The Trinity

[sojourner]

How do you explain pre-Jesus people being "saved." I know some Christians say that had faith in the coming Messiah, but then what about the time prior to there being a concept of a Messiah? And, the strange thing about the trinity is the Holy Spirit? God, the Father, is spirit. Why does he need a separate but equal Holy Spirit? He is already omni-present isn't he? And, then Jesus? He has a body, a resurrected, glorified body, but it is still a body. And, it is the Bible that says God is a spirit. For the early Christians, the trinity was a good answer but not the only answer. What if Shermana is right? After all, the dominant church in Rome kind of did force their doctrines on the people. What if the Roman Church was wrong? According to most Protestants, they've been wrong on other doctrines. Why not on this?

The Trinity was decided upon by consensus of a world-wide council in 325. The RC Church didn't happen until the Great Schism in 1056. And the nature of Jesus had been debated for quite some time before the Council in 325. I really don't think that the idea of the Trinity had much to do with the RCC. There's a reason why the Trinity is an orthodox belief. And it ain't due to politics or consipriacy theory.

 

[Shermana]

John 21:17, apparently, Jesus does know all things. Second, what if I was to give you a scripture which suggest that Jesus knows something that the Father doesn't know....Revelations 19:12, only Jesus knows the name written on him, Father excluded.

Either we should accept the fact that both the Father and the Son knows all things, or the bible contradicts itself.

Case open.

Well then in your interpretation, it DOES contradict itself.

Are you a Greek or Hebrew linguistic scholar? How would you know what is being translated properly? How do you know what is the TRUE translation?

Is this seriously your response? Well you're not a scholar either, so I guess we can't possibly discuss it unless we have credentials. We can't possibly discuss what the scholars on each side have said unless we are scholars. Wow.


There are reasons Trinitarians can give that will adequately explain why we believe such.

Biblegateway.com has dozens of translations in different languages and everything. During our last encounter you basically told me that every single translation was translated by Trinitarian conspirators. You said it, not me.

Yes, Biblegateway only lists major Trinitarian translations. What's your problem?

It isn't just about how JWs render certain verses, it is their overrall THEOLOGY that troubles me.

Okay, it troubling you has little to do with anything. Their theology troubles me in other areas too. But their writings on the Trinity can be just as well researched and referenced as any non-Trinitarian scholar like Jason Beduhn. So are you going to call them conspiracy theorists?

No, I watch to much Jesse Ventura to believe that.

So conspiracy theories are okay as long as you agree with them, but if someone believes a conspiracy about something you disagree with, you join the crowd who shouts "Conspiracy theory" as if that somehow is supposed to discredit them.

And I gave you a scripture that states that Jesus does know all things, and there are reasons given that state why those two scriptures differentiate. I also gave you a scripture which imply that Jesus knows at least one thing that the Father doesn't know.

So where does that leave you then when you say they are totally the same even by your own interpretation of those verses?

So what is Jesus? Is he an angel?

Sort of. The word "Angel" is misunderstood. All angels are "gods". (Elohim). Jesus is "a god". The firstborn created being. The Logos, as Philo explained the idea.

I am a different breed.

Good for you.

Who but God can live the perfect life, not making one single mistake?? While you ponder with that question, Romans 3:23 states "we all sin and fall short of the glory of God." No one can live a perfect life, not even Jesus if he were just a "mere man" with the capability to commit sin.

Well then you're going against what the Bible actually says and reading into it what's not there.

I am talking in terms of absolute MORAL PERFECTION. Not some people that did a good job obeying laws and decrees.

By all means explain the difference in detail.

Matthew 11:11, Jesus said "I tell you the truth: among those born of women there has not risen anyone greater than John the Baptist..."

So if John was perfect, why couldn't his death be sufficient enough for eternal salvation?[ ]

Who says it couldn't? Where does it say? Maybe God just arbitrarily chose to use his Firstborn Created Being as the Human Guilt Offering of Isaiah 53:10. Unfortunately, there's not a whole lot in the Canonical writings to expound on the intricacies and details of the Human Guilt Offering.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Well then in your interpretation, it DOES contradict itself.

Not at all. There are responses that have been given regarding both, and as long as those responses are possible (the possible truth value), then there is no such contradiction.

Is this seriously your response? Well you're not a scholar either, so I guess we can't possibly discuss it unless we have credentials. We can't possibly discuss what the scholars on each side have said unless we are scholars. Wow.

NOT AT ALL. If everything is based on translation, then you have your translators and I have mines, basically. You come across as if you are a leading authority on the matter. All I am saying is I can't get myself to believe that every trinity proof text was part of a conspiracy to implement the Trinity doctrine in to the texts.

Yes, Biblegateway only lists major Trinitarian translations. What's your problem?

Including the translations that are languages beyond English? Even the Spanish, Somali, Italian, French, Russian, Portugese, etc? Yeah, right.

Okay, it troubling you has little to do with anything. Their theology troubles me in other areas too. But their writings on the Trinity can be just as well researched and referenced as any non-Trinitarian scholar like Jason Beduhn. So are you going to call them conspiracy theorists?

First of all, the theology of the WatchTower is so screwed up that the Trinity is only one of many things that I find troubling about them. If their overralL theology is jacked up, then there is no surprise why the Trinity shouldn't be added to the gumbo pot. Not to mention the fact that every decade, their theology changes. Two years from now they may start believing in the Trinity, who knows.

So conspiracy theories are okay as long as you agree with them

I was kidding about the Ventura bit. I consider myself a reasonable person, and if someone brings to my attention an alleged conspiracy, whether government or otherwise, I will believe or disbelieve based on how much it makes sense to me. I am a neutral, independent thinker and I cannot/will not be brain washed or persuaded by anyone.

but if someone believes a conspiracy about something you disagree with, you join the crowd who shouts "Conspiracy theory" as if that somehow is supposed to discredit them.

I call it how I see it.

So where does that leave you then when you say they are totally the same even by your own interpretation of those verses?

The answer is simple, Jesus is God and Man, and in certain verses Jesus' displayed his humanity, by not knowing certain things. But as GOD, Jesus certainly knows everything. And as far as the Father is concerned, it should already be taken for granted that the Father is omniscient, as that is displayed throughout the other 65 books of the bible obviously the Revelations scripture takes for granted that we should already know that the Father knows, which would exclude him everyone else that didn't know.

Sort of. The word "Angel" is misunderstood. All angels are "gods". (Elohim). Jesus is "a god". The firstborn created being. The Logos, as Philo explained the idea.

Wow, spoken just like a JW. Are you sure you ain't a undercover JW? How could Jesus be an angel when...

Heb 1:5 For to which of the angels did God every say, "You are my Son; today I have become your Father".

Heb 1:7 states "In speaking of the angels he (God) says "Let all God's angels worship him."

Heb 1:8 states "But about the Son he says, Your throne, O God, will last forever and ever, and righteouness will be the scepter of your kingdom."

Now in the above verse, God is distinguishing the Son from the angels.

Heb 1:10 states "He (God) also says "In the beginning, O Lord, you laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens of the earth are the work of your hands".

Now in the above context, God is clearly speaking, and he is speaking about Jesus, who he calls "Lord" and is associating the creation event with Jesus himself!!!

Heb 1:13 To which of the ANGELS did God ever say, "Sit at my right hand until I make your enemeies at footstool for your feet?"

Throughout the entire first chapter of Hebrews, Jesus is being distinguished from the angels. There is absolutley no way one can biblically justify calling Jesus an angel. None.

Well then you're going against what the Bible actually says and reading into it what's not there.

Wait a minute, so if we "all sin and fall short of the glory of God", then that would mean that those that live "blameless" and "sinless" lives as you claim they do, they don't need a Savior, right? So Jesus' death wouldn't be for them, right? They are so good that they the sacrifice can be rendered useless to them, right?

By all means explain the difference in detail.

When the bible calls someone "blameless", that doesn't mean that they are morally perfect. It could mean that they went above and beyond to do what it is right, but that doesn't mean that they are morally perfect. Or to better put it; God is morally perfect, so are we on the same level as God? Obviously not.

Who says it couldn't? Where does it say? Maybe God just arbitrarily chose to use his Firstborn Created Being as the Human Guilt Offering of Isaiah 53:10. Unfortunately, there's not a whole lot in the Canonical writings to expound on the intricacies and details of the Human Guilt Offering.

I am holding the position that it was impossible for Jesus to sin, because as God, he is/has the ultimate standard of moral perfection. I am basing this position on the fact that only God can be considered morally perfect, and even if Jesus could have sinned, but didnt, that still isn't moral perfection, because to be morally perfect means there can't even be the potential for you to be morally imperfect. To be morally perfect is to actually be God.

 

[CG Didymus]

The Trinity was decided upon by consensus of a world-wide council in 325. The RC Church didn't happen until the Great Schism in 1056. And the nature of Jesus had been debated for quite some time before the Council in 325. I really don't think that the idea of the Trinity had much to do with the RCC. There's a reason why the Trinity is an orthodox belief. And it ain't due to politics or consipriacy theory.

I thought the church in Rome dominated the others from early on? But still, if God is one, in the Jewish definition of it, then the Christian trinity doctrine is something different. An all-encompassing spirit, eternal creator doesn't seem like it would have to have three equal but separate parts. Is it absolutely clear in Scriptures that the trinity is the true nature of the one God? Or, is it a little bit vague? If there is room for debate, then maybe there is something else that is happening. Sorry, I just don't trust the dominant Christian view anymore.

 

[sojourner]

I thought the church in Rome dominated the others from early on?

No. Not like it did later on.

But still, if God is one, in the Jewish definition of it, then the Christian trinity doctrine is something different.

You realize that the judaic definition changed over the course of time? During the time of the Patriarchs, the God concept was quite henotheistic. God concepts change. So what?

Is it absolutely clear in Scriptures that the trinity is the true nature of the one God?

Why does it have to be? Unless you're suckered in by sola scriptura?

If there is room for debate, then maybe there is something else that is happening.

There's always room for debate over scriptural interpretation and doctrinal statements.

Sorry, I just don't trust the dominant Christian view anymore.

So you're going to throw out the baby with the bath water, then? Okey-dokey!

 

[CG Didymus]

You realize that the judaic definition changed over the course of time? During the time of the Patriarchs, the God concept was quite henotheistic. God concepts change. So what?

...suckered in by sola scriptura?

So you're going to throw out the baby with the bath water, then? Okey-dokey!

Because every religion is changing is why I don't trust the dominant view. In a hundred years what will Christians believe? Right now most of them think they'll be raptured by then.

I don't trust the traditions of bishops and popes plus Scripture and I don't trust sola scriptura because people still interpret what the scriptures mean and then tell others what they should believe.

Don't worry, Jesus and you aren't even in the bath water. I'll listen to you or him anytime. It's just that I've heard "Jesus" speak to me through several people, JW's, Mormons, Pentecostals, Fundamentalists etc and Jesus said something different every time. But even they aren't in the bath water. I'm just a little suspicious of what they believe and why they believe it.

 

[Shermana]

Not at all. There are responses that have been given regarding both, and as long as those responses are possible (the possible truth value), then there is no such contradiction.

Huh? What do you mean as long as they are possible? So basically you agree then that as long as my interpretation is possible, like with Jesus NOT being classed as a non-angel in Hebrew 1, that there's no problem? Okay. The thing is though, you haven't really demonstrated that your view is that possible here, except by some post 3rd century view of "persons" that still doesn't apply to Jesus even when resurrected.

NOT AT ALL. If everything is based on translation, then you have your translators and I have mines, basically. You come across as if you are a leading authority on the matter. All I am saying is I can't get myself to believe that every trinity proof text was part of a conspiracy to implement the Trinity doctrine in to the texts.

Okay, that's great, so basically you just don't want to accept the secular scholars who disagree and call out the Trinitarian tactics like inventing forged grammar rules like "Colwell's". What's your explanation for 1 John 5:7?

Including the translations that are languages beyond English? Even the Spanish, Somali, Italian, French, Russian, Portugese, etc? Yeah, right.

All of those would be translations used for Trinitarians. So yes, right. You see, there's basically two kinds of translations: Those meant for churches and mass consumption, and those written by scholars and for independents, which are generally anti-Trinitarian.

First of all, the theology of the WatchTower is so screwed up that the Trinity is only one of many things that I find troubling about them. If their overralL theology is jacked up, then there is no surprise why the Trinity shouldn't be added to the gumbo pot. Not to mention the fact that every decade, their theology changes. Two years from now they may start believing in the Trinity, who knows.

Okay, what's that got to do with what I said?

I was kidding about the Ventura bit. I consider myself a reasonable person, and if someone brings to my attention an alleged conspiracy, whether government or otherwise, I will believe or disbelieve based on how much it makes sense to me. I am a neutral, independent thinker and I cannot/will not be brain washed or persuaded by anyone.

Okay, if you want to believe there's no conspiracy theories involved in the history of the Orthodox Church that's great, but you have yet to actually prove why the Secular scholars are wrong other than dismissing and handwaving.

I call it how I see it.

So do I.

The answer is simple, Jesus is God and Man, and in certain verses Jesus' displayed his humanity, by not knowing certain things. But as GOD, Jesus certainly knows everything. And as far as the Father is concerned, it should already be taken for granted that the Father is omniscient, as that is displayed throughout the other 65 books of the bible obviously the Revelations scripture takes for granted that we should already know that the Father knows, which would exclude him everyone else that didn't know.

That makes no sense. Jesus still doesn't even know things when he is risen to Heaven like how he has to be given Revelation in Revelation

Wow, spoken just like a JW. Are you sure you ain't a undercover JW? How could Jesus be an angel when...

Justin Martyr called Jesus the Angel of the LORD too. Your attempts at personal comments and labeling are about the only defense you have.

Heb 1:5 For to which of the angels did God every say, "You are my Son; today I have become your Father".

This verse does not mean Jesus is not an angel.

Heb 1:7 states "In speaking of the angels he (God) says "Let all God's angels worship him."

That does not mean Jesus is not one of them. It's like saying "In speaking of the Humans, let all God's humans bow down to King David". So would you think King David isn't Human? Logic, please.

Heb 1:8 states "But about the Son he says, Your throne, O God, will last forever and ever, and righteouness will be the scepter of your kingdom."

A quick note on this verse, as I've brought up several times on this forum, the verse should read "God is thy throne", this is a flagrant display of the utter dishonesty of Trinitarian translations: It's a quote from Psalms about the King, but there's no vocative case in Hebrew. Thus it can't be "O God", but "The god is thy throne", as the JPS and other Jewish translations basically explain. But since when has correct grammar been a concern to Trinitarian translations?

Now in the above verse, God is distinguishing the Son from the angels.

Only distinguishing from other angels. If you say I'm an undercover JW (Which I most certainly am not since I despise most of their other theology), why don't you look up their defenses on the issue while you're at it.

Heb 1:10 states "He (God) also says "In the beginning, O Lord, you laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens of the earth are the work of your hands".

First off, God is not speaking a second thing to the Son here. Read the whole article below before your usual handwaving and dismissing.

The Trinity Delusion: Hebrews 1:10

For future reference though for other verses talking about Jesus being the Creator, Jesus is the Logos and the Incarnated Wisdom, the being who was the instrument who shaped all Creation, of which all things were made THROUGH (often mistranslated as "by" which is still a valid translation when understood not as "originated by" but "the vehicle of"), as explained in Proverbs 8 Even the extreme Trinitarians at Tekton agree with this, but with their own Trinitarian spin.

Jesus: God's Wisdom

Now in the above context, God is clearly speaking, and he is speaking about Jesus, who he calls "Lord" and is associating the creation event with Jesus himself!!!

Wrong. As shown.

Conclusion

The Trinitarian claim is based on a wishful assumption that God is saying a second thing to the Son when he sees the word AND. However, the evidence shows that the writer uses kai to introduce a new argument. Moreover, we have several contrasts in this chapter between what God does for Jesus vs. what God does for the angels. In verse 13, we find that HE asks Jesus to sit at his right hand, something he has never asked an angel to do. Who is this HE but the Lord of verse 10? And that is very the point of verses 10-12: in all the history of creation, from beginning to end, God has never ever asked, and never will ask, an angel to sit at his right hand.

Heb 1:13 To which of the ANGELS did God ever say, "Sit at my right hand until I make your enemeies at footstool for your feet?"

Throughout the entire first chapter of Hebrews, Jesus is being distinguished from the angels. There is absolutley no way one can biblically justify calling Jesus an angel. None.

Of course there is. There is absolutely no way one can simply say Jesus is not an angel there like with my David example. Besides, what is an "Angel" exactly? All those "Angels" are called "gods". The word "Angel" is a slippery Greek translation for "Divine being" in the first place. They are not really so much distinguished altogether from Jesus as if they aren't the same being if you read it correctly.

Wait a minute, so if we "all sin and fall short of the glory of God", then that would mean that those that live "blameless" and "sinless" lives as you claim they do, they don't need a Savior, right? So Jesus' death wouldn't be for them, right? They are so good that they the sacrifice can be rendered useless to them, right?

Possibly. Jesus kinda said it himself. "I have not come for the righteous".

When the bible calls someone "blameless", that doesn't mean that they are morally perfect. It could mean that they went above and beyond to do what it is right, but that doesn't mean that they are morally perfect. Or to better put it; God is morally perfect, so are we on the same level as God? Obviously not.

Okay, but you seem to have made up your own interpretation of "Morally perfect". Got any links that agree with this?

I am holding the position that it was impossible for Jesus to sin, because as God, he is/has the ultimate standard of moral perfection. I am basing this position on the fact that only God can be considered morally perfect, and even if Jesus could have sinned, but didnt, that still isn't moral perfection, because to be morally perfect means there can't even be the potential for you to be morally imperfect. To be morally perfect is to actually be God.

So please by all means show me some scholars who agree with this "Morally perfect" concept that we see nowhere in the text and please prove this isn't your own invention, thanks. Otherwise, I'll be happy to invent and twist my own theologies as an example of what you're doing here.

 

[sojourner]

Because every religion is changing is why I don't trust the dominant view. In a hundred years what will Christians believe? Right now most of them think they'll be raptured by then.

I don't trust the traditions of bishops and popes plus Scripture and I don't trust sola scriptura because people still interpret what the scriptures mean and then tell others what they should believe.

Don't worry, Jesus and you aren't even in the bath water. I'll listen to you or him anytime. It's just that I've heard "Jesus" speak to me through several people, JW's, Mormons, Pentecostals, Fundamentalists etc and Jesus said something different every time. But even they aren't in the bath water. I'm just a little suspicious of what they believe and why they believe it.

Tradition is really all we have. Tradition includes (but is not limited to) the bible. As you said, even doctrine and belief is transitory. We believe far differently now than even the first wave of Protestants. That's because doctrine and belief are of human origin, and human beings are transitory. Of course religions change. Even how we view and depict God changes. Why does something have to be changeless in order to be dependable? What is timeless is love, because love isn't of human origin -- it's of Divine origin. Maybe we're all just supposed to trust in that?

For me, the Trinity works, because it is a great example of, not only God-in-relationship, but of God-as-relationship -- a relationship built upon perfect love.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Huh? What do you mean as long as they are possible?

Basically, what I am saying is, as long as the responses given to the contradictions are POSSIBLE that would make it NOT a contradiction.

So basically you agree then that as long as my interpretation is possible, like with Jesus NOT being classed as a non-angel in Hebrew 1, that there's no problem?

It has to be in light with the other scriptures though, when we are talking about theological doctrines.

Okay, that's great, so basically you just don't want to accept the secular scholars who disagree and call out the Trinitarian tactics like inventing forged grammar rules like "Colwell's". What's your explanation for 1 John 5:7?

What about it

All of those would be translations used for Trinitarians. So yes, right. You see, there's basically two kinds of translations: Those meant for churches and mass consumption, and those written by scholars and for independents, which are generally anti-Trinitarian.

Yes, of course, every single translation on the site was modified/edited/forged to fit the Trinity doctrine.

Okay, if you want to believe there's no conspiracy theories involved in the history of the Orthodox Church that's great, but you have yet to actually prove why the Secular scholars are wrong other than dismissing and handwaving.

I have the “moral” argument that is independent of bible translations, which we will discuss later.

That makes no sense. Jesus still doesn't even know things when he is risen to Heaven like how he has to be given Revelation in Revelation

Well back to what I said before, the attribute of omniscience was clearly given to Jesus in the John scripture...so if Jesus didn't “know” something it was obviously during a period where he didn't exercise his omniscience, but yet it is clearly attributed to him... and the Revelation 1:1 scripture you are talking about is one of those times. Second, I've already pointed out that if we are to take certain scriptures literally, then the Revelations scripture I gave you previously would suggest that the Father himself doesn't know everything, but the attribute of omniscience is given to him THROUGHOUT the entire bible. Maybe perhaps the Father and the Son can someway-somehow “turn off, and turn on” their omniscient power as long as it doesn't effect their will. But I don't think the bible authors would contradict themselves so blatantly, so if there appears to be a contradiction...maybe it is our own understanding that is in error.

This verse does not mean Jesus is not an angel.

It does...compare verse 7 with verse 8...verse 7 is a verse SPECIFICALLY about the angels, and verse 8 is a verse SPECIFICALLY about the Son. In verse 7 it states he MADE his angels spirits...if Jesus was/is a spirit angel, how does that verse NOT apply to him as well? It doesn't, which is why verse 8 begins with “BUT about the Son he says..”

That does not mean Jesus is not one of them. It's like saying "In speaking of the Humans, let all God's humans bow down to King David". So would you think King David isn't Human? Logic, please.

Use logic huh? Ok, I will use logic as I look at verse 6 when God told all the angels to worship the Son. And not only that, I will predict that you will respond to this by saying the word “worship” was added there by Trinitarians...so my response to that would be for you to go to your Greek/Hebrew scholars and ask them is whether or not the word that is used for “worship” in this context is used in any other place in the bible to actually mean “worship”. Not only that, but I will use logic to take you to verse 14 where it states all angels are ministering spirits sent to serve those that inherit salvation. So if Jesus is also an angel, that would apply to him too, right?

the verse should read "God is thy throne", this is a flagrant display of the utter dishonesty of Trinitarian translations: It's a quote from Psalms about the King, but there's no vocative case in Hebrew. Thus it can't be "O God", but "The god is thy throne", as the JPS and other Jewish translations basically explain. But since when has correct grammar been a concern to Trinitarian translations?

What? That doesn't even make sense. “God is thy throne should last for ever and ever”. Makes no kind of sense.

Only distinguishing from other angels. If you say I'm an undercover JW (Which I most certainly am not since I despise most of their other theology), why don't you look up their defenses on the issue while you're at it.

Well, it would be nice if the word “other” was actually in text. Not only would you have a slam dunk case if that were so, but I would be an ex-Trinitarian. Second, if the goal was to just distinguish Jesus from the “other” angels, why not call Jesus an archangel? It works in the case of Michael...he is called the archangel so whenever he is EVER mentioned we automatically know to distinguish him from the “other” angels. Second, there is just no biblical basis to think that Jesus is an angel. NONE. Not only is it not explicitly stated as such, but it isn't even HINTED to. Give me one scriptural reason why we are to conclude that Jesus is an angel??? So I am sitting here debating a subject with you about a concept that isn't even hinted on. Call me crazy.

The Trinity Delusion: Hebrews 1:10

For future reference though for other verses talking about Jesus being the Creator, Jesus is the Logos and the Incarnated Wisdom, the being who was the instrument who shaped all Creation, of which all things were made THROUGH (often mistranslated as "by" which is still a valid translation when understood not as "originated by" but "the vehicle of"), as explained in Proverbs 8 Even the extreme Trinitarians at Tekton agree with this, but with their own Trinitarian spin.

Yup, you knew exactly where I was going, didn't you? John 1:3 states that it was through Jesus that all things were made, and without him nothing that exist would exist. This harmonizes beautifully with Col 1:15 which states that all things in heaven and on earth were created through him and FOR HIM. The sad thing about your quote is...this is one of the scriptures that doesn't need to be interpreted. It clearly states that Jesus created all things and without him nothing that exist would be made. If you let someone that doesn't have ANY presuppositions read both scriptures and explain what is meant, I guarantee you they will all draw the same conclusion, that JESUS CREATED ALL THINGS. The fact that you have to go through all the trouble to explain the scripture on a otherwise very plain and obvious verse lead me to believe that you are reading your own presupposition in to the text. Jesus created all things. Case closed...regardless of Logos, Incarnated Wisdom, whatever. Jesus created all things. Simple as that.

Of course there is. There is absolutely no way one can simply say Jesus is not an angel there like with my David example. Besides, what is an "Angel" exactly? All those "Angels" are called "gods".
The word "Angel" is a slippery Greek translation for "Divine being" in the first place. They are not really so much distinguished altogether from Jesus as if they aren't the same being if you read it correctly.

As mentioned before, in Heb 1:14 it states that angels are ministering spirits that serves those that inherit salvation. Doesn't sound like Jesus qualifies for such a position, you know, as he sits at the right hand of God and all.

Possibly. Jesus kinda said it himself. "I have not come for the righteous".

Actually he said “I have not come to call the righteous, but the sinners to repentance.” He didn't say “I do not lay down my life for the righteous, but for sinners.”

Okay, but you seem to have made up your own interpretation of "Morally perfect". Got any links that agree with this?

Links? So if God is morally perfect, are you stating that a man can have the same level of moral perfection that God has? I really would like an answer for this. If you say no, then you make my point for me. If you say yes, then you are saying that man is on the same level as God, which is pretty absurd.

So please by all means show me some scholars who agree with this "Morally perfect" concept that we see nowhere in the text and please prove this isn't your own invention, thanks. Otherwise, I'll be happy to invent and twist my own theologies as an example of what you're doing here.

Scholars? First off, at least according to Christian theism, God is omnibenelovent, which is MORALLY PERFECT. To be ominibenevolent means that you cannot do anything contrary to good. That is the definition of omnibenevolent and this is actually out there in the open, you can look it up yourself.

You are saying that it is possible for people to live their lives without making one single moral mistake, which is foolish, because Jesus died for the sins of the WORLD, and Paul said we all sin and fall short of the glory. So far from me making things up.....everything that I said is true from a scriptural and definition basis, as benevolence is a word that is CLEARLY defined in any dictionary you look it up in. So the burden of proof is on you, not me.

 

[Shermana]

Basically, what I am saying is, as long as the responses given to the contradictions are POSSIBLE that would make it NOT a contradiction.

Oh, so as long as you think they are possible, there is no contradiction, got it. I guess that applies to me too.

It has to be in light with the other scriptures though, when we are talking about theological doctrines.

Indeed. Which is why your view falls flat and mine is consistent.

What about it

Do you even know the controversy about 1 John 5:7 to begin with?

Yes, of course, every single translation on the site was modified/edited/forged to fit the Trinity doctrine.

Correct, every single one that is specifically written by Trinitarians will have such deviations, and the non-trinitarian scholars do point this out.

I have the “moral” argument that is independent of bible translations, which we will discuss later.

You have your own interpretation that you think you don't need any scholarly support or links for.

Well back to what I said before, the attribute of omniscience was clearly given to Jesus in the John scripture...

Except for...

so if Jesus didn't “know” something it was obviously during a period where he didn't exercise his omniscience, but yet it is clearly attributed to him... and the Revelation 1:1 scripture you are talking about is one of those times.

So apparently he decides to exercise this ability on and off even after he is resurrected. How convenient.

Second, I've already pointed out that if we are to take certain scriptures literally, then the Revelations scripture I gave you previously would suggest that the Father himself doesn't know everything, but the attribute of omniscience is given to him THROUGHOUT the entire bible.

Except that verse can be translated to simply mean Jesus alone among creation knows that name, especially in context.

Maybe perhaps the Father and the Son can someway-somehow “turn off, and turn on” their omniscient power as long as it doesn't effect their will. But I don't think the bible authors would contradict themselves so blatantly, so if there appears to be a contradiction...maybe it is our own understanding that is in error.

Exactly as I said. How convenient. So basically anytime the verses disprove your view, we can enact this "Turn off/turn on" view. My interpretation doesn't involve such complications.

It does...compare verse 7 with verse 8...verse 7 is a verse SPECIFICALLY about the angels, and verse 8 is a verse SPECIFICALLY about the Son. In verse 7 it states he MADE his angels spirits...if Jesus was/is a spirit angel, how does that verse NOT apply to him as well? It doesn't, which is why verse 8 begins with “BUT about the Son he says..”

That in no way disproves anything I said or disproves what I posted on the link which I doubt you read.

Use logic huh? Ok, I will use logic as I look at verse 6 when God told all the angels to worship the Son. And not only that, I will predict that you will respond to this by saying the word “worship” was added there by Trinitarians...so my response to that would be for you to go to your Greek/Hebrew scholars and ask them is whether or not the word that is used for “worship” in this context is used in any other place in the bible to actually mean “worship”. Not only that, but I will use logic to take you to verse 14 where it states all angels are ministering spirits sent to serve those that inherit salvation. So if Jesus is also an angel, that would apply to him too, right?

Huh? I really don't understand what you're getting at. The word "Worship" simply means to "bow down to". I have a similar problem with Trinitarians who absolutely refuse to understand that "worship" means "bow down to" and applies to Kings and Angels as well. Did you even read my link?

What? That doesn't even make sense. “God is thy throne should last for ever and ever”. Makes no kind of sense.

But "God is thy fortress" makes sense? "God is my rock" makes sense? But "God is my throne" Does not make sense? Did you get your response from CARM may I ask? Why does it make sense for God to be other things but not a throne? It means God is the basis of support for one's rule. Makes easy sense. Did you even acknowledge the concept about the lack of a Vocative case or do you deny that one too?

Well, it would be nice if the word “other” was actually in text. Not only would you have a slam dunk case if that were so, but I would be an ex-Trinitarian. Second, if the goal was to just distinguish Jesus from the “other” angels, why not call Jesus an archangel? It works in the case of Michael...he is called the archangel so whenever he is EVER mentioned we automatically know to distinguish him from the “other” angels. Second, there is just no biblical basis to think that Jesus is an angel. NONE. Not only is it not explicitly stated as such, but it isn't even HINTED to. Give me one scriptural reason why we are to conclude that Jesus is an angel??? So I am sitting here debating a subject with you about a concept that isn't even hinted on. Call me crazy.

Of course it's hinted on. Even Justin Martyr believed that Jesus was the "Angel of Great council" according to the "mighty god" translation of Isaiah 9:6. My interpretation is certainly "possible" so thus according to your own logic, that's all I need to show it's not contradictory. In your view, if the text says "Who among men is like King David", it means King David is not a man. Slam Dunk.

Yup, you knew exactly where I was going, didn't you? John 1:3 states that it was through Jesus that all things were made, and without him nothing that exist would exist. This harmonizes beautifully with Col 1:15 which states that all things in heaven and on earth were created through him and FOR HIM. The sad thing about your quote is...this is one of the scriptures that doesn't need to be interpreted. It clearly states that Jesus created all things and without him nothing that exist would be made. If you let someone that doesn't have ANY presuppositions read both scriptures and explain what is meant, I guarantee you they will all draw the same conclusion, that JESUS CREATED ALL THINGS. The fact that you have to go through all the trouble to explain the scripture on a otherwise very plain and obvious verse lead me to believe that you are reading your own presupposition in to the text. Jesus created all things. Case closed...regardless of Logos, Incarnated Wisdom, whatever. Jesus created all things. Simple as that.

Colossians 1:15 says he is the "Firstborn of Creation'", which if you don't have any presuppositions, means he is the First Created Being. Not the "most pre-eminent", and still says he's created. Slam Dunk.

Okay, well I even have the Hyper-Trinitarianm, scholar-using Tektonics who agrees with the concept. Sometimes you have to have "presuppositions" using other scriptures other than cherry picking verses beyond what they even mean in the first place.

As mentioned before, in Heb 1:14 it states that angels are ministering spirits that serves those that inherit salvation. Doesn't sound like Jesus qualifies for such a position, you know, as he sits at the right hand of God and all.

Jesus very much is a ministering spirit according to the text. The whole point of being an intercessor you know.


Actually he said “I have not come to call the righteous, but the sinners to repentance.” He didn't say “I do not lay down my life for the righteous, but for sinners.”

Links? So if God is morally perfect, are you stating that a man can have the same level of moral perfection that God has? I really would like an answer for this. If you say no, then you make my point for me. If you say yes, then you are saying that man is on the same level as God, which is pretty absurd.

So basically that's your way of saying "Links? We don't need no stinkin' links". Would you kindly admit that no one else has tried this kind of reasoning in the Christian world? For one who talks about reading things without any presuppositions, you sure seem to have no problem have presuppositions when it fits your view, and you don't even have any major Trinitarian scholars backing your case like I do!

Scholars? First off, at least according to Christian theism, God is omnibenelovent, which is MORALLY PERFECT. To be ominibenevolent means that you cannot do anything contrary to good. That is the definition of omnibenevolent and this is actually out there in the open, you can look it up yourself.

More dodging and weaving and wordplay, see above. I guess all I have to do is say that I'm right and my view is scriptural and thus I have no burden of proof. Gotcha.

You are saying that it is possible for people to live their lives without making one single moral mistake, which is foolish, because Jesus died for the sins of the WORLD, and Paul said we all sin and fall short of the glory. So far from me making things up.....everything that I said is true from a scriptural and definition basis, as benevolence is a word that is CLEARLY defined in any dictionary you look it up in. So the burden of proof is on you, not me.

Why wouldn't it be possible? Calling my view "foolish" is about all you're capable of doing. Name why it's not possible. Are we programmed to steal and rape and murder? What does it mean to be 'blameless" exactly? Why was Job blameless? The burden of proof is on you to prove that "Blameless" still can mean "With sin".

 

[Sculelos]

What did God say.

Let us make man in our likeness in our image, let us make man in our likeness in our image. Let us make man, make man, make man. Take a man pull some material from his chest, put it between his legs. It's a man baby! Oh and there is a woman also!

Who is us, Jesus.

Who is God, He is that he is that he is.

Is Jesus an Angel?

No.

Did Jesus create the angels?

Yes.

Did Jesus create the universe?

No

Did God create the universe?

Yes.

Did God create everything in the universe?

Yes

Did Jesus create everything in the universe except himself?

Yes.

So then, Mr. Man, what is the Holy Spirit?

Glad you Asked Mr. Man, He is God, working through Jesus, and that is an amazing concept. The infinite God with the finite Man.

I just can't wait to be infinitely finite. The Marriage sounds might fine!

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Indeed. Which is why your view falls flat and mine is consistent.

Well, you are claiming that Jesus is an angel, it doesn't get any more biblically inconsistent than that lol.

Correct, every single one that is specifically written by Trinitarians will have such deviations, and the non-trinitarian scholars do point this out.

So you, being a non-scholar, how do you know who is right and who is wrong?

So apparently he decides to exercise this ability on and off even after he is resurrected. How convenient.

The word “reveal” has two definitions...the first definition is to make something known;disclose.......the second definition is to lay open to view; to display. An argument can be made that the latter is the correct one to use for Revelation 1. If you are at Mardi Gras, and a woman lifts up her shirt and reveals to you her goodies, she is “revealing her goodies”...and this is new to you.....but lets say she shows you her goodies the second time....even though you already seem them, you can still say “she revealed them to me twice”. You can use the word “reveal” each time, even though the second time the word has a slightly different twist.

Except that verse can be translated to simply mean Jesus alone among creation knows that name, especially in context.

Sure, if that's the way you interpret it, and I happen to agree with you because taking it literally would contradict other verses.

Exactly as I said. How convenient. So basically anytime the verses disprove your view, we can enact this "Turn off/turn on" view. My interpretation doesn't involve such complications.

No because you still have to explain away the John 21:17 scripture. That verse still stands and isn't going anywhere.

Huh? I really don't understand what you're getting at. The word "Worship" simply means to "bow down to". I have a similar problem with Trinitarians who absolutely refuse to understand that "worship" means "bow down to" and applies to Kings and Angels as well. Did you even read my link?

This is CLEARLY false. The angel told John to “worship” God when John “bowed down” to him in Rev 22:8-10....and Jesus told Satan in Matt 4:10 “Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only”. So at least twice when people other than God was being worshiped, they had to correct the person worshiping them and told them to worship God (Jesus said “only” God). HOWEVER, Jesus was worshiped countless times in the Gospels Matt 14:33, Matt 28:9 to name a few. And NEITHER time did Jesus correct them by telling them to “worship God”...or “worship God only”. So even though you are WRONG about what worship actually means, even if you were correct, according to the bible only God is worthy of such devotion....and Jesus was given that same devotion that he told Satan to give “only God”. Not looking good for the home team.

But "God is thy fortress" makes sense? "God is my rock" makes sense? But "God is my throne" Does not make sense? Did you get your response from CARM may I ask? Why does it make sense for God to be other things but not a throne? It means God is the basis of support for one's rule. Makes easy sense. Did you even acknowledge the concept about the lack of a Vocative case or do you deny that one too?

No I didn't get my response from CARM, and what I am saying is the first part of quote doesn't make sense in light of what came after it. “God is thy fortress” or “God is thy throne”.....what about the “should last forever and ever? “God is thy fortress should last forever and ever”. It doesn't make good grammatical sense.

Of course it's hinted on. Even Justin Martyr believed that Jesus was the "Angel of Great council" according to the "mighty god" translation of Isaiah 9:6.

Judges 2:1-4 “Now the angel of the Lord went up from Gilgal to Bochim, and he said “I brought you up from Egypt and brought you into the land that I swore to give your fathers...” The angel of the Lord is obviously God, as what he said implies such.....The point is, he is not an angel in the same sense as his created “angels” are. These are two different contexts....maybe its the way that God manifests himself...maybe he manifests himself as an angel at times.....and he manifests himself as a bright light at other times....at times, a burning bush...or whatever the case may be...but he is NOT an angel in the same context as a Michael, or a Gabriel...and notice the definite article “the” is used here...which suggests that there is only one of such “angel of the Lord”....and the same definite article is used in Isaiah 9:6...if the Father can be called “angel” in ANY context, and not be considered an actual “angel”, then Jesus can be called “angel” in a context, and also not be considered an actual angel. Not to mention the fact that I had to struggle to find a translation that has “angel of great council”...I wonder why.

My interpretation is certainly "possible" so thus according to your own logic, that's all I need to show it's not contradictory. In your view, if the text says "Who among men is like King David", it means King David is not a man. Slam Dunk.

If your interpretation is correct, the Father himself is an angel as well, and this is obviously not the case. And your “King David” analogy would work if we didn't have at the last verse of the chapter the job description of the angels, which doesn't apply to Jesus at all.

Colossians 1:15 says he is the "Firstborn of Creation'", which if you don't have any presuppositions, means he is the First Created Being. Not the "most pre-eminent", and still says he's created. Slam Dunk.

Not necessarily because we have evidence in the bible where firstborn does NOT mean first created. God called David his “firstborn” king in Ps 89:27. Jesus was called “firstborn” of the dead in verse 18 of that same chapter, but he was not the first one to ever be resurrected...so obviously “firstborn of creation” does not mean “first created”, especially when the context of the chapter refers to his dominion over everything that was created. Not only that, but to be the “first-born” isn't even something to brag about. The stories of David and Joseph showed us that it doesn't mean anything to be “firstborn” (by order of birth), as neither of them were the firstborn in their families, but both of them played a significant role establishing the kingdom of God. And it is my personal opinion that if Jesus was actually created by God, I would think more would have been written about it. It would have been biblically documented, just as his birth was. I don't think that would have been something to just by-pass...but that is just me.

Jesus very much is a ministering spirit according to the text. The whole point of being an intercessor you know.

That would be the case, but why harp on it if it was a given that that is what angels do? The whole context of the chapter is distinguishing Jesus from the angels...so there is no reason to think that the very last verse would include Jesus AND the angels as a joint-group to wrap up the chapter, when the rest of the verses was clearly making distinctions.

So basically that's your way of saying "Links? We don't need no stinkin' links". Would you kindly admit that no one else has tried this kind of reasoning in the Christian world? For one who talks about reading things without any presuppositions, you sure seem to have no problem have presuppositions when it fits your view, and you don't even have any major Trinitarian scholars backing your case like I do!

We don't need no stinkin' links lol. We don't. You are making it seem as if I am inventing a new concept or something. Everyone knows that the Christian God is said to be omnibenevolent. This is nothing new. And everyone knows that Jesus did not sin while on earth. That is also nothing new. So what is this about me presuppositions? This is mere Christianity.....Christian theology I am talking about here.

More dodging and weaving and wordplay, see above. I guess all I have to do is say that I'm right and my view is scriptural and thus I have no burden of proof. Gotcha.

Christianity 101 Sherm hahaha

Why wouldn't it be possible? Calling my view "foolish" is about all you're capable of doing. Name why it's not possible. Are we programmed to steal and rape and murder? What does it mean to be 'blameless" exactly? Why was Job blameless? The burden of proof is on you to prove that "Blameless" still can mean "With sin".

Lol so basically when Paul said “We all sin and fall short of the glory of God”, he meant to say “We all sin and fall short of the glory of God, except those that are blameless”. In order to be sinless, you have to be morally perfect, right? Job was at least a middle aged man, so if “blameless” means “sinless”, then this would imply that Job lived a morally PERFECT life in all of his years. So if this is the case, then if Job lived during our times and maintained his perfect life, that would mean that Paul was wrong when he said we all sin and fall short of the glory and Jesus' death would mean nothing to Job...but Jesus died for the sins of the WORLD (John 3:16). So, your view isn't in light with the rest of the scriptures, I am afraid.

 

[Shermana]

Well, you are claiming that Jesus is an angel, it doesn't get any more biblically inconsistent than that lol.

You can call anything that disagrees with your confirmation bias as "biblically inconsistent" and so can I.

So you, being a non-scholar, how do you know who is right and who is wrong?

How do you know who's right or wrong? How does anyone know? Do credentials really matter in this regard? The point being, is that there are many facts that the Trinitarian side does not address, or is flat out dishonest about, according to those on the other side of the fence.

In other words, we are capable of looking at the arguments the scholars use. You don't have to be a scholar to do that.

The word “reveal” has two definitions...the first definition is to make something known;disclose.......the second definition is to lay open to view; to display. An argument can be made that the latter is the correct one to use for Revelation 1. If you are at Mardi Gras, and a woman lifts up her shirt and reveals to you her goodies, she is “revealing her goodies”...and this is new to you.....but lets say she shows you her goodies the second time....even though you already seem them, you can still say “she revealed them to me twice”. You can use the word “reveal” each time, even though the second time the word has a slightly different twist.

How does that in any way mean that Jesus was not revealed something he didn't know by either definition? And what does that have to do with the "on and off" thing?

Sure, if that's the way you interpret it, and I happen to agree with you because taking it literally would contradict other verses.

No because you still have to explain away the John 21:17 scripture. That verse still stands and isn't going anywhere.

Okay, so therefore your counter-argument just got shot down by your own fire. Thanks.

This is CLEARLY false. The angel told John to “worship” God when John “bowed down” to him in Rev 22:8-10....and Jesus told Satan in Matt 4:10 “Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only”. So at least twice when people other than God was being worshiped, they had to correct the person worshiping them and told them to worship God (Jesus said “only” God). HOWEVER, Jesus was worshiped countless times in the Gospels Matt 14:33, Matt 28:9 to name a few. And NEITHER time did Jesus correct them by telling them to “worship God”...or “worship God only”. So even though you are WRONG about what worship actually means, even if you were correct, according to the bible only God is worthy of such devotion....and Jesus was given that same devotion that he told Satan to give “only God”. Not looking good for the home team.

This has been addressed in other threads too. What's clearly false is the idea that worship does not simply mean to bow down. Also, the reason John was forbidden from bowing to the Angel was likely because he was the same rank. Otherwise, you're left with an absent minded John who somehow forgot this important commandment and had to be reminded not to commit such a grave offense. I do get rather sick of having to deal with Trinitarians who militantly refuse to accept this basic language concept. I can imagine why they don't teach this in the churches, definitely a conspiracy.

Hebrew Word Meanings

VW: Worship? No: Bow Down-Do Homage!

Please don't just dismiss and handwave unless you bother to address those links, thanks. I'll have plenty more if you want.

No I didn't get my response from CARM, and what I am saying is the first part of quote doesn't make sense in light of what came after it. “God is thy fortress” or “God is thy throne”.....what about the “should last forever and ever? “God is thy fortress should last forever and ever”. It doesn't make good grammatical sense.

It makes perfect grammatical sense in Hebrew. I fail to see how you have any solid claim to say it makes no sense. You have no grounds on this at all. Do you accept that Hebrew has no Vocative case at least?

Judges 2:1-4 “Now the angel of the Lord went up from Gilgal to Bochim, and he said “I brought you up from Egypt and brought you into the land that I swore to give your fathers...” The angel of the Lord is obviously God, as what he said implies such.....The point is, he is not an angel in the same sense as his created “angels” are. These are two different contexts....maybe its the way that God manifests himself...maybe he manifests himself as an angel at times.....and he manifests himself as a bright light at other times....at times, a burning bush...or whatever the case may be...but he is NOT an angel in the same context as a Michael, or a Gabriel...and notice the definite article “the” is used here...which suggests that there is only one of such “angel of the Lord”....

Okay, so your argument involves a presupposition that the Angel of the LORD was God Himself. Interesting for someone who has something against Presuppositions.

and the same definite article is used in Isaiah 9:6...if the Father can be called “angel” in ANY context, and not be considered an actual “angel”, then Jesus can be called “angel” in a context, and also not be considered an actual angel. Not to mention the fact that I had to struggle to find a translation that has “angel of great council”...I wonder why.

Because Justin Martyr, as well as others, recognized that "mighty god" means Angel of greatness of some sort.

If your interpretation is correct, the Father himself is an angel as well, and this is obviously not the case. And your “King David” analogy would work if we didn't have at the last verse of the chapter the job description of the angels, which doesn't apply to Jesus at all.

Why would my interpretation involve him being an Angel? The concept is that the word "Angel" came to replace the word "Elohim" in the Greek, in a very inconsistent matter. For example, when the Epistle to the Hebrews quotes Psalm 8:5, it uses "Angel" for "Elohim". In this respect, the word "Angel" should mean "Divine Being". Why doesn't the job description of the Angels apply to Jesus?

Not necessarily because we have evidence in the bible where firstborn does NOT mean first created.

"Of creation" would mean he's created.

God called David his “firstborn” king in Ps 89:27. Jesus was called “firstborn” of the dead in verse 18 of that same chapter, but he was not the first one to ever be resurrected...so obviously “firstborn of creation” does not mean “first created”, especially when the context of the chapter refers to his dominion over everything that was created. Not only that, but to be the “first-born” isn't even something to brag about. The stories of David and Joseph showed us that it doesn't mean anything to be “firstborn” (by order of birth), as neither of them were the firstborn in their families, but both of them played a significant role establishing the kingdom of God. And it is my personal opinion that if Jesus was actually created by God, I would think more would have been written about it. It would have been biblically documented, just as his birth was. I don't think that would have been something to just by-pass...but that is just me.

Regardless, it says "of creation". Even if he is just "Pre-eminent", he's still "Among/of" Creation. The context is clear is that he's AMONG creation, regardless how you classify Firstborn. And Firstborn can in fact mean what it literally says. In fact, all throughout the NT, Prototokos only means "Firstborn" except in "Firstborn among the dead". So you'll have to settle that you can't say for sure whether it's "Firstborn" or "pre-eminent", but you'll have to admit that it says "of/among Creation".

That would be the case, but why harp on it if it was a given that that is what angels do? The whole context of the chapter is distinguishing Jesus from the angels...so there is no reason to think that the very last verse would include Jesus AND the angels as a joint-group to wrap up the chapter, when the rest of the verses was clearly making distinctions.

Is that basically just one big "nuh uh"? The distinction doesn't necessarily mean that they are distinct classes of beings. Accept it.

We don't need no stinkin' links lol. We don't. You are making it seem as if I am inventing a new concept or something. Everyone knows that the Christian God is said to be omnibenevolent. This is nothing new. And everyone knows that Jesus did not sin while on earth. That is also nothing new. So what is this about me presuppositions? This is mere Christianity.....Christian theology I am talking about here.

You obviously don't want to present anyone else who has had this view before for some reason.

Christianity 101 Sherm hahaha

Are you saying that Christianity 101 means that dodging and dismissing?

Lol so basically when Paul said “We all sin and fall short of the glory of God”, he meant to say “We all sin and fall short of the glory of God, except those that are blameless”. In order to be sinless, you have to be morally perfect, right? Job was at least a middle aged man, so if “blameless” means “sinless”, then this would imply that Job lived a morally PERFECT life in all of his years. So if this is the case, then if Job lived during our times and maintained his perfect life, that would mean that Paul was wrong when he said we all sin and fall short of the glory and Jesus' death would mean nothing to Job...but Jesus died for the sins of the WORLD (John 3:16). So, your view isn't in light with the rest of the scriptures, I am afraid.

By all means, prove that Paul wasn't just talking about his generation.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

You can call anything that disagrees with your confirmation bias as "biblically inconsistent" and so can I.

Well, I try to make my interpretations in light of the other scriptures.

How do you know who's right or wrong? How does anyone know? Do credentials really matter in this regard? The point being, is that there are many facts that the Trinitarian side does not address, or is flat out dishonest about, according to those on the other side of the fence.

And what are these facts?

In other words, we are capable of looking at the arguments the scholars use. You don't have to be a scholar to do that.

Like I said before, my “moral” argument is independent of what scholars think. My argument is; only a person that is incapable of committing sin would be able to adequately die for the sins of the world, and only God in the flesh can meet those high standards, no one else comes close. This is independent of who translated what and therefore I need not be bound by what flawed men may interpret.

How does that in any way mean that Jesus was not revealed something he didn't know by either definition? And what does that have to do with the "on and off" thing?

Easy, due to the fact that you are making the case that Jesus didn’t “know” something, even after he ascended to heaven..and this is based off God having to “reveal” to him the revelation (Rev 1:1). My point is that someone can reveal something to you that you already know.

Okay, so therefore your counter-argument just got shot down by your own fire. Thanks.

I’d like to know how.

This has been addressed in other threads too. What's clearly false is the idea that worship does not simply mean to bow down.

What? When you go to any given church, how many people do you actually see bowing down? Probably none. Now yeah, maybe someone can bow down to Jesus/God as an act of worship, but being worshipped is not limited to the act of bowing down.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/worship?s=t&path=/

Show me where you see bowing down.

Also, the reason John was forbidden from bowing to the Angel was likely because he was the same rank. Otherwise, you're left with an absent minded John who somehow forgot this important commandment and had to be reminded not to commit such a grave offense.

So if humans are the same rank as angels, with the Father and the Son being the “top dogs”…that isn’t much of a hierarchy now is it? People that were involved in improper acts of worship were referred to worship God, but when Jesus was worshipped, he didn’t refer people to God. How strange.

I do get rather sick of having to deal with Trinitarians who militantly refuse to accept this basic language concept.

Temper temper.

I can imagine why they don't teach this in the churches, definitely a conspiracy.

Hebrew Word Meanings

VW: Worship? No: Bow Down-Do Homage!

Woowww. I am surprised at your stance on this, Sherm. At least the JW’s replace the word “worship”, with the word “obeisance”. You and the JW’s actually agree on this (amongst other things, I might add). The difference is, they replace worship with obeisance, while you think it is best to keep worship there, despite the fact that obeisance more accurately defines your position “bowing down”. When people go to church or pray, they are not “paying homage” to God, they are WORSHIPPING GOD. There is a reason why God said in Exo 20:5 “You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God…” He is correlating his jealous with the worshipping of others. If someone worships another god, they are giving devotion to something that only he is worthy of, making him jealous. So why is it not cool to worship other gods, but cool to worship man, on your view? Makes no sense. So God is jealous when you worship other gods, but not jealous when you worship other humans? This is EXACTLY what I mean by one scripture has to be taken in light of the others, which it clearly isn’t.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

It makes perfect grammatical sense in Hebrew. I fail to see how you have any solid claim to say it makes no sense. You have no grounds on this at all. Do you accept that Hebrew has no Vocative case at least?

So what are you claiming the verse to mean in this context?

Okay, so your argument involves a presupposition that the Angel of the LORD was God Himself. Interesting for someone who has something against Presuppositions.

How is it a presupposition when the context clearly has God speaking when he said “I BROUGHT YOU OUT OF EGYPT”. Who do you think is speaking?

Because Justin Martyr, as well as others, recognized that "mighty god" means Angel of greatness of some sort.

So what? Justin Martyr and “others’” were wrong.

Why would my interpretation involve him being an Angel? The concept is that the word "Angel" came to replace the word "Elohim" in the Greek, in a very inconsistent matter. For example, when the Epistle to the Hebrews quotes Psalm 8:5, it uses "Angel" for "Elohim". In this respect, the word "Angel" should mean "Divine Being". Why doesn't the job description of the Angels apply to Jesus?

Why shouldn’t the job description apply to God either, then? Can not God minister to people? Not only that, but here is some ice for you. Col 2:18 states, “Do not let anyone who delights in false humility and the worship of angels disqualify you for the prizes”. But Heb 1:6 says “Let all God’s angels worship him”. So we are prohibited from worshipping angels, but we are permitted to worship Jesus, who is also an angel (on your view)? Makes no sense. Once again, exactly what I mean by one scripture not being in the light of others.

"Of creation" would mean he's created.

Jesus is described as “the Lord God Almighty” Rev 1:8…I don’t think “being created” is qualifies one to be Lord God Almighty. Maybe that’s just me.

Regardless, it says "of creation". Even if he is just "Pre-eminent", he's still "Among/of" Creation. The context is clear is that he's AMONG creation, regardless how you classify Firstborn. And Firstborn can in fact mean what it literally says. In fact, all throughout the NT, Prototokos only means "Firstborn" except in "Firstborn among the dead". So you'll have to settle that you can't say for sure whether it's "Firstborn" or "pre-eminent", but you'll have to admit that it says "of/among Creation".

But the context of the word is very important. If the word “firstborn” is used in other contexts to NOT mean firstborn by birthright or “first in order of”, then it could also NOT mean first born by birthright “first in order of” here as well. When the word is used elsewhere it refers to a pre-eminence place in God’s honor. Second, not all translations translate the verse with “among/of”. My bible translates it “firstborn” over all creation.

Is that basically just one big "nuh uh"? The distinction doesn't necessarily mean that they are distinct classes of beings. Accept it.

They are distinct enough to be commanded to worship the Son. Second, your view just isn’t in light of the other scriptures. Phil 2:5:9 states that Christ “made himself nothing, taking the very nature/form of a servant”.

Now, if angels serve God, and Christ was created as “firstborn” to serve God and is also an angel, he would be a servant to God, regardless of what “form” he is in. If this is the case (and it is the case, on your view)…if Christ was created to serve God, why would he have to take the nature of something he already was from the very moment he was created. In order to “take” the “very nature of a servant”, he must have NOT been a servant previously; otherwise, HE WOULDN’T HAVE TO “TAKE” the nature of something he already was.

You obviously don't want to present anyone else who has had this view before for some reason.

So you want me to present to you someone that has the view of God being morally perfect?? How about I present to you King David when he said in Ps 18:30 “As for God, his way is perfect…”

Are you saying that Christianity 101 means that dodging and dismissing?

No, what I am saying is Christianity 101 is the view that God has the attribute of omnibenevolence. If this is news to you then you obviously don’t know anything about the nature of God from a Christian perspective.

By all means, prove that Paul wasn't just talking about his generation.

Do I also have to prove that the context of John 3:16 wasn’t talking about the “world” of Jesus’ generation and that the salvation that comes with believing in Jesus wasn’t just the world of his generation?

 

[Shermana]

So what are you claiming the verse to mean in this context?

That God is the basis of one's Kingship, just as being one's Fortress means he is the basis of their protection.

How is it a presupposition when the context clearly has God speaking when he said “I BROUGHT YOU OUT OF EGYPT”. Who do you think is speaking?

The Angel is the Messenger, carrying what God says, and the means of Agency. Thus God still did the work.

So what? Justin Martyr and “others’” were wrong.

Okay, so your answer is to call them wrong. Nice.

Why shouldn’t the job description apply to God either, then? Can not God minister to people? Not only that, but here is some ice for you. Col 2:18 states, “Do not let anyone who delights in false humility and the worship of angels disqualify you for the prizes”. But Heb 1:6 says “Let all God’s angels worship him”. So we are prohibited from worshipping angels, but we are permitted to worship Jesus, who is also an angel (on your view)? Makes no sense. Once again, exactly what I mean by one scripture not being in the light of others.

Can does not mean does. It simply doesn't make sense in your limited understanding of the text.

I've dealt with the worship Angels thing on many threads. Paul is either talking about fallen angels or he is completely contradicting the Old Testament, because Abraham and Moses and Joshua all bowed down to Angels.

Jesus is described as “the Lord God Almighty” Rev 1:8…I don’t think “being created” is qualifies one to be Lord God Almighty. Maybe that’s just me.

Jesus is not the Lord God Almighty in Rev 1:8, nor is he the Alpha and Omega in the Spurious addition to 1:11 which the KJV contains (Another blatant Trinitarian spurious addition that most translations are keen enough to know to not fall into that trap).

You have fallen for the typical Speaker Confusion trick among Trinitarians who don't understand how to read Revelation.

Examining the Trinity: AO - Alpha and Omega Speaker Confusion

Quite simply, the Father is speaking in 1:8, and Jesus is speaking in 1:11.






[

COLOR=black]But the context of the word is very important. If the word “firstborn” is used in other contexts to NOT mean firstborn by birthright or “first in order of”, then it could also NOT mean first born by birthright “first in order of” here as well. When the word is used elsewhere it refers to a pre-eminence place in God’s honor. Second, not all translations translate the verse with “among/of”. My bible translates it “firstborn” over all creation. [/COLOR]

And "over" is simply not what the text says, it's yet another perfect example of how Translations will change the grammar and text to suit their doctrine. We can argue over whose "context" is right all day. At the end of the day, you have absolutely nothing to indicate that my context is wrong and the only thing you have is a total lie of a translation that says "over".

Young's Literal Translation
who is the image of the invisible God, first-born of all creation,

I hope you're seeing the pattern here. Trinitarian translations....lie. Young's here should help you see that it does not say "over". The Trinitarian translations change that "of" to "over" for a reason. There is no "over". There is an "of all", but not "over all". They decide to change the word to help you see THEIR context. Hope that helps.

They are distinct enough to be commanded to worship the Son. Second, your view just isn’t in light of the other scriptures. Phil 2:5:9 states that Christ “made himself nothing, taking the very nature/form of a servant”.

And David is distinct enough to be worshiped. My view IS in light of other scriptures. It isn't in light of your Trinitarian presumptiion of the text. Next.

Now, if angels serve God, and Christ was created as “firstborn” to serve God and is also an angel, he would be a servant to God, regardless of what “form” he is in. If this is the case (and it is the case, on your view)…if Christ was created to serve God, why would he have to take the nature of something he already was from the very moment he was created. In order to “take” the “very nature of a servant”, he must have NOT been a servant previously; otherwise, HE WOULDN’T HAVE TO “TAKE” the nature of something he already was.

"Form of a servant" does not necessarily mean he wasn't still somehow subservient to God Himself before that. Being the Highest of Creation, he was not a servant to the other Angels. Quite simple.

So you want me to present to you someone that has the view of God being morally perfect?? How about I present to you King David when he said in Ps 18:30 “As for God, his way is perfect…”

Guess what it says there....God is....BLAMELESS. The translation says "perfect" yes, but it's the same concept of "Blamelessness" that Job had.

That's gotta stingl

Psalm 18:30 Hebrew Texts and Analysis

No, what I am saying is Christianity 101 is the view that God has the attribute of omnibenevolence. If this is news to you then you obviously don’t know anything about the nature of God from a Christian perspective.

I do know this, and it's a concept that has nothing to do with what we're discussing or in any way is remotely on cue as a rebuttal to what you said that as.

Do I also have to prove that the context of John 3:16 wasn’t talking about the “world” of Jesus’ generation and that the salvation that comes with believing in Jesus wasn’t just the world of his generation?

[/QUOTE]

How is that supposed to be a rebuttal? The concept isn't necessarily close to the same.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

That God is the basis of one's Kingship, just as being one's Fortress means he is the basis of their protection.

Well that would be fine and dandy if the actual text didn’t begin with “But about the Son he says..” which means that whatever is said after that would refer to the Son.

The Angel is the Messenger, carrying what God says, and the means of Agency. Thus God still did the work.

Okay, so your answer is to call them wrong. Nice

His interpretation may be misplaced like some other peoples…

Can does not mean does. It simply doesn't make sense in your limited understanding of the text.

I can say the same thing to you regarding Jesus. You are the one that said the angel’s job description can apply to Jesus, well, just because it “can” does not mean it “does”. And far from my “limited” understanding, the point I made was valid. If God is jealous when you worship another god, how is he ok with you worshiping mere men? Makes no sense.

I've dealt with the worship Angels thing on many threads. Paul is either talking about fallen angels or he is completely contradicting the Old Testament, because Abraham and Moses and Joshua all bowed down to Angels.

It is only a contradiction if you assume that the mere act of bowing to someone implies you are worshipping him/her. This is not the case. Now don’t get my wrong, bowing to someone CAN mean worship depending on the context, which I am not denying. Based on your logic, people that go to church and attend without bowing are not worshipping God. This is clearly false.

Jesus is not the Lord God Almighty in Rev 1:8, nor is he the Alpha and Omega in the Spurious addition to 1:11 which the KJV contains (Another blatant Trinitarian spurious addition that most translations are keen enough to know to not fall into that trap).

You have fallen for the typical Speaker Confusion trick among Trinitarians who don't understand how to read Revelation.

Examining the Trinity: AO - Alpha and Omega Speaker Confusion

Quite simply, the Father is speaking in 1:8, and Jesus is speaking in 1:11.

That would be a valid point, if it weren’t for Rev 22:12-13 which clearly refers to Jesus as being the Alpha and Omega, First and Last, Beginning and End. And not only that, but you are just clearly wrong by concluding that Jesus is not the one that is referred to in Rev 1:8, when in the previous verse 7 Jesus is the one “coming in the clouds”, and it even makes reference to “those that pierced him” also being able to see him. This is a clear cut example of failing to read the entire context. Jesus is identified as being the one that is “coming in the clouds”, and he makes reference to himself as being the one that “is, and who was, and who is to come” in verse 8. This is a mirror match to Rev 22:12 which states Jesus states “I am coming soon”. Then one of the very last words of the entire bible states “Amen, come, Lord Jesus”.

See how one scripture is IN LIGHT OF THE OTHER SCRIPTURES??? I mean, seriously.

And "over" is simply not what the text says, it's yet another perfect example of how Translations will change the grammar and text to suit their doctrine. We can argue over whose "context" is right all day. At the end of the day, you have absolutely nothing to indicate that my context is wrong and the only thing you have is a total lie of a translation that says "over".

It doesn’t matter about the translation because firstborn doesn’t necessarily mean “first created”, just like it doesn’t mean such in other contexts. And not only that, but I consider myself a “common sense” type of person, so I will just use common sense. If Paul was trying to relay the message that Jesus was the first creation of God and after he himself was created he created everything else, there seems to be no distinction from the Jesus’ creation to everything else that was created. Unless the word “other” is used to distinguish Jesus from everything else that was created, I don’t see how the context can be interpreted the way you do. And that is EXACTLY why in the New World’s translation the JW’s insert the word [other] in brackets, so that distinction is made. The problem is, you will only make that insertion if you PRESUPPOSED that Jesus was created and the distinction needed to be made.

Young's Literal Translation
who is the image of the invisible God, first-born of all creation,

I hope you're seeing the pattern here. Trinitarian translations....lie. Young's here should help you see that it does not say "over". The Trinitarian translations change that "of" to "over" for a reason. There is no "over". There is an "of all", but not "over all". They decide to change the word to help you see THEIR context. Hope that helps.

I see what you are saying, BUT it doesn’t matter whether it say “of all” or “over all”, for the simple fact that if the word “first-born” is taken to mean pre-eminence, then it doesn’t matter how you translate it, because pre-eminence can mean pre-eminent “over” creation, or pre-eminent “of all” creation. If the word “firstborn” in the context was in reference to the Father himself, then we probably wouldn’t be having this conversation. The issue is the interpretation of “firstborn”.

Verse 17 states, “He is before all things”, now do you take “before” to mean “created before” all things? I don’t, for the simple fact that God doesn’t care about what came “before” in order of what preceded what or who preceded who. King David had seven brothers, and he was the youngest of the seven. If being “first born” was any significance, God could have simply made David the firstborn, but God said himself he doesn’t care about that stuff, he only cares about the heart (1Samuel 16:7). The animals were created before humans, yet God hold humans in a higher regard than animals despite creating animals before us. So I don’t think “before” in verse 17 plays any significance in a “first created” concept. Paul is saying Jesus is has the highest honor OVER everything that was created.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

And David is distinct enough to be worshiped. My view IS in light of other scriptures. It isn't in light of your Trinitarian presumptiion of the text. Next.

Show me SPECIFICALLY in the bible where it states that David was worshiped. And I don’t mean “bowed to” either.

"Form of a servant" does not necessarily mean he wasn't still somehow subservient to God Himself before that. Being the Highest of Creation, he was not a servant to the other Angels. Quite simple.

I am talking about TO GOD. He was always a servant to God from the moment of his creation, even assisting in the creation of all other things (on your view). So why would he need to take the form of something that he always was from the moment of his creation??? Makes no sense.

Guess what it says there....God is....BLAMELESS. The translation says "perfect" yes, but it's the same concept of "Blamelessness" that Job had.

That's gotta stingl

Psalm 18:30 Hebrew Texts and Analysis

So you are saying that some people can have the same moral character of not only Jesus, but the Father himself. Gotcha. You are the only person I’ve ever known to have this view. But that isn’t surprising, because there isn’t a view that is so absurd that at least one person doesn’t hold on to it lol

I do know this, and it's a concept that has nothing to do with what we're discussing or in any way is remotely on cue as a rebuttal to what you said that as.

Actually it does. If you spend the same time doing some research on the omnibenevolence of God like you do studying ways to counter the Trinity doctrine, you would know.

How is that supposed to be a rebuttal? The concept isn't necessarily close to the same.

You are making it seem as if man can live morally perfect lives. I countered this by saying your view is in contrast to Paul saying WE ALL SIN AND FALL SHORT OF THE GLORY OF GOD. You then asked how do I know Paul wasn’t talking about only people within his generation. Then I said how do we know that John wasn’t talking about people of his generation when he said “For God so loved the world”. Maybe John was talking only about the generation that was living in the “world” during his generation. My point is/was, where does it stop? That was my point.

 

[Shermana]

Well that would be fine and dandy if the actual text didn’t begin with “But about the Son he says..” which means that whatever is said after that would refer to the Son.

It would be fine and dandy if you actually read my link and didn't just brush it off and handwave it.

Here it is again. I'll quote from it this time:

The Trinity Delusion: Hebrews 1:10

See, you're presuming that the text must necessarily be speaking about him. It's not. Can you at least admit that it's possible in your view that it may be changing the subject or are you set on your forced interpretation as if it's the only way to read the verse.

Your own logic fails because it says "He" in verse 13. The "He" is obviously the same reference in verse 10.

The most natural antecedent for the pronoun "He" at verse 13 is "the Lord" of verse 10. Bodabing.

(v.10) And, "You, Lord, did found the earth in the beginning....

(v.13) But to what angel has HE ever said, "Sit at my right hand till I make your enemies a stool for your feet"?
The "He" in verse 13 is obviously God the Father who asks the Son to sit at his right hand.

His interpretation may be misplaced like some other peoples…

Like yours, yes.

I can say the same thing to you regarding Jesus. You are the one that said the angel’s job description can apply to Jesus, well, just because it “can” does not mean it “does”. And far from my “limited” understanding, the point I made was valid. If God is jealous when you worship another god, how is he ok with you worshiping mere men? Makes no sense.

Hold on here, the person telling me about "possible" ways to interpret a verse is telling me that "Can" does not mean "Does"? Apparently God had no problem with David worshiping Saul, or Moses worshiping his Father in Law. Or Joshua and Moses and Abraham worshiping Angels. Either admit a contradiction in the text or a lack of understanding of how to interpret on your part. What the god is jealous of is worship of gods who aren't directly in the Divine chain of command, which would constitute "serving" another god. Anything less and you're dealing with contradictions.

It is only a contradiction if you assume that the mere act of bowing to someone implies you are worshipping him/her. This is not the case. Now don’t get my wrong, bowing to someone CAN mean worship depending on the context, which I am not denying. Based on your logic, people that go to church and attend without bowing are not worshipping God. This is clearly false.

Did you not read the link I showed you? Bowing is worshiping in Hebrew and Greek, nothing more and nothing less. Otherwise, you're stuck with the same problem of how to interpret "worship" and 'Bowing" with your own references to Jesus. Why is it now "worshiping" Jesus and not just "bowing down" when it's referring to him? Because you want to read it however you want as it suits you regardless of objectivity? By all means, please prove that the word for "worship" doesn't mean just bow down to Jesus. Good luck.

That would be a valid point, if it weren’t for Rev 22:12-13 which clearly refers to Jesus as being the Alpha and Omega, First and Last, Beginning and End. And not only that, but you are just clearly wrong by concluding that Jesus is not the one that is referred to in Rev 1:8, when in the previous verse 7 Jesus is the one “coming in the clouds”, and it even makes reference to “those that pierced him” also being able to see him. This is a clear cut example of failing to read the entire context. Jesus is identified as being the one that is “coming in the clouds”, and he makes reference to himself as being the one that “is, and who was, and who is to come” in verse 8. This is a mirror match to Rev 22:12 which states Jesus states “I am coming soon”. Then one of the very last words of the entire bible states “Amen, come, Lord Jesus”.

Read the Speaker confusion issue link and stop disregarding my links. It's an Angel bearing the message from the Father. I've been over this one hundreds of times on this forum and others. Did you even know it's an Angel speaking the message there? Most haven't even read Revelation 21-22 to know that.

See how one scripture is IN LIGHT OF THE OTHER SCRIPTURES??? I mean, seriously.

Mine is completely in light of the other scriptures. I'll bet you didn't even know it's an Angel carrying the Father's message.

It doesn’t matter about the translation because firstborn doesn’t necessarily mean “first created”

,

What's this about "can" does not mean "Does" again? You're ignoring the issue of "of". "of" means "Among" in this case.

just like it doesn’t mean such in other contexts

.

Are you denying that it CAN mean it or not?

And not only that, but I consider myself a “common sense” type of person, so I will just use common sense.

Ah, your interpretation is "Common sense" because you say so, that totally proves mine wrong. Do I get to play that game?

If Paul was trying to relay the message that Jesus was the first creation of God and after he himself was created he created everything else, there seems to be no distinction from the Jesus’ creation to everything else that was created.

And how's that a problem?

Unless the word “other” is used to distinguish Jesus from everything else that was created, I don’t see how the context can be interpreted the way you do.

As if you get to write the rules on how the Greek works?

And that is EXACTLY why in the New World’s translation the JW’s insert the word [other] in brackets, so that distinction is made. The problem is, you will only make that insertion if you PRESUPPOSED that Jesus was created and the distinction needed to be made.

They do that for the sake of the reader. It's ironic that you're telling me about this presupposed stuff, when you have so many presuppositions going on your own case. Do you have any idea how many presupposed translations these Trinitarian antinomian translations use? Why what do we have here, you are using the exact same argument below for "over" as you're trying to use for the implication of "Other" as if that's necessitated in the Greek. Oh the irony! (And the blatant, immediate hypocrisy).

I see what you are saying, BUT it doesn’t matter whether it say “of all” or “over all”, for the simple fact that if the word “first-born” is taken to mean pre-eminence, then it doesn’t matter how you translate it, because pre-eminence can mean pre-eminent “over” creation, or pre-eminent “of all” creation. If the word “firstborn” in the context was in reference to the Father himself, then we probably wouldn’t be having this conversation. The issue is the interpretation of “firstborn”.

OF all means among. It's that simple. No matter how you slice it. I won't accept anything less especially from someone trying to lecture me on pressupositions and how the word "Other" is necessitated just because the NWT uses it as such. Meanwhile, you're stuck with having to admit that it CAN mean Firstborn as in First Created.

Here's another link for you to ignore and handwave.

The Trinity Delusion: Colossians 1:15-16

Verse 17 states, “He is before all things”, now do you take “before” to mean “created before” all things?

Yes.

I don’t, for the simple fact that God doesn’t care about what came “before” in order of what preceded what or who preceded who.

That has to be the worst, shoddiest attempts at getting around that one ever. I'm glad to hear you know exactly what God does and doesn't care about. Wow, that's utter desparation. Like UTTER desparation.

King David had seven brothers, and he was the youngest of the seven. If being “first born” was any significance, God could have simply made David the firstborn, but God said himself he doesn’t care about that stuff, he only cares about the heart (1Samuel 16:7). The animals were created before humans, yet God hold humans in a higher regard than animals despite creating animals before us. So I don’t think “before” in verse 17 plays any significance in a “first created” concept. Paul is saying Jesus is has the highest honor OVER everything that was created.

Okay, so you were talking about presumptions and writing things into the text that aren't there or something? Dang, you just popped your own balloon. This isn't an even a debate anymore, this is just you insisting on your assertions as if you don't even need textual support, like your case with the "Blameless" issue.

 

[Shermana]

Show me SPECIFICALLY in the bible where it states that David was worshiped. And I don’t mean “bowed to” either.

If you're refusing to accept that worship and Bow mean the same thing, even after I showed you a Trinitarian Christian Hebrew language site that says the same thing, and Strong's concordance, then you're simply being intellectually dishonest, you have in no way bothered to demonstrate that the language indicates that Shawkaw and Proskuneo can indicate something different than the concept of "worship", and you probably wouldn't even be able to define "worship" in those languages in your own terms to begin with.

So basically you won't even acknowledge simple Language concepts. This often happens when debating Trinitarians, they often refuse to acknowledge even what the links say from their own side.

Are you even remotely interested in reading the links I provide? How am I supposed to prove to you what's what when you won't even read those?

How am I supposed to even argue with you when you won't even read links by Trinitarians themselves who do speak Hebrew and Greek, and you won't present a counterlink that you think dispels their view?

I am talking about TO GOD. He was always a servant to God from the moment of his creation, even assisting in the creation of all other things (on your view). So why would he need to take the form of something that he always was from the moment of his creation??? Makes no sense.

Makes no sense because you want to interpret how you want to as if there's no other way to interpret it. I'm at least allowing the possibility of other interpretations and showing why they are wrong by the language or context itself.

So you are saying that some people can have the same moral character of not only Jesus, but the Father himself. Gotcha. You are the only person I’ve ever known to have this view. But that isn’t surprising, because there isn’t a view that is so absurd that at least one person doesn’t hold on to it lol

I am saying that you refuse to acknowledge basic language concepts and want to read things into the text that aren't there and refuse to provide links to back your own claims and interpretations. You're basically up a creek. I got the links from people on YOUR OWN SIDE that agree with me, you have...nothing. This is pathetic. Is this a cheap attempt at covering up the fact that you can't find a single person or site or article to link to that backs up your own case? It's quite simple, you're making the claim that the "blamelessness" God is described of having is somehow different, even though it's the same word, as that Job has. You're the one making a Theological concept that is a...PRESUMPTION....without any actual support for it that involves reading into the text what's not there.

Actually it does. If you spend the same time doing some research on the omnibenevolence of God like you do studying ways to counter the Trinity doctrine, you would know.

If you spend some time googling, maybe you can actually present links that agree with you instead of insisting you're right and denying and handwaving my links.

[

COLOR=black]You are making it seem as if man can live morally perfect lives. I countered this by saying your view is in contrast to Paul saying WE ALL SIN AND FALL SHORT OF THE GLORY OF GOD. You then asked how do I know Paul wasn’t talking about only people within his generation. Then I said how do we know that John wasn’t talking about people of his generation when he said “For God so loved the world”. Maybe John was talking only about the generation that was living in the “world” during his generation. My point is/was, where does it stop? That was my point.[/COLOR]

[/QUOTE]

So basically, you repeat yourself and ignore the fact that Paul could have been talking about a less upright generation than that of "Blameless" Job. Regardless, how do we know they knew Jesus never sinned before they met him exactly?