Trinitarianism: What Non-Trinitarians Believe

[Sparkey]

I AM: John 8:58 Jesus said to them, "Most assuredly, I tell you, before Abraham came into existence, I AM."

Jesus claimed to be one (1) with his Father. JudiacChristian replied that nobody objected or even seemed to care about this because it was like Jesus said, "I kinda agree with God about some stuff," and has attempted to water down what our Lord, the Christ claimed. He did not say that he held general agreement with God but boldly declared that he was ONE (1) with God. That is what prompted the Jews to pick up stones and accuse Him of blaphsphemy.

Judge for yourself if the Jews thought that Jesus made himself out to be God:
"My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any [man] pluck them out of my hand. My Father, which gave [them] me, is greater than all; and no [man] is able to pluck [them] out of my Father's hand. I and [my] Father are one. Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him. ... The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God." - John 10:27-31, 33 KJV

Now, I ask you -- what am I to believe? One who comes later and says, "He only said that and nobody objected because it depicts unity," or should I believe the bible itself?

 

[TRUTH over TRADITION]

I AM: John 8:58 Jesus said to them, "Most assuredly, I tell you, before Abraham came into existence, I AM."

What was Jesus saying here? We can speculate or we can be guided by the writer of this very book and let his writing reveal an answer for us.
We know that John tells us that the "Logos" which means an expression of though, purpose, or intention was with God in the beginning and that Jesus was the embodiment of that "logos".
Understanding this will help the reader to see that though Jesus was but 30 or so years old at the time, he was what the ancestors of the Jewish people of his day were looking forward to and he (Jesus) existed in the mind of God as the REASON for not only the Jewish people but also all of creation.

 

[Sparkey]

What was Jesus saying here? We can speculate or we can be guided by the writer of this very book and let his writing reveal an answer for us.

We know that John tells us that the "Logos" which means an expression of though, purpose, or intention was with God in the beginning and that Jesus was the embodiment of that "logos".

Understanding this will help the reader to see that though Jesus was but 30 or so years old at the time, he was what the ancestors of the Jewish people of his day were looking forward to and he (Jesus) existed in the mind of God as the REASON for not only the Jewish people but also all of creation.

I too existed in the Mind of God before I was born, if you are trying to say that there is no difference - you've got a long ways to go.

Consider PS 139:
[video=youtube;dwfZMRYw-lI]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dwfZMRYw-lI[/video]

________________________

It sounds to me like you would like to engage Drews argument, that God made promises to Israel that He Himself would perform. My argument is that even though it is true that God knew me before He formed me in the womb, I am not God. I am not the Christ and it is only through my belief in the Son of God that I have life. Jesus is the very word of God. He existed in God and God in him prior to creation.

 

[TRUTH over TRADITION]

I too existed in the Mind of God before I was born, if you are trying to say that there is no difference - you've got a long ways to go.


It sounds to me like you would like to engage Drews argument, that God made promises to Israel that He Himself would perform. My argument is that even though it is true that God knew me before He formed me in the womb, I am not God. I am not the Christ and it is only through my belief in the Son of God that I have life. Jesus is the very word of God. He existed in God and God in him prior to creation.

What I am saying is that there is a HUGE difference between King David, you, or myself when compared to Jesus. Jesus is the Christ, the man that God anointed to sit on the throne of the kingdom. No one else in history with PERHAPS and a very minute small perhaps the exception of Adam can this be said of. Jesus alone is the very embodiment of God's creative intent! That cannot be said for you or I.

Maybe our beliefs are quite similar. You believe that Jesus is the very word of God whereas I believe that Jesus is the embodiment of God's Word or Logos.

 

[Sparkey]

What I am saying is that there is a HUGE difference between King David, you, or myself when compared to Jesus. Jesus is the Christ, the man that God anointed to sit on the throne of the kingdom. No one else in history with PERHAPS and a very minute small perhaps the exception of Adam can this be said of. Jesus alone is the very embodiment of God's creative intent! That cannot be said for you or I.

Maybe our beliefs are quite similar. You believe that Jesus is the very word of God whereas I believe that Jesus is the embodiment of God's Word or Logos.

Thank you, yes. I believe that Jesus said that he would give his followers eternal life. That's quite something in and of itself, now isn't it? Pehaps we do share similar beliefs. I would assert that the bible insists that the real issue isn't the "divinity of Christ" but that he came in the flesh. It seems that we can all agree on that much.

"Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son." - 2 John 1:9 KJV

John's descriptions help me very much because he explains as unto a child. It is that part of me that responds to teaching such as, "Little children, be not confused, those who do good are good," that also responds to his revealation that Jesus is the Author and Finisher of our faith. No other man claimed this. No man knows the Father but we know that Jesus has said that because we are not ashamed of Him -- he also is not ashamed of us and confesses our names to His Father.

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

 

[Prince]

1 John 5:7. The latter part of that verse does not exist in the original Greek Manuscripts. " the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one." was added around year 1500.



'mighty God' used here was EL Gibber, not EL SHADDAI = ALMIGHTY God

John 5:7. The latter part of that verse does not exist in the original Greek Manuscripts. " the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one." was added around year 1500.

Many people believe that, I for one do not allow me to present this article.

1 John 5:7. The latter part of that verse does not exist in the original Greek Manuscripts. " the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one." was added around year 1500.

Oh, is it a well known fact? Sorry, you have been lied to, my friend. From our study on the matter I take the following excerpt for you to peruse:


SOURCE: Adulterations in the Newer Bible Versions (NIV, NASB...); Proof that the King James Bible (KJV) is the True Word of God

EXCERPT:​

"Some glaring omissions from the corrupted manuscripts and 'newer' Bible versions:
Only a minute portion of the glaring omissions from the corrupted manuscripts and 'newer' Bible versions are included in this study. At the end of this study the reader will be given a booklist of reference works that more comprehensively collates the individual verse comparisons in the different Bible versions compared to the King James Bible version. The purpose of this Bible study is not to redouble their efforts, but rather to alert the reader to the problem. Let's look at some of the so-called errors in the King James Bible, and throughout this study we will document that the King James Version Bible had it right all along and that the newer versions are the ones that contain the corruptions. The reason that I refer to the omissions in the newer versions as 'corruptions' rather than errors is because it will be seen that it was a concerted effort to consistently remove certain points of Scripture while leaving others unmolested. let's look at 1st Jn 5:7-8, and observe that it can be no error that they methodically left out 24 key words documenting the Holy Trinity:
​

1st Jn 5:7-8:

SCRIPTURE
KJV
(King James Version)
NIV
(New International Version)
NASB
(New American Standard Bible)​

1st Jn 5:7-87 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one. (KJV)7 For there are three that testify:
8 the Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement. (NIV) *(And similarly in all newer Bible versions)
7 And it is the Spirit who bears witness, because the Spirit is the truth.
8 For there are three that bear witness, the Spirit and the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement.(NASB)

*NOTE: Not all NIV Bible editions read exactly alike! The same goes for the other newer Bible versions. That in-and-of-itself should alert the Bible student that something is dreadfully wrong with the newer Bible versions. I mean, how can they justify correcting the Scriptures from one edition of the same Bible version to the next every several years or so? And it is this same they that told us that we had to replace the Manuscripts used in the King James Bible (Textus Receptus - Received Text) since AD 1611, and that they needed to make new Bible versions and we had to buy them because they found older, more reliable Manuscripts! If you smell something 'funny', you're right.
Later on in this study we shall examine just who the they are. The same goes for the many newer Bible versions, as the corrupt text they are all based upon is always changing as new Manuscripts, Papyri, and Scrolls are recovered by Archaeologists. Countless times the newer Bibles have had to release newer modified editions of their same versions to keep up with the new evidence - and when they do change something from one edition to the next, it almost always moves toward aligning with the original King James Bible! That in itself says a lot.
The Textus Receptus (Received text), the text underlying the 1611 King James Version Bible, has been the same for some 400 years to our present day. The Scripture references supplied in this study are from the Biblesoft PC Study Bible Complete Reference Library 3.0. (An excellent and recommended complete computer Bible study software program)
1st John 5:7 (Illustrated above) is the single most powerful witness of the Trinity (God, Jesus Christ, Holy Spirit). the Corrupt Manuscripts (Sinaicticus,Vaticanus) used in the newer Bible versions omit the key words.
They simply omitted the key words supporting the Holy Trinity! The newer versions say it doesn't belong, but it is the single most powerful witness of the Trinity. But do these powerful and key words belong in the text? You bet they do, let's look at some authorities for those key words:

Latin Manuscripts: There are between 10,000 extant (existing) Latin manuscripts, 29 of them don't have it, all the rest of the 10,000 of them that contain the verse do have the key words.
Sirac Version: The Sirac version also has them.
German Bibles: As well, all pre-Luther German Bibles have the verse. Martin Luther then omitted it as he based his Bible on Erasmus' corrupt 2nd edition manuscript which does not contain the verse. Two years after that, the German Bibles put it back in. Then in 1956 to the present time it has once again been omitted.
Greek Texts: There are only six to eight Texts out of the some 5,000 extant Greek Texts that do not have the key words in the verse!
​

Perhaps one of the most telling proofs that the verse was included in the original manuscripts is evidenced by the writings of one of the early Church Fathers - Cyprian, who in his writing: "Treatises" found in The Ante-Nicene Christian Library (5:423): included a quote from 1st John 5:7. In the verse quote from Cyprian he writes: "...and again it is written of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy spirit, 'And these three are one' "
Cyprian died in A.D. 258, some one-hundred years before the compilation of the corrupt Sinaiticus and Vaticanus manuscripts from which all the newer Bible versions are based upon. And his (Cyprian's) quote of 1st John 5:7 supports the King James Bible version's inclusion of the key words and opposes the newer Bible versions in their omission of them!
Four of the strongest and most point-blank references to the Holy Trinity (Triune Godhead) in the New Testament are omitted in the newer Bible versions: The one we have just studied in depth and the below three. Look what they have done to them, it would seem from the newer Bible versions that there is no longer a Holy Trinity - God forbid! They have changed the Holy Trinity into some generic 'force'.
​

Scripture:
NIV, NASB et al.
KJV​

Romans 1:20divine nature (Notice the case of the letters)GodheadColossians 2:9:DeityGodheadActs 17:29divine being(Notice the case of the letters)Godhead​

(End Excerpt)

You might profit from the whole study: Adulterations in the Newer Bible Versions (NIV, NASB...)....


Peace to you, and God bless your studies.

 

[TRUTH over TRADITION]

I don't know Prince. It seems like most historians and so called experts disagree with what the (umm) unbiased writers who are AKJ Version advocates promote. Here are some quotes and a source link.

Bible manuscripts that were written prior to the Eleventh Century C.E (A.D.) read quite differently. So, it appears as though someone who wanted to provide scriptural backing to the Trinity doctrine changed this verse about 1,000 years after John penned it.
As you can see from the context of John the Fifth Chapter, the three witness-bearers are the water (baptism), the Breath (Gr. pneuma – the Breath of God), and the (shed) blood (of Jesus). Changing the water, the Breath, and the blood to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost would make the rest of what John wrote illogical; so that rendering is obviously spurious.

The Textual Problem in 1 John 5:7-8 | Bible.org - Worlds Largest Bible Study Site

This longer reading is found only in eight late manuscripts, four of which have the words in a marginal note. Most of these manuscripts (2318, 221, and [with minor variations] 61, 88, 429, 629, 636, and 918) originate from the 16th century; the earliest manuscript, codex 221 (10th century), includes the reading in a marginal note which was added sometime after the original composition. Thus, there is no sure evidence of this reading in any Greek manuscript until the 1500s; each such reading was apparently composed after Erasmus’ Greek NT was published in 1516. Indeed, the reading appears in no Greek witness of any kind (either manuscript, patristic, or Greek translation of some other version) until AD 1215 (in a Greek translation of the Acts of the Lateran Council, a work originally written in Latin). This is all the more significant, since many a Greek Father would have loved such a reading, for it so succinctly affirms the doctrine of the Trinity.2 The reading seems to have arisen in a fourth century Latin homily in which the text was allegorized to refer to members of the Trinity. From there, it made its way into copies of the Latin Vulgate, the text used by the Roman Catholic Church.

 

[cleanfreak]

I don't know Prince. It seems like most historians and so called experts disagree with what the (umm) unbiased writers who are AKJ Version advocates promote. Here are some quotes and a source link.

Bible manuscripts that were written prior to the Eleventh Century C.E (A.D.) read quite differently. So, it appears as though someone who wanted to provide scriptural backing to the Trinity doctrine changed this verse about 1,000 years after John penned it.
As you can see from the context of John the Fifth Chapter, the three witness-bearers are the water (baptism), the Breath (Gr. pneuma – the Breath of God), and the (shed) blood (of Jesus). Changing the water, the Breath, and the blood to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost would make the rest of what John wrote illogical; so that rendering is obviously spurious.

The Textual Problem in 1 John 5:7-8 | Bible.org - Worlds Largest Bible Study Site

This longer reading is found only in eight late manuscripts, four of which have the words in a marginal note. Most of these manuscripts (2318, 221, and [with minor variations] 61, 88, 429, 629, 636, and 918) originate from the 16th century; the earliest manuscript, codex 221 (10th century), includes the reading in a marginal note which was added sometime after the original composition. Thus, there is no sure evidence of this reading in any Greek manuscript until the 1500s; each such reading was apparently composed after Erasmus’ Greek NT was published in 1516. Indeed, the reading appears in no Greek witness of any kind (either manuscript, patristic, or Greek translation of some other version) until AD 1215 (in a Greek translation of the Acts of the Lateran Council, a work originally written in Latin). This is all the more significant, since many a Greek Father would have loved such a reading, for it so succinctly affirms the doctrine of the Trinity.2 The reading seems to have arisen in a fourth century Latin homily in which the text was allegorized to refer to members of the Trinity. From there, it made its way into copies of the Latin Vulgate, the text used by the Roman Catholic Church.

+1
This pretty much sums it up.

Thanks TOT

 

[Free]

Many people believe that, I for one do not allow me to present this article.
.....
You might profit from the whole study: Adulterations in the Newer Bible Versions (NIV, NASB...)...

Any site which promotes Gail Riplinger's New Age Bible Versions instantly loses all credibility. nyway, this is not about Bible versions and such.



Sill no substantive response to mine and Drew's posts?

 

[JudaicChristian]

Any site which promotes Gail Riplinger's New Age Bible Versions instantly loses all credibility. nyway, this is not about Bible versions and such.



Sill no substantive response to mine and Drew's posts?

I responded to your post and Drews, but you chose to ignor my reply. And as for Drews post, he had mixed scriptures pertaining to Yahwah and Yahshua as being for the same person. No where in scripture does Yahshua say he is the Father, Holy Spirit, or Yahwah.

 

[JudaicChristian]

Yahshua says that he and the Father are one. He does not say he and the Father are one and the same. Yahshua also speaks of us being one with the Father also. Therefore being one does not mean there is a Trinity, it means unity as in like a marriage.

 

[Drew]

I responded to your post and Drews, but you chose to ignor my reply. And as for Drews post, he had mixed scriptures pertaining to Yahwah and Yahshua as being for the same person. No where in scripture does Yahshua say he is the Father, Holy Spirit, or Yahwah.

You presume , or at least you certainly appear to presume, that just because Jesus may not have said "I am God", that this cannot be true. In so doing, you conveniently evade the force of the argument that I have been making. More specifically, you avoid dealing with the possiblity that Jesus could make it clear that He believes Himself to be God through fulfilling prophecies that God said He Himself would fulfill.

With all due respect, you need to realize that this problem won't go away and that others, no matter how much you may wish it were not so, will understand that if Jesus does (and says) things that make it clear that He is taking on the role of God the Father, that this is a powerful, albeit indirect, way of saying "I am the very embodiment of God the Father.

Now, to be fair, TruthOverTradition appears to have at least engaged my argument. I think I will be able to successfully show that his (her?) objections can be dealt with, with the basic argument surviving. We will see.

But, that is how responsible discussion takes place - people actually deal with other people's arguments. It is a little difficult for me to believe that you do not realize how damaging it is to your position when you continually evade arguments that challenge it.

 

[Drew]

Yahshua says that he and the Father are one. He does not say he and the Father are one and the same. Yahshua also speaks of us being one with the Father also. Therefore being one does not mean there is a Trinity, it means unity as in like a marriage.

I agree with you on this specific point - when Jesus says "I and the Father are one", this is not a particularly strong argument for the divinity of Jesus. Based on what I have read about the culture and the times, this kind of statement would not have been taken as a claim that "I am God", but rather as a claim of a common purpose, etc.

But, again, even if the "I and the Father are one" saying does not show Jesus' divinity, it is rather clearly shown on other grounds. And you continue to avoid dealing with those arguments.

But I will try to "force your hand" on this.

Question 1: Do you, or do you not believe that, God essentially abandoned the temple and sent Israel into exile?

Question 2: Do you, or do you not believe that God promised to return to His people and more specifically to His temple?

 

[Free]

I responded to your post and Drews, but you chose to ignor my reply. And as for Drews post, he had mixed scriptures pertaining to Yahwah and Yahshua as being for the same person. No where in scripture does Yahshua say he is the Father, Holy Spirit, or Yahwah.

Which specific post did I miss?

 

[JudaicChristian]

I'm sure you would agree that everything John says, he says for a reason. And this is why I have continually stated that any Christology or theology proper must take into account all that Scripture reveals about God. What I am about to post is posted more than once around these forums and has yet to receive any substantial attempt at a rebuttal.

Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

The Greek word for "was" is en, which denotes a continuous action in the past or absolute existence. In other words, in John's clear allusion to Gen. 1, the Word already was in existence at the beginning of creation. This cannot be understood other than to say that the Word existed for eternity past. This is further supported by verse 3, which I will address in a moment.

John's choice of wording is quite specific with "the Word was with God, and the Word was God." It cannot be "a god," as this is polytheism and completely against all of Scripture.His use of language is such that the Word is not equated to all of God or God to all of the Word, which would make Word and God interchangeable. John's point is who the Word is, not who God is. And this leaves only one translation, and that is what is above, which the majority of translations state.

The Word both "was with God" and "was God"--God in nature, yet distinct from God in some way. This is where only the Trinity makes sense.


Joh 1:2 He was in the beginning with God.
Joh 1:3 All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made.

The breakdown of verse 3 is as follows:

P1. If "All things were made through" the Word,
P2. And "Without [the Word] was not any thing made that was made,"
C It follows that the Word could not have been made.

This is in perfect agreement with verse 1, 1 Cor 8:6, Col 1:16-17 and Acts 3:15.


Joh 1:14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.

Here John uses a significant Greek word for "became," egeneto, which means an action in time. It is also the same word translated as "made" in verse 3. This is very significant because here we see John making a clear distinction between the Word's eternal preexistence in verse 1 (en), with the Word entering into time (egeneto) and becoming flesh.

This is further supported by Phil 2:6-8.


Joh 1:18 No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father's side, he has made him known. (ESV)

Not to mention that all of that is supported by Drew's as-of-yet to be rebutted argument from one of the larger themes of the OT, namely, that Jesus is the embodiment of God as Israel's, and indeed all of Creations, Savior.


That is because theology proper is complicated. Deeper understanding of Scripture is very difficult as it is the finite mind trying to grasp the infinite God.

After #429 I replied with a number of answers. You should review from post #429 to present.

 

[JudaicChristian]

I agree with you on this specific point - when Jesus says "I and the Father are one", this is not a particularly strong argument for the divinity of Jesus. Based on what I have read about the culture and the times, this kind of statement would not have been taken as a claim that "I am God", but rather as a claim of a common purpose, etc.

But, again, even if the "I and the Father are one" saying does not show Jesus' divinity, it is rather clearly shown on other grounds. And you continue to avoid dealing with those arguments.

But I will try to "force your hand" on this.

Question 1: Do you, or do you not believe that, God essentially abandoned the temple and sent Israel into exile? {YES}

Question 2: Do you, or do you not believe that God promised to return to His people and more specifically to His temple? {YES}

The fact that Yahshua represents the Father does not mean that he is the Father himself. He does appear {AS / LIKE} the Father in his second coming.

 

[Sparkey]

Did Jesus say the exact words, "I am God" (Εγώ είμαι ο Θεός)?

Did Jesus ever utter the exact three words, "I am God"?? Some say that if he did the Jews would have objected. They try to water down what Jesus said when he declared "I and the Father are ONE (1). They say what Jesus meant was that he and God were separate but united like a married couple would be. Is that what Jesus said? Would there not be a better way to say that, if that were his intent? What did the Jews think he meant?

Did Jesus ever say the exact four words, "I am a Prophet," or did he ever declare, "I am a man,"?? But we know that Jesus is a Prophet, that he is the giver of eternal life and that he is a man even though he never said it in so many words.

Some have come to this thread and declared that the Jews did not object to Jesus' claim that He and His Father were ONE (1). They say that that Jesus' argument is weak because there was no objection to it in the minds of the Jews. They would like to ignore the fact that the objection from the Jews was so strong that stones were taken up to put Jesus to death for his claim. Jesus may not have said the exact sentence "I am God" but he did claim the divine name for himself (cf. Ex 3:14 with John 8:58) and he also received worship (Matt 2:2; 14:33; 28:9; John 9:35-38).


When Moses was up at the Mount speaking to God, Moses asked God what his name was. God said, "I AM WHO I AM"; and He said, 'Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel,' 'I AM has sent me to you,' (Exodus 3:14). In John 8:58 Jesus said, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am." Right after this the Jews picked up stones to throw at him. Later, in John 10:30-33 Jesus claimed to be one with the Father and the Jews wanted to stone him again because they said to Jesus, "You, being a man, make yourself out to be God." Jesus had claimed the divine name for his own and the Jews wanted to kill him for it. Therefore, from Jesus' own mouth we see that he was claiming to be God.

The words "I am"

Now please understand that anyone can say the words "I am" and it does not mean that he is claiming to be God. Someone could say, "I am over here." That is not claiming the divine name. Likewise, someone could say, "I am hungry," or "I am sick." Neither example is claiming divinity, because the use of the term "I am" in context clearly shows us that is not what is occurring. But, in John 8:58 when Jesus said "before Abraham was born, I am," the Jews knew exactly what he was saying. Notice that he says before Abraham was born (using the past tense) and then he switches to the present tense when he says "I am." Jesus switches tenses of the verbs on purpose so that when he does so in the context of referencing Abraham, Jesus is clearly drawing the Jews' attention to the Old Testament Scriptures and then using a present tense form of the verb "to be" by saying "I AM". Someone who says "I am hungry" is not drawing attention to the Old Testament Scriptures for context.

Jesus was clearly causing the Jews to reflect upon the divine name "I am" that Jesus used for himself. We know that they understood this because as is said above, they said, "You, being a man, make yourself out to be God," (John 10:33).

Giver of Life:
The crowning moment of creation was when God ''formed man... and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life» (Genesis 2:7). In Deuteronomy 32:39, after saying, ' ... there is no god besides me, "God said He is the one to "give life'' (compare Psalm 36:9).

Jesus said, " For just as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, even so the Son also gives life... ° (John 5:21). Just prior to raising Lazarus from the dead, Jesus said, ' 'I am the resurrection and the life " (John 11:25). He went so far as to say that He was the giver of eternal life. "I give eternal life to them, and they shall never perish; and no one shall snatch them out of my hand .. I and the Father are one' ' (John 10:28, 30). Jesus said that the Scriptures (referring to the Old Testament) «bear witness of Me-, and you are unwilling to come to Me, that you may have life" (John 5:39-40).

Is Jesus an angel?

Some come to thread and try to say that Jesus was an angel. Hebrews chapter 1 has a reply to this false notion:

"For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee?

And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son? And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him. And of the angels he saith, Who maketh his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire.

But unto the Son [he saith], Thy throne, O God, [is] for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness [is] the sceptre of thy kingdom. Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, [even] thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows. And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands:" - Hebrews 1:5-10 KJV

Unto Jesus is said, "Thy throne, O God --> for ever and ever.
God has honored Jesus - telling the angels to worship him. "And let all the angels of God worship him"
Unto him is said, "Thy throne, O God, [is] for ever and ever"


Conclusion

It is not necessary that Jesus say a certain phrase in order for the truth of who he is to be made clear. The issue is not if he speaks a certain sentence that we construct in present terms in order to satisfy our theological demands. The issue is what did Jesus say in the context and culture of the time in which he spoke.

Finally, we know that Jesus is God in flesh because the Bible tells us so.

• John 1:1, 14, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God...14And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth."
• John 20:28-29, "Thomas answered and said to Him, "My Lord and my God!" 29 Jesus said to him, "Because you have seen Me, have you believed? Blessed are they who did not see, and yet believed."
• Heb. 1:8, "But of the Son He says, 'Thy throne, O God, is forever and ever, and the righteous scepter is the scepter of His kingdom.'"

ENGLISH:................ Thy... throne, .. O God ... [is] for... ever .. and ever
GREEK:.....................σοῦ... θρόνος .... θεός ... εἰς ....... αἰών .....αἰών
TRANSLITERATION:... Sou... thronos ..Theos ... eis ...... aiōn ..... aiōn

Jesus is my Lord and my God and I am not alone: Angels called him, "Emmanuel" meaning "God with us". John 20:28 "And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God."

___________________________
Footnotes, References, Credits:
Jesus: A Biblical Defense of His Deity by Josh McDowel and Bart Larson
Did Jesus ever say the exact words "I am God?" by CARM (Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry)

 

[Free]

After #429 I replied with a number of answers. You should review from post #429 to present.

The Old Testament says that Yahwah our Elohiym created all things. The translation of John is with a Trinitarian twist to it.

Because Trinitarian Christians have removed the name of God from the New Testament, this has caused much confusion. I have been answering your questions, but you are not listening to me. The Old Testament says that Elohiym who is Yahwah created all things. This world was created by Yahwah for Yahshua. Yahshua was a god among many Sons of God, whom Yahwah made His very own.
Acts 13:33
he has fulfilled for us, their children, by raising up Jesus. As it is written in the second Psalm: “‘You are my son; today I have become your father.’

John 10:33. "We are not stoning you for any of these," replied the Jews, "but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God." (or: a god)
34 Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your Law, 'I have said you are gods'? 35If he called them 'gods,' to whom the word of God came—and the Scripture cannot be broken— 36 what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, 'I am God's Son'?
Now I ask you, did Yahshua say he was God, or did he say he was a god?

Yahshua worked to fulfill prophecy by establishing God's Holy Name in the New Testament. But Trinitarian Christians burned the originals to establish there own version of scriptures.
Hebrews 2:12
He says, “I will declare your name to my brothers and sisters; in the assembly I will sing your praises.”
If this is not true, then show us God's actual personal name in the New Testament.

How would scriptures read if God's name had not been removed?

John 1


1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god. 2 He was with Yahwah in the beginning. 3 By Yahwah all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In Yahwah was life, and that life was the light for all mankind.

There has only been many instances of circular reasoning and unsubstantiated claims about the NT. You have not provided any direct response to my actual arguments. I suspect that you argue that the text was changed because you see the strength of the reasoning. However, until you can provide proof that the text of John 1 was actually changed, and in all the other places which agree, then your position has very little foundation.

 

[Free]

I think this would be a good time to really state the main issue here.

There are passages in the Bible which clearly state that Jesus is God, equal to the Father, although not the Father, not to mention Drew's substantial argument to one of the larger themes of Scripture.

Then there are passages which would seem to show that Jesus is created and subordinate to the Father.

Non-trinitarian positions, as can be seen throughout this thread and the many others in these forums, must ignore the first group of passages or change them to mean something else. This would be the same as someone disregarding all the second group of passages and arguing that Jesus was only God. The former deny Christ's true deity; the latter his true humanity.

Just one verse showing the deity of Christ is enough to do in the claim that Jesus is only a man, a created being. Just as one verse showing the humanity of Jesus is enough to prove that Jesus isn't only God.

It is only the Trinitarian position which attempts to reconcile and make sense of all that scripture states, ignoring neither his deity nor his humanity.

 

[JudaicChristian]

I think this would be a good time to really state the main issue here.

There are passages in the Bible which clearly state that Jesus is God, equal to the Father, although not the Father, not to mention Drew's substantial argument to one of the larger themes of Scripture.

Then there are passages which would seem to show that Jesus is created and subordinate to the Father.

Non-trinitarian positions, as can be seen throughout this thread and the many others in these forums, must ignore the first group of passages or change them to mean something else. This would be the same as someone disregarding all the second group of passages and arguing that Jesus was only God. The former deny Christ's true deity; the latter his true humanity.

Just one verse showing the deity of Christ is enough to do in the claim that Jesus is only a man, a created being. Just as one verse showing the humanity of Jesus is enough to prove that Jesus isn't only God.

It is only the Trinitarian position which attempts to reconcile and make sense of all that scripture states, ignoring neither his deity nor his humanity.

Isaiah 40:25
“To whom will you compare me? Or who is my equal?†says the Holy One.

Isaiah 46:5
“With whom will you compare me or count me equal? To whom will you liken me that we may be compared?

Philippians 2:5-7
5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: 6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: 7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:

That word "equal" could be translated in other words, such as, "equated," or "counted," or "equality." If Jesus states that "The father is greater than I" and refers to his Father in prayer as "You, the only true God." It's kind of obvious that he's not equal to the one who sent him. "God exalted him," he did not exalt himself !

Here is an alternate reading of Philippians 2:6. Who being in the form of God did not think equality with God as obtainable.
Take, Rob,obtain