn't say that no one at all has lived a sinless life.

Not to mention the fact that Jesus did things that only God could do,

Like what? Forgive sins that he was GIVEN authority to do?

and had attributes that only God could have.

Like what? Like the attribute of not knowing the hour or day? Like the attribute of trying to weasel out of his sacrifice by asking God to take the cup from him?

This goes beyond translations, this is based on mere Christianity, mere concepts.

You mean this is based on mere traditional doctrines that don't necessarily objectively coincide with the text.

Not at all, my point is; of all the translations that are on there, all of them happen to agree with me and not you.

That would be expected of sites that cater to the traditional church audience and not the scholarly critical independents.

As I said, it goes beyond translations

Yes, circular Theological reasoning enters the picture too.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

It means he was an Angelic/Heavenly being, a powerful Spiritual being. Like the other "divine beings". Josephus frequently uses the term "Divine angel" for the messenger Angels, so along those lines.

Wow. So according to you, every angel is a god, and every demon is a god. False interpretation at it best right there.

One of the gods.

So if he was one of the gods before the transition, but "lower" than the angels after the transition, how did he still have power and authority over them, as Matt 28:18 indicates? Why do the angels worship in Heb 1:6?

Based on correct grammar and correct ancient Israelite theological context.

I don't see what Israelite theological context has to do with it when the message is for the Gentiles.

Sure there is, it says that "Wisdom", which is the "Logos", was the First created incarnated being, see Proverbs 8. It's completely supported by the Bible, especially the traditional pre-Protestant Bible which includes WIsdom of Solomon and Sirach which extensively discuss this.

Proverbs 8 is not speaking about Jesus. In the beginning of the chapter "wisdom" is given the feminine pronoun, "she".

It's not just a figure of speech. And if it is a figure of speech, then it shows just how the word "god" can be employed.

Right, but it is important that the context is considered too.

Sure it does.

Ok, you believe that a powerful angelic or demon being can be called "god". Ok, but my point is, Jesus is GOD, in the sense that he has the same attributes that the Father has, which makes him distinct from the angels and Satan. By same attributes, I mean omniscience, omnipresence, omnipotence, and omnibenevolence. This is all biblically speaking, of course. As long as that distinction is made, cool beans.

Their roles.

Their roles may be different, but on your view they are still gods, nonetheless.

Satan is the one who has mastery over those who aren't in the Kingdom. Jesus is the god over the ones who have broken free. However, as we see in the Septuagint version of Deuteronomy 32:8, and as I discussed with Pegg, all the nations have their own (lesser) gods to rule over them, Israel is unique in that THE god is their god.

Ok, I can live with that.

No. Only Satan is. Jesus is the god of those who have broken free from the dark god Satan.

I am just careful the way the word "god" is being tossed around. If by "god" you mean a supernatural being that has great power and influence, then that may work, even though I wouldn't call anyone "god" but the Tri-Unity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

To be a servant to more than just The God but to all of Creation.

LMAO, you think so?

Again, by your logic, only God is not a servant. Jesus was not really a "Servant" of God in the same sense that a human would be a servant. The Logos is more or less the second in command of Heaven, not just a "servant".

Right, and to be second in command means to be a subordinate to the first in command, which is the way it was from the very beginning of Jesus "existence". The roles didn't change, the only thing that changed was the location of the service that was needed (from heaven to earth). Jesus still had authority over both heaven and earth Matt 28:18, so I don't see the reason why Paul emphasized on "lowering" or "servant" so much if he wasn't trying to make a broader point.

The mere fact that it says the authority was GIVEN to him implies that someone ELSE gave it to him.

Right, and my point is it was only given to him AFTER he lowered himself and became a servant from his higher position. Jesus willfully subjected himself to the Father, at which their roles changed. Heck, Jesus was "given" over to be crucified by Pilate, because based on their positions, Pilate was in a higher position than Jesus was (from a earthly view). The mere roles mean nothing, the focus should be on their very NATURE; the nature of their being, at which Jesus is also God along with the Father.

Besides, you're ignoring the point I made about him not having the glory he had in heaven.

I'm sorry I missed it.

I don't really see how this defeats my point, and you're still not addressing the fact that he no longer held the glory he had while WITH God in Heaven, who GAVE him his power.

And why didn't he?

Of course it matters, we're talking about why the grammar suddenly changes from one word to another with the same case. You're changing it to a Theological-philosophical issue.

It makes perfect sense to me. The same reason why instead of saying "Barack Obama became a President in 2008", we just say "Barack Obama became President in 2008". But if he was a police officer, instead of saying "Barack Obama became police officer in 2008", we say "Barack Obama became a police officer in 2008". Its the same thing.

Right, and he wasn't necessarily a "Servant" in the same sense while in Heaven.

But he was a servant nonetheless. And not only that, notice that it also say that Jesus "did not consider equality with God something to be grasped", now why would it say that if he wasn't equal with God?

Ahem....we're talking about the grammar.

But context is everything. You have to look at who was making the statement. A Christian that worships one God would not say "a god", but would say "God", no article needed.

No Christian would according to your Trinitarian presumptions. Regardless, we're talking about the grammar, not the Theological presuppositions. The grammar doesn't change to suit the Theology. Although the issue of theology altering and influencing Grammar is a good discussion when discussing the shift to Modern Greek.

Oh I keep forgetting I am talking to a Greek language Professor at a major university here.

Perhaps you should learn about why God is called THE god in so many cases, then we can discuss the grammatical connotation.

Lets talk about it then.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Actually the text say there were people who lived blameless before God and thus did not sin.

Luke 1:6

New International Version (©2011)
Both of them were righteous in the sight of God, observing all the Lord's commands and decrees blamelessly.

So, does this mean that either one of them could have died for our sins in place of Jesus?

You're right it's John speaking, and he says as the Scripture says.

And according to him, prophecy fulfilled.

No, I specifically was saying I do NOT agree that Zechariah says "Me".

My bad then.

Looks like you didn't read the link I asked you to specifically read before disputing this, expected.

I don't really read links much, for every link you give me, I can give you one supporting my position. Destination; Nowhere.

John was quoting the scripture word for word.

So why didn't the translators of the John scripture place the word "me" in the same context as the Zechariah scripture, if it was all about adding words to the bible to fit ones own theology? Either they were naïve, or John was not giving a direct quote, but paraphrasing the quote, which is not surprising if the readers could cross check the Zechariah scripture and immediately know who said what.

I see. So basically you don't even want to read the link. I'm sure you have links that could say what you want to say. I WOULD however, read them and tell you where they're wrong. So if you're going to reject what I say and go by the authority alone of your particular translations and deliberately avoid examining any of my links or sources that disagree with yours, I think we're done here.

So if I give you links supporting my position, what will you think? Will you still think "my translators are better than yours?" Will you disregard my links and say "Your translators are from the Christian Church", which is some of the same stuff you said previously? What good will it do.

Not every one, I even mentioned that the JPS does so as well but that they are criticized for doing so in that they merely follow the KJ tradition.

What is the point in translating the bible if you are just following the tradition of a previous translation? Sounds like a waste of time to me. Unless you have your own set of Greek translators at which you will allow them to translate, and if the text is similar to other translators, so be it.

Indeed. Talking about Conspiracies in the historic Christian Church is not exactly crazy talk.

Fair enough lol

That's not based on any actual textual basis, and even then, the text doesn't say that no one at all has lived a sinless life.

I ask again, does if anyone has ever lived a sinless life besides Jesus, that person could have taken Jesus place on the cross and died for our sins? Correct? And while you ponder that, read Romans 3:23.

Like what? Forgive sins that he was GIVEN authority to do?

Or the fact that he was worshipped. Jews were commanded to only worship God Exo 20:3-6. Yet, Jesus was worshipped by man Matt 14:32-33. And he was worshipped by the angels Heb 1:6. Only God is worthy of worship, yet Jesus was worshipped the day he was born, throughout his earthly ministry, and even after he ascended back to heaven. Hmmmm

Like what? Like the attribute of not knowing the hour or day? Like the attribute of trying to weasel out of his sacrifice by asking God to take the cup from him?

John 21:17 states that Jesus does know all things. As a man he sometimes limited himself of his power. He got tired, hungry, thirsty, and even faced fear, as you allude to. These were due to his nature as a human being. The point was for him to relate to our suffering, for him to get tempted as he was, to suffer pain as we do. That was the point.

 

[Shermana]

So, does this mean that either one of them could have died for our sins in place of Jesus?

I wouldn't be able to say. The text doesn't really say anything about him needing to be perfect in order to be such a sacrifice. All it implies is that he is the prophecied guilt offering.

And according to him, prophecy fulfilled.

Did you forget what the subject was about in dispute here?

My bad then.

Yes, now please read that link so you can see for yourself the grammatical issues at stake for the word "Eth".

I don't really read links much, for every link you give me, I can give you one supporting my position. Destination; Nowhere.

How are you supposed to argue anything if you're going to remove links from the equation? I don't think you CAN give any links that explain why the Eth must be translated as such. The destination for absolutely refusing to examine links and sources in a debate is what's nowhere.

So why didn't the translators of the John scripture place the word "me" in the same context as the Zechariah scripture, if it was all about adding words to the bible to fit ones own theology?

Because they translated it correctly, the English translators over a millenia later were the ones who did differently. I think you are once again misunderstanding what I said. For the sake of your case, the earliest Septuagint renders it "me", but that's at least from 300 years after John's writing.

The Trinity Delusion: Zechariah 12:10

I know you claim to refuse to read any links, but I will provide for those who are reading.

Either they were naïve, or John was not giving a direct quote, but paraphrasing the quote, which is not surprising if the readers could cross check the Zechariah scripture and immediately know who said what.

Or you're not aware that the "me" translations were a much later development after John and we have no idea when the earliest Septuagints which translated it as "me" came about, could have been 3 centuries after, as the earliest known Septuagints differ radically from other versions which we know of.

The RSV uses "him" instead of "Me", so apparently not even the modern Translators (The RSV is one of the most scholarly Trinitarian versions there are) can agree. It's clearly a doctrinal issue that goes back to the Trinitarian Septuagints.

So if I give you links supporting my position, what will you think?

I think that I'll read them so I can show you where they are wrong or purely based on Theologically-based readings that avoid the grammar issues.

Will you still think "my translators are better than yours?" Will you disregard my links and say "Your translators are from the Christian Church", which is some of the same stuff you said previously? What good will it do.

The good it will do is that it will provide room for debate to go over each other's links. Are you new to debating?

What is the point in translating the bible if you are just following the tradition of a previous translation?

That is indeed a criticism that has been leveled against the JPS at times.

Sounds like a waste of time to me. Unless you have your own set of Greek translators at which you will allow them to translate, and if the text is similar to other translators, so be it.

And thus is the beginning of the entire debate of how exactly to translate the dead language known as Koine devoid of Theological coloring and bias. Perhaps this is the first time you've heard of this, but scholars are quite divided on how exactly to translate dead languages especially on controversial, key issues that have Theological implications.

Fair enough lol

Indeed.

I ask again, does if anyone has ever lived a sinless life besides Jesus, that person could have taken Jesus place on the cross and died for our sins? Correct? And while you ponder that, read Romans 3:23.

If all have sinned, wouldn't that include Jesus? Perhaps Paul was mistaken, since that contradicts what the text says about those who lived blameless before God. I cannot answer if anyone could have taken Yeshua's place as the qualified Guilt Offering of Isaiah 53:10, the text gives no indication of such of whether it had to be the incarnation of the Logos or not.

Or the fact that he was worshipped.

King David was "worshiped". Worship means to bow down to.

Examining the Trinity: Worship (as used in Scripture)

Jews were commanded to only worship God Exo 20:3-6.

This is a bit of a Semantic issue that I've gone over hundreds of times.

The Hebrew word most often translated "worship" is shachah, and it is usually rendered as proskuneo in the Greek Septuagint version of the Old Testament. 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."

Yet, Jesus was worshipped by man Matt 14:32-33. And he was worshipped by the angels Heb 1:6. Only God is worthy of worship, yet Jesus was worshipped the day he was born, throughout his earthly ministry, and even after he ascended back to heaven. Hmmmm

Only God is worthy of the highest form of worship. Otherwise, it's merely a physical display of respect. I'll be happy to go over this in more detail if you wish.

John 21:17 states that Jesus does know all things.

He didn't know "the day or hour", how does that fit?

As a man he sometimes limited himself of his power.

Where does it say that? He asked God to restore him to the glory he once had with Him, that's about it. He also says He could have called upon legions of Angels if he wanted.

He got tired, hungry, thirsty, and even faced fear, as you allude to. These were due to his nature as a human being. The point was for him to relate to our suffering, for him to get tempted as he was, to suffer pain as we do. That was the point.

So he knew all things but didn't know all things at the same time? The text says nothing about him wanting to relate to humans.

 

[Shiranui117]

Sure there is, it says that "Wisdom", which is the "Logos", was the First created incarnated being, see Proverbs 8.

John 1:3 counters this point's entire existence.

It's not just a figure of speech. And if it is a figure of speech, then it shows just how the word "god" can be employed.

Lower-case g god? Sure. Even money can become a god for people. It's an inanimate, non-living, powerless object like the idols, but the people have elevated it to "god" status.

To be a servant to more than just The God but to all of Creation.

Then the text would have said LESSER servant, would it have not? If Jesus was always a mere created servant of the Father, then

Again, by your logic, only God is not a servant.

Which is the truth. If God is the only Supreme One, then everything else in the universe exists to serve Him. Even you have to admit this.

Jesus was not really a "Servant" of God in the same sense that a human would be a servant.

And we of the Trinitarian position would agree.

Right, and he wasn't necessarily a "Servant" in the same sense while in Heaven.

But He was still a servant in SOME sense in your line of argument, right?

 

[Shermana]

Wow. So according to you, every angel is a god, and every demon is a god. False interpretation at it best right there.

If all you can do is call it "false interpretation" then I'm satisfied. I guess I can just write off your assertions as false interpretation now. Do you even know what "god" means? Do you even know that Angels are in fact called elohim?

So if he was one of the gods before the transition, but "lower" than the angels after the transition, how did he still have power and authority over them, as Matt 28:18 indicates? Why do the angels worship in Heb 1:6?

In Hebrews 1:6 he is in his heavenly state after returning to the glory. He wasn't completely devoid of power and authority while on Earth. He was worshiped just like how a Prince was worshiped, like how David was worshiped, or how David worshiped Saul. Do you understand now what Worship actually means?

I don't see what Israelite theological context has to do with it when the message is for the Gentiles.

Where do I even begin with this? First off, the original Christians were Jewish. The Gospels were written for Jews. The message was not for gentiles. Paul's message was for gentiles perhaps. But with that said, the Gospel stories originated from a Jewish Theological context. This is a rather twisted wet knot to try to explain, so I hope that suffices.

Proverbs 8 is not speaking about Jesus. In the beginning of the chapter "wisdom" is given the feminine pronoun, "she".

Sure it is. This is even the position of the highly Trinitarian website Tektonics though they have a Trinitarian spin on it and deny that it was created, which it was created. The reference to "she" is simply a grammatical issue of Spirits being referred to in the feminine.

Jesus: God's Wisdom

Right, but it is important that the context is considered too.

And we all have ideas on what "context" is, but in this case it's the Ancient Israelite context that even Josephus wrote of in regard to what "gods" are.

Ok, you believe that a powerful angelic or demon being can be called "god".

A god.

Ok, but my point is, Jesus is GOD

And your point is wrong.

,

in the sense that he has the same attributes that the Father has, which makes him distinct from the angels and Satan.

What attributes would Jesus have that Michael the Archangel and Gabriel and Uriel not have exactly?

By same attributes, I mean omniscience, omnipresence, omnipotence, and omnibenevolence.

Jesus is not omniscient or omnipresent or omnipotent. He can only do what the Father allows him to do. How do you know the Archangels are not omnibenevolent?

This is all biblically speaking, of course. As long as that distinction is made, cool beans.

Actually it's not biblically speaking, its extrabiblically speaking. Biblically speaking, Jesus is not omniscient or omnipotent. He is only as powerful and knoweldgeable and authoritative as the Father allows Him to be.

Their roles may be different, but on your view they are still gods, nonetheless.

Exactly. And again I ask, what do you think "gods" means?

Ok, I can live with that.

So then you should have no problem with what I am saying.

I am just careful the way the word "god" is being tossed around. If by "god" you mean a supernatural being that has great power and influence, then that may work, even though I wouldn't call anyone "god" but the Tri-Unity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

That's what I've been saying the whole time. The caution about the word "god" stems from a total misunderstanding of what "god" means in Israelite context. The word "god" or "El" simply means "Great power". It means "Angel" as well. Justin Martyr for example translated "El Gibbor" as "Angel of Great council".

LMAO, you think so?

Why you laughing?

Right, and to be second in command means to be a subordinate to the first in command, which is the way it was from the very beginning of Jesus "existence". The roles didn't change, the only thing that changed was the location of the service that was needed (from heaven to earth). Jesus still had authority over both heaven and earth Matt 28:18, so I don't see the reason why Paul emphasized on "lowering" or "servant" so much if he wasn't trying to make a broader point.

So you're saying that all beings except God are "slaves"?

Right, and my point is it was only given to him AFTER he lowered himself and became a servant from his higher position. Jesus willfully subjected himself to the Father, at which their roles changed. Heck, Jesus was "given" over to be crucified by Pilate, because based on their positions, Pilate was in a higher position than Jesus was (from a earthly view). The mere roles mean nothing, the focus should be on their very NATURE; the nature of their being, at which Jesus is also God along with the Father.

Okay, what is the "nature" of being "God" exactly? The concepts of "nature" and "Essence" and "Substance" are examples of slippery but meaningless semantics that early Trinitarian arguments employed. One could say that the Archangels possess the very NATURE of being God along with the Father by such logic.

I'm sorry I missed it.

Right, why would he say that he wants to return to the Glory he had WITH the Father, especially if He is the same being as the Father?

 

[Shermana]

And why didn't he?

Because he was made a servant onto Earth. Angels are not really servants. They are messengers but not really "slaves". They are under God in his authority but quite different in this respect.

It makes perfect sense to me. The same reason why instead of saying "Barack Obama became a President in 2008", we just say "Barack Obama became President in 2008". But if he was a police officer, instead of saying "Barack Obama became police officer in 2008", we say "Barack Obama became a police officer in 2008". Its the same thing.

That's not even close to being accurate. To become "President" implies there is only one position, even if there are other presidents, it's an implied definite because it technically should be "Became THE President". There is no such thing as "Form of God", there is however such thing as "Form of a god". THE God is a god. The president is a president, but with the implied definiteness.

But he was a servant nonetheless. And not only that, notice that it also say that Jesus "did not consider equality with God something to be grasped", now why would it say that if he wasn't equal with God?

That is addressed in detail here, it's a rather simple idea of trying to "seize quality" that Trinitarians have vastly overcomplicated into something different.

Examining the Trinity: PHIL 2:6

Harpagmos
Now notice how these two very trinitarian Bibles have rendered it:


1. "He did not think to snatch at [harpagmos, aJrpagmo"]equality with God"[1] - NEB.

2. "He did not think that by force [harpagmos] he should try to become equal with God" - TEV (and GNB).


We believe that the translations by the trinitarian NEB and TEV Bibles of this part of Phil. 2:6 must be the intended meaning of the original writer of this scripture because (in part, at least) of the obvious meaning of the New Testament (NT) Greek word harpagmos(aJrpagmo").



There could be some doubt about the meaning of the word harpagmos if we looked only at the NT Greek Scriptures (since harpagmos occurs only at Phil. 2:6 in the entire New Testament). We would then only have the meaning of the source words for harpagmos to determine its intended meaning.



Even so, Strong's Exhaustive Concordance (by trinitarian writer and trinitarian publisher) tells us that harpagmos means "plunder" and that it comes from the source word harpazo which means: "to seize ... catch away, pluck, take (by force)." - #725 & 726, Abingdon Press, 1974 printing.



And the New American Standard Concordance of the Bible (also by trinitarians) tells us: "harpagmos; from [harpazo]; the act of seizing or the thing seized." And, "harpazo ... to seize, catch up, snatch away." Notice that all have to do with taking something away by force. - # 725 & #726, Holman Bible Publ., 1981.



In fact, the trinitarian The Expositor's Greek Testament, 1967, pp. 436, 437, vol. III, tells us:

"We cannot find any passage where [harpazo] or any of its derivatives [which include harpagmos] has the sense of `holding in possession,' `retaining' [as preferred in many trinitarian translations of Phil. 2:6]. It seems invariably to mean `seize', `snatch violently'. Thus it is not permissible to glide from the true sense [`snatch violently'] into one which is totally different, `hold fast.' "



Even the very trinitarian NT Greek expert, W. E. Vine, had to admit that harpagmos is "akin to harpazo, to seize, carry off by force." - p. 887, An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words.



And the trinitarian The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology tells us that the majority of Bible scholars (mostly trinitarian, of course)



"have taken harpagmos to mean a thing plundered or seized..., and so spoil, booty or a prize of war." - p. 604, vol. 3, Zondervan, 1986.



The key to both these words (harpagmos and its source word, harpazo) is: taking something away from someone by force and against his will. And if we should find a euphemism such as "prize" used in a trinitarian Bible for harpagmos, it has to be understood only in the same sense as a pirate ship forcibly seizing another ship as its "prize"!

But context is everything. You have to look at who was making the statement. A Christian that worships one God would not say "a god", but would say "God", no article needed.

You mean a Christian according to your interpretation. In my view, an ancient Jewish Christian would have no problem calling a being "a god". Context is everything indeed. And your context is incorrect.

Oh I keep forgetting I am talking to a Greek language Professor at a major university here.

You don't have to be a Greek professor to restate what Greek professors at major universities have stated.

Lets talk about it then

Okay, why do you think the words "THE God" are employed so often to refer to the Father?

 

[Shermana]

John 1:3 counters this point's entire existence.

No it doesn't, I've been over this with you. All things being made THROUGH is not the same as being ORIGINATED. This is basic Logos Theology which Philo spelled out clearly. The Logos was the Vehicle of Creation, the Foreman so to speak, and the Father was the CEO and Architect who made it all possible.

Lower-case g god? Sure. Even money can become a god for people. It's an inanimate, non-living, powerless object like the idols, but the people have elevated it to "god" status.

Paul was in fact calling Satan "The god of this age", the concept of calling things "god" and elevating them to "god" status is a more recent concept, I don't see any evidence of this Semantic existing at all back then. A god was a god back then. The idols themselves I don't believe were actually considered to be "gods", it was the beings they represented that were the gods. And I've shown many times by now that Angels and demons alike were referred to as gods, even by Josephus, and not just in his reference to the Sibyl but even when discussing Abraham. When Paul says "Indeed, there are many gods and many lords", he was referring to actual spiritual entities. The translations that add "so-called" are baselessly dismissing this concept from a modernist reactionary view.

Then the text would have said LESSER servant, would it have not? If Jesus was always a mere created servant of the Father, then

Why would it have to say "Lesser Servant"? Who says Angels are actually servants in the same sense of the word for "Servant"? The word is actually "Slave". The use of "servant" is misleading.

Which is the truth. If God is the only Supreme One, then everything else in the universe exists to serve Him. Even you have to admit this.

Then this begets a question of whether the word "Servant" has the exact same implication here as "bondslave".

Strong's Greek: 1401. ?????? (doulos) -- a slave

And we of the Trinitarian position would agree.

Right, he wasn't a bond-slave.

But He was still a servant in SOME sense in your line of argument, right?

Of course, but not as a "Bond-slave", not even in the service of God.

There goes another slippery Semantic.

 

[Shiranui117]

No it doesn't, I've been over this with you. All things being made THROUGH is not the same as being ORIGINATED. This is basic Logos Theology which Philo spelled out clearly. The Logos was the Vehicle of Creation, the Foreman so to speak, and the Father was the CEO and Architect who made it all possible.

So remind me, according to you, is the Logos created or uncreated? If created, how does it not contradict John 1:3-4, which states that without the Logos nothing was made that has been made, since the Logos cannot be made through Himself?

And if the Logos is uncreated, then how is He not coequal and coeternal with God?

Why would it have to say "Lesser Servant"? Who says Angels are actually servants in the same sense of the word for "Servant"? The word is actually "Slave". The use of "servant" is misleading.


Then this begets a question of whether the word "Servant" has the exact same implication here as "bondslave".

Strong's Greek: 1401. ?????? (doulos) -- a slave

Of course, but not as a "Bond-slave", not even in the service of God.

There goes another slippery Semantic.

So according to you, angels aren't bondservants of God? How so?

 

[Shermana]

So remind me, according to you, is the Logos created or uncreated? If created, how does it not contradict John 1:3-4, which states that without the Logos nothing was made that has been made, since the Logos cannot be made through Himself?

The Logos is the First Created being. From thence, all things were Created using this First creating being. Nothing was made other than the Logos apart from the Logos. This was standard Logos Theology. One need not be ultra technical and say that the Logos was not a singular exception to this. If I said all things were made by a machine, whence the machine? "All things" can easily be meant to be read as all physical things as well.

22“The Lord brought me forth as the first of his works,cd
before his deeds of old;
23I was formed long ages ago,
at the very beginning, when the world came to be.
24When there were no watery depths, I was given birth,
when there were no springs overflowing with water;
25before the mountains were settled in place,
before the hills, I was given birth,
26before he made the world or its fields
or any of the dust of the earth.
27I was there when he set the heavens in place,
when he marked out the horizon on the face of the deep,

And if the Logos is uncreated, then how is He not coequal and coeternal with God?

He was Created, the Firstborn of Creation in fact.

So according to you, angels aren't bondservants of God? How so?

Are you a bondservant of President Obama? Are you a bondservant of your parent? Yet you are under the authority of the government and assumingly the social authority of your parents, right? There's a difference between being under authority and being a total slave.

"doúlos (a masculine noun of uncertain derivation) – properly, someone who belongs to another; a bond-slave, without any ownership rights of their own"

 

[Muffled]

Grace is identified as God's love and mercy toward humanity, given unconditionally. It is manifest in the process of salvation. God loved humanity so much that God sent God's Son to enter fully into the human condition. The event wherein God becomes one of isthe ultimate act of reconciliation. Reconciliation means: "the act of making compatible," broadly speaking. The thought is that humanity is separated from God by sin. Therefore, reconciliation is necessary -- that is, we must be reunited with God. Since we are unable to do that on our own -- that is, since we are not the effectors of salvation, it then becomes necessary for God to initiate that process. God did that be reuniting us to God's Self by becoming one of us. Jesus, as fully God, yet fully human, represents that reunification of God and humanity.

Have you ever heard "Don't shoot the messenger?" The messenger is not the message. Jesus is not the messenger.

I try not to but I reserve the right to put the messenger to the question regarding the message.

This sounds like a good definition to me.

OK John 3:16.

This is a problematic statement. I believe if you had said that coming into the world was necessary for reconciliation, it would make more sense. I believe the act in itself does not provide reconciliation.

I don't see the logic in this.

 

[Muffled]

But in short Yahweh will throw us into hell for eternity for no accepting his son even though it cannot be logically explain and is a total mystery. God gave us rationality and that rationality is what stops us from accepting Christianity and other religions. So god is the creator of confusion at the same time?
God also sent his Jewish son to a small speck of the world and left every other nation out of the loop and cast them into hell despite the fact they could have never heard of Jesus? Yahweh also needed to send his son (not himself) in a cowardly fashion to be tortured and die on a cross to save humanity to display his love. Yet if you view it differently you will say Jesus is god himself and that god came down and killed himself just he could save us? Save us from what? God created the Devil so why would he not just cut Shaytaan's breath right where he is? So Yahweh is doing all of this to forgive himself somehow? Is Yahweh this powerless that he cannot stop Shaytaan's ham'sat and put an end to his domain? Despite this he lets Christians slaughter millions in the past centuries and demands eternal torture for all non-believers who find the obvious faults in this approach.

If Yahweh is so powerful and so loving couldn't he have just revealed himself to all of mankind in such a fashion it proves his greatness?

The events of Jesus sound like a man who died because he committed acts of heresy and when he died his followers tried reviving his name by saying it was his plan to die and be resurrected and ironically nobody saw him but the followers and he ascended into heaven shortly.

When you look at it in a logical viewpoint it sounds cultish. I don't mean to bash your religion although I disagree with the New Testament and its authenticity. I believe in god and Yahweh is a powerful name for god but I find no correlation between OT and NT. The founding books of the Taurat do not even add up to the rest of Christianity.
I have always held Christianity and Catholicism as separate faiths unto each other and unto Judaism. The Judeo-Christian connection for me is an utter myth since they depart on the essential aspects of god.

I know Muslims will probably enjoy me saying this but, I find Islam to be closer to Judaism then Christianity without breaking the original theology. But then again I am an ex-Muslim so probably just my dwindling iman speaking

It is more complex than that. Basicly God throws people into Hell for being wicked and evil. Accepting Jesus is a get out of Hell free card although that can be a little more complex than that. Things can be logically explained for those who need an explanation.

I believe those who think they are rational are often the ones who make the most logical errors.

I believe your premise is incorrect so your conclusion is also.

I believe that the gospel has to be preached throughout the whole earth before the end comes.

I believe there isn't even a hint at rationality in this. It is too much to answer every misconception since there are so many.

I believe this is totally speculation with no evidence to support it.

 

[Muffled]

Could you explain to me how salvation is dependent on god becoming human? I ask because this is the first time I have heard someone suggest that salvation is dependant on this, why would god need to become human in order for people to receive grace are you suggesting god was unable to reconcile humanity without becoming a human? I should also point out that saying he became the reconciliation between ourselves and god would suggest he was not god (but rather the reconciliation itself), or otherwise that god can become the reconciliation between himself and us - thus not needing jesus to become the reconciliation in the first place.

Is there some reason, a non-Divine Jesus, selected and anointed by god could not act as god's instrument in this?

I believe the problem is that people don't recognize that salvation from sin is a gift from God emanating from His loving nature. God believed that dieing as a physical being would reveal the ultimate in love. However that is not the only reason he came. He came to raise the dead to prove the Sadducees wrong in saying that there is no resurrection. He also came to rise from the dead Himself thereby preparing the way for the Holy Spirit which He promised. And last but not least God came to fulfill prophecies of the Messiah.

I believe only God can reconcile with us.

He already had non-divine prophets and they didn't achieve the desired result.
See Mat 21: 31-43.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

None of which would require he become human. If you believe god is all powerful, then he can do each of the above without taking on human form - the only one of the above that might hold weight is that of dying in physical form, which since he doesn't actually die (maybe a container he was using might have - but it is clearly not god's death) it is rather ineffective. Not one of the other would require god become human - also, which particular prophecy do you refer to?

Even assuming this, there is nothing that indicates that god would be required to do so in a certain way (such as becoming human)

Prior to this episode there was no attempt made to offer salvation. Each of the other prophets had their own duties, none of them were selected to tell people how to obtain salvation. None of them.