Christian Forums

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • Christian Forum aspires to be an online community where Christians can come together in fellowship with the purpose to encourage, inspire and build up our faith in Christ Jesus. John 13:34-35
  • Focus on the Family

    Strengthening families through biblical principles.

    Focus on the Family addresses the use of biblical principles in parenting and marriage to strengthen the family.

  • Guest, Join Papa Zoom today for some uplifting biblical encouragement! --> Daily Verses
  • The Gospel of Jesus Christ

    Heard of "The Gospel"? Want to know more?

    There is salvation in no other, for there is not another name under heaven having been given among men, by which it behooves us to be saved."

The Absolute Equality of Jesus Christ With God The Father

tigger 2

Member
From
pacific northwest
Gender
Male
Messages
50
Joined
Sep 26, 2020
Monogenes (cont.)

The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament edited by G. Kittel (Vol. iv, pp. 738-741, 1967 ed.) says, speaking of the use of monogenes in the New Testament,

“It means ‘only-begotten.’ ... In [John] 3:16, 18; 1 Jn 4:9; [and John] 1:18 the relation of Jesus is not just compared to that of an only child to its father. It is the relation of the only-begotten to the Father.... In [the writings of John, monogenes] denotes more than the uniqueness or incomparability of Jesus. In all these verses He is expressly called the Son, and He is regarded as such in 1:14. In John ‘monogenes’ denotes the origin of Jesus. He is ‘monogenes’ as the only-begotten.”

And even the very trinitarian Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible and the equally trinitarian New American Standard Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible both tell us that monogenes is derived from monos (“alone”) and ginomai (“to come into being”) and means “only begotten”! - p. 1667, NAS Exhaustive Concordance (cf. Strong’s #3439 and #1096).

So it is not surprising that the famous NT scholar (and a trinitarian, of course), the Rev. Alfred Marshall, translated monogenes in his most literal, word-for-word rendering of John 1:18 as “only begotten,” p. 265, The Zondervan Parallel New Testament in Greek and English, Zondervan Bible Publishers, 1975. And since God has always existed and was never created or “begotten,” Jesus must be an “only-begotten god” at Jn 1:18!

Monos

When the actual sense of “only one of its kind” is intended (especially if it is to be used for one who has existed eternally), the word chosen by the inspired Bible writers is monos.

The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, one of trinitarian Christendom’s most-respected reference works, tells us about the word monos:

In the ancient Septuagint (The OT version frequently quoted in the NT),

monos is frequently used for God’s uniqueness; e.g. ... Job 9:8 (as Creator). It occurs in the confessional statements in 2 Ki. [4 Kings in Sept.] 19:15, 19; Isa. 37:16, 20. It is frequently found in Pss. (... 83 [82]:18; 86 [85]:10 ... 148:13).”

And, in the NT,

monos becomes theologically significant when it is used in the confession of the one and only God, especially in doxologies (Rom. 16:27; 1 Tim. 1:17; ... Jn. 5:44). .... It is significant that the confession of the one holy God in Rev. 15:4 is found in the song of praise of the martyrs who ‘had conquered the beast.’ Similarly in Jn. 17:3, monos is linked with alethinos, true, in contrast to the deceptive appearance (pseudos) of all alleged gods and revealers, and in Jn 5:44 it stands in contrast to the false doxa (--> glory) of the world, which does not seek the true doxa of the one and only God.” - Vol. 2, p. 724.

By actually examining a good Bible Concordance (I used the highly-praised and highly trinitarian NAS Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible which is the concordance for the equally praised, and equally trinitarian, New American Standard Bible), you will find that John (and all other inspired NT Bible writers) NEVER used monogenes for God, but only for Jesus (Jn 1:14; 1:18; 3:16; 3:18; and 1 Jn 4:9) and other creations by God.

On the other hand, as shown above, the inspired Bible writers did repeatedly use monos for God to show that he is the only one of his kind: “O [Jehovah] our God...you alone [monos] are God” - Is. 37:20, Sept. “Father,.... thee who alone [monos] art truly God” - John 17:1, 3, NEB. “from the one who alone [monos] is God” - John 5:44, TEV, cf. NEB, AB. “he alone [monos] is God” - 1 Tim. 1:17, LB. “to the one only [monos] God” - Jude 1:25, AB, cf. LB.

Yes, monos, by itself, means “only one.” It may be qualified by context (i.e. “give it to Mary only [or ‘alone’]”) in which case we know that the individual identified is not necessarily the only one of its kind, but that it alone (out of all others of its kind) is set aside in some certain way. But context tells us that John does not use it that way in Jn 17:3 (and Jn 5:44 in modern translations). He intends monos in those scriptures to mean “only” in the absolute, unqualified sense: the only one of its kind. If he had intended that same meaning for Jesus at John 1:18, he would have used monos to describe him also. He did not, however.

Monos may also be qualified by adding another word to make it a compound word. For example, monophthalmos is a NT Greek word formed by combining monos (“only”) and ophthalmos (“eye”). It means “having one eye only” - Matt. 18:9; Mk 9:47. So in what sense is monos (“only”) used in this compound New Testament word? The second (qualifying) half of the word (ophthalmos, “eye”) tells us.

Obviously it would be a terrible distortion of God’s inspired word to say that monophthalmos actually means an unqualified monos (“only one”) and therefore we may properly translate Mark 9:47 as “the only one to enter the Kingdom of God.”

In the same way, monos is qualified by ginomai (or genos, if you prefer) in the compound word monogenes. And it is a terrible distortion to ignore that and insist that monogenes merely means an unqualified monos (“only one”)! Monogenes means “only one brought into existence, produced, begotten, created” and this meaning must not be taken away from God’s word!

Therefore, monogenes, which is never used to describe God, means “the only one [in some sense] to be brought into existence”! We can certainly understand why some trinitarian scholars want to deny its actual meaning (when it is applied to Jesus, at least).

Since we know that everything was created by God, the only real question is: In what way is Jesus the only one created by God?

God very often refers to his creation with the “begotten”/”born” metaphor. He is frequently called the Father in the sense that he has created everything and everyone. The angels are his “sons” - e.g. Job 38: 4, 7 and also are “gods” - Ps. 8:5, NEB (elohim - “gods,” see footnotes in NIVSB and (Ps. 8:6) NAB, St. Joseph ed., 1970, and compare Heb. 2:7 - see DEF 4-5). Humans are his “children.” (Remember Paul’s teaching that we are God’s offspring [genos], for example - Acts 17:28-29.) The first man to be created by God was “the son of God.” - Luke 3:38. The Hebrew word for “born” is used at Ps. 90:2 - “Thou [God] didst give birth to the earth” - NASB.

So when Jesus is called the “Firstborn” it is clear that he was the very first creation produced by God. Proverbs 8:22-30, which has been applied to Jesus as the figurative “Wisdom” by the very first Christians down to today, shows this understanding (as does Rev. 3:14). Since he was the Father’s very first creation (at which point in time Jehovah actually became the Father), he must have been created directly by the Father (Jehovah) --- by His own hands, so to speak. It is in this same sense that Jesus is the only-begotten. Jesus was the first (and the only direct) creation by Jehovah. All other things created by God were done THROUGH an intermediary, Jesus himself.

“There is but one God, the Father, from whom are all things, and we exist for Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and we exist through him.” - 1 Cor. 8:6, NASB. “God...in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world.” - Heb. 1:1-2. NASB.

This, therefore, is the way that Jesus is the “only one created [monogenes] by God” or the “only-begotten son” and “only-begotten god”: he is the only one created directly by God’s own "hands"!

Since a proper rendering of monogenes theos (“only-begotten god”) proves the falsity of the trinity doctrine, and also helps verify the proper rendering for John 1:1c - ‘the Word was a god - (otherwise a favorite trinitarian “proof”), it is understandable (though tragic) that some trinitarian scholars take various steps to deny it.
 
Last edited:

tigger 2

Member
From
pacific northwest
Gender
Male
Messages
50
Joined
Sep 26, 2020
Monogenes (cont.)

The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament edited by G. Kittel (Vol. iv, pp. 738-741, 1967 ed.) says, speaking of the use of monogenes in the New Testament,

“It means ‘only-begotten.’ ... In [John] 3:16, 18; 1 Jn 4:9; [and John] 1:18 the relation of Jesus is not just compared to that of an only child to its father. It is the relation of the only-begotten to the Father.... In [the writings of John, monogenes] denotes more than the uniqueness or incomparability of Jesus. In all these verses He is expressly called the Son, and He is regarded as such in 1:14. In John ‘monogenes’ denotes the origin of Jesus. He is ‘monogenes’ as the only-begotten.”

And even the very trinitarian Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible and the equally trinitarian New American Standard Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible both tell us that monogenes is derived from monos (“alone”) and ginomai (“to come into being”) and means “only begotten”! - p. 1667, NAS Exhaustive Concordance (cf. Strong’s #3439 and #1096).

So it is not surprising that the famous NT scholar (and a trinitarian, of course), the Rev. Alfred Marshall, translated monogenes in his most literal, word-for-word rendering of John 1:18 as “only begotten,” p. 265, The Zondervan Parallel New Testament in Greek and English, Zondervan Bible Publishers, 1975. And since God has always existed and was never created or “begotten,” Jesus must be an “only-begotten god” at Jn 1:18!

Monos

When the actual sense of “only one of its kind” is intended (especially if it is to be used for one who has existed eternally), the word chosen by the inspired Bible writers is monos.

The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, one of trinitarian Christendom’s most-respected reference works, tells us about the word monos:

In the ancient Septuagint (The OT version frequently quoted in the NT),

monos is frequently used for God’s uniqueness; e.g. ... Job 9:8 (as Creator). It occurs in the confessional statements in 2 Ki. [4 Kings in Sept.] 19:15, 19; Isa. 37:16, 20. It is frequently found in Pss. (... 83 [82]:18; 86 [85]:10 ... 148:13).”

And, in the NT,

monos becomes theologically significant when it is used in the confession of the one and only God, especially in doxologies (Rom. 16:27; 1 Tim. 1:17; ... Jn. 5:44). .... It is significant that the confession of the one holy God in Rev. 15:4 is found in the song of praise of the martyrs who ‘had conquered the beast.’ Similarly in Jn. 17:3, monos is linked with alethinos, true, in contrast to the deceptive appearance (pseudos) of all alleged gods and revealers, and in Jn 5:44 it stands in contrast to the false doxa (--> glory) of the world, which does not seek the true doxa of the one and only God.” - Vol. 2, p. 724.

By actually examining a good Bible Concordance (I used the highly-praised and highly trinitarian NAS Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible which is the concordance for the equally praised, and equally trinitarian, New American Standard Bible), you will find that John (and all other inspired NT Bible writers) NEVER used monogenes for God, but only for Jesus (Jn 1:14; 1:18; 3:16; 3:18; and 1 Jn 4:9) and other creations by God.

On the other hand, as shown above, the inspired Bible writers did repeatedly use monos for God to show that he is the only one of his kind: “O [Jehovah] our God...you alone [monos] are God” - Is. 37:20, Sept. “Father,.... thee who alone [monos] art truly God” - John 17:1, 3, NEB. “from the one who alone [monos] is God” - John 5:44, TEV, cf. NEB, AB. “he alone [monos] is God” - 1 Tim. 1:17, LB. “to the one only [monos] God” - Jude 1:25, AB, cf. LB.

Yes, monos, by itself, means “only one.” It may be qualified by context (i.e. “give it to Mary only [or ‘alone’]”) in which case we know that the individual identified is not necessarily the only one of its kind, but that it alone (out of all others of its kind) is set aside in some certain way. But context tells us that John does not use it that way in Jn 17:3 (and Jn 5:44 in modern translations). He intends monos in those scriptures to mean “only” in the absolute, unqualified sense: the only one of its kind. If he had intended that same meaning for Jesus at John 1:18, he would have used monos to describe him also. He did not, however.

Monos may also be qualified by adding another word to make it a compound word. For example, monophthalmos is a NT Greek word formed by combining monos (“only”) and ophthalmos (“eye”). It means “having one eye only” - Matt. 18:9; Mk 9:47. So in what sense is monos (“only”) used in this compound New Testament word? The second (qualifying) half of the word (ophthalmos, “eye”) tells us.

Obviously it would be a terrible distortion of God’s inspired word to say that monophthalmos actually means an unqualified monos (“only one”) and therefore we may properly translate Mark 9:47 as “the only one to enter the Kingdom of God.”

In the same way, monos is qualified by ginomai (or genos, if you prefer) in the compound word monogenes. And it is a terrible distortion to ignore that and insist that monogenes merely means an unqualified monos (“only one”)! Monogenes means “only one brought into existence, produced, begotten, created” and this meaning must not be taken away from God’s word!

Therefore, monogenes, which is never used to describe God, means “the only one [in some sense] to be brought into existence”! We can certainly understand why some trinitarian scholars want to deny its actual meaning (when it is applied to Jesus, at least).

Since we know that everything was created by God, the only real question is: In what way is Jesus the only one created by God?

God very often refers to his creation with the “begotten”/”born” metaphor. He is frequently called the Father in the sense that he has created everything and everyone. The angels are his “sons” - e.g. Job 38: 4, 7 and also are “gods” - Ps. 8:5, NEB (elohim - “gods,” see footnotes in NIVSB and (Ps. 8:6) NAB, St. Joseph ed., 1970, and compare Heb. 2:7 - see DEF 4-5). Humans are his “children.” (Remember Paul’s teaching that we are God’s offspring [genos], for example - Acts 17:28-29.) The first man to be created by God was “the son of God.” - Luke 3:38. The Hebrew word for “born” is used at Ps. 90:2 - “Thou [God] didst give birth to the earth” - NASB.

So when Jesus is called the “Firstborn” it is clear that he was the very first creation produced by God. Proverbs 8:22-30, which has been applied to Jesus as the figurative “Wisdom” by the very first Christians down to today, shows this understanding (as does Rev. 3:14). Since he was the Father’s very first creation (at which point in time Jehovah actually became the Father), he must have been created directly by the Father (Jehovah) --- by His own hands, so to speak. It is in this same sense that Jesus is the only-begotten. Jesus was the first (and the only direct) creation by Jehovah. All other things created by God were done THROUGH an intermediary, Jesus himself.

“There is but one God, the Father, from whom are all things, and we exist for Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and we exist through him.” - 1 Cor. 8:6, NASB. “God...in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world.” - Heb. 1:1-2. NASB.

This, therefore, is the way that Jesus is the “only one created [monogenes] by God” or the “only-begotten son” and “only-begotten god”: he is the only one created directly by God’s own hands!

Since a proper rendering of monogenes theos (“only-begotten god”) proves the falsity of the trinity doctrine, and also helps verify the proper rendering for John 1:1c - ‘the Word was a god - (otherwise a favorite trinitarian “proof”), it is understandable (though tragic) that some trinitarian scholars take various steps to deny it.
 

Randy

Member
Christian
Yes
Messages
2,331
Joined
Sep 10, 2012
Jesus Himself calls the Father His God. Is He speaking in terms of one greater than He?
 

SolaScriptura

Member
From
England
Gender
Male
Messages
201
Joined
Jul 20, 2021
Jesus Himself calls the Father His God. Is He speaking in terms of one greater than He?

In Hebrews chapter 1 we have God the Father's relationship with Jesus Christ in more detail.

In verse 6, the Father commands the Worship of Jesus Christ.

In verses 8 and 9, according to the correct Greek grammar, the Father addresses Jesus Christ as God: "Your throne O God...therefore O God, Your God". Some have tried to distort this Testimony of the Father, by changing what it says, to "God is your throne". This however would require the Greek to be in the nominitive case, rather than the vocative, as it is used here. This is a quote from Psalm 45:6-7, where the Jews understoo the vocative here. The Targum reads, "The throne of Thy majesty, O Yahweh, abideth for ever and ever.”. The Hebrew scholar, Aquila, who published a Greek Version of the Old Testament, in the middle of the 2nd century A.D., translates the Hebrew, “אֱלֹהִים”, by the Greek, “ο θρονος σου θεε”, which is undoubtedly the vocative, “Your throne, O God”. (Fredrick Field, Origen Hexapla, vol. II, pp. 162-163). It is clear, that as early as the 2nd century, the Hebrew, “כִּסְאֲךָ אֱלֹהִים”, was understood as the vocative, and not the nominative. The Jewish Bible online, reads: “Thy throne, O God” (https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/tehillim-psalms-chapter-45). As is the reading of another Jewish Bible, “Thy throne, O God” (Dr A Benisch; Jewish School and Family Bible, Vol.IV).

In verse 9, the words, “ὁ θεὸς ὁ θεός σου”, is also in the vocative, and should read: “O God, your God”. This is how it was understood in the Greek Old Testament by Symmachus, published in the latter half of the 2nd century. (see, Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges). In this verse also Aquila uses the vocative, θεέ. (Fredrick Field, Origen Hexapla, vol. II, pp. 162-163)

The New Testament by the Unitarian, Dr George Noyes, reads: “but of the Son: ‘Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever”.

Another Unitarian, Dr George Winer, also admits that in Hebrews 1:8, the vocative is to be understood.

“The nominative (with the article) is sometimes used in an address, particularly in calling or commanding, thus taking the place of the vocative…H. i.8” (A Treatise on the Grammar of New Testament Greek, p.227)

The Jehovah’s Witnesses, in both their Kingdom Interlinear New Testaments, 1969 and 1985, read in the English in the right-hand column, “God is your throne forever”. However, in the literal English translation under the Greek text, it reads: “the throne of you the God”. In the other Greek Interlinear that the JW’s publish, The Emphatic Diaglott, it is even more interesting. In verse 8, the literal English translation under the Greek text, it reads: “concerning but the Son; the throne of thee the God for the age [of the age]”. And in the English version in the right-hand column, “But to the Son, Thy Throne, O God is for the age”. And, for verse 9, “therefore thy God anointed thee, O God” (right-hand column). Both verses this translation has the vocative. These reading actually contradict their own theology, that rejects the Deity of Jesus Christ. Not only is the Deity of Jesus Christ here asserted, but, it is God the Father Who addresses Jesus as GOD.

In verses 10-12, the Father continues to address Jesus Christ:

“And, You, Lord, in the beginning laid the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands; they will perish, but you remain; and they will all grow old like a garment; like a cloak you will fold them up, and they will be changed. But you are the same, and your years will not fail’

The Greek for “Lord” is “κύριε”, which is vocative, “O Lord”. These words are taken from Psalm 102:25-27, which is spoken of “אל” (God, verse 24), and addressed to Him as The Creator. The Father, by taking these words, and using them for Jesus Christ, is saying that “The Son” is the Actual Creator of the heavens and earth. Not just some secondary, or intermediate. When we read in places like Hebrews 1:2, and John 1:3, where the Greek preposition “διά” is used for Creation. It is not to be understood as “agency”, as though the Father was Creating “through” Jesus Christ. But, as the original use of the preposition, “between, two”, as in Homer, “mutual operation, with one another”. Which agrees with the use of the plural in Genesis 1:26, “let US make man in OUR Image”, etc. And, Job 35:10, where it is literally, “God my Makers (עֹשָׂי, mas, plural)”.
 

Randy

Member
Christian
Yes
Messages
2,331
Joined
Sep 10, 2012
In Hebrews chapter 1 we have God the Father's relationship with Jesus Christ in more detail.

In verse 6, the Father commands the Worship of Jesus Christ.

In verses 8 and 9, according to the correct Greek grammar, the Father addresses Jesus Christ as God: "Your throne O God...therefore O God, Your God". Some have tried to distort this Testimony of the Father, by changing what it says, to "God is your throne". This however would require the Greek to be in the nominitive case, rather than the vocative, as it is used here. This is a quote from Psalm 45:6-7, where the Jews understoo the vocative here. The Targum reads, "The throne of Thy majesty, O Yahweh, abideth for ever and ever.”. The Hebrew scholar, Aquila, who published a Greek Version of the Old Testament, in the middle of the 2nd century A.D., translates the Hebrew, “אֱלֹהִים”, by the Greek, “ο θρονος σου θεε”, which is undoubtedly the vocative, “Your throne, O God”. (Fredrick Field, Origen Hexapla, vol. II, pp. 162-163). It is clear, that as early as the 2nd century, the Hebrew, “כִּסְאֲךָ אֱלֹהִים”, was understood as the vocative, and not the nominative. The Jewish Bible online, reads: “Thy throne, O God” (https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/tehillim-psalms-chapter-45). As is the reading of another Jewish Bible, “Thy throne, O God” (Dr A Benisch; Jewish School and Family Bible, Vol.IV).

In verse 9, the words, “ὁ θεὸς ὁ θεός σου”, is also in the vocative, and should read: “O God, your God”. This is how it was understood in the Greek Old Testament by Symmachus, published in the latter half of the 2nd century. (see, Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges). In this verse also Aquila uses the vocative, θεέ. (Fredrick Field, Origen Hexapla, vol. II, pp. 162-163)

The New Testament by the Unitarian, Dr George Noyes, reads: “but of the Son: ‘Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever”.

Another Unitarian, Dr George Winer, also admits that in Hebrews 1:8, the vocative is to be understood.

“The nominative (with the article) is sometimes used in an address, particularly in calling or commanding, thus taking the place of the vocative…H. i.8” (A Treatise on the Grammar of New Testament Greek, p.227)

The Jehovah’s Witnesses, in both their Kingdom Interlinear New Testaments, 1969 and 1985, read in the English in the right-hand column, “God is your throne forever”. However, in the literal English translation under the Greek text, it reads: “the throne of you the God”. In the other Greek Interlinear that the JW’s publish, The Emphatic Diaglott, it is even more interesting. In verse 8, the literal English translation under the Greek text, it reads: “concerning but the Son; the throne of thee the God for the age [of the age]”. And in the English version in the right-hand column, “But to the Son, Thy Throne, O God is for the age”. And, for verse 9, “therefore thy God anointed thee, O God” (right-hand column). Both verses this translation has the vocative. These reading actually contradict their own theology, that rejects the Deity of Jesus Christ. Not only is the Deity of Jesus Christ here asserted, but, it is God the Father Who addresses Jesus as GOD.

In verses 10-12, the Father continues to address Jesus Christ:

“And, You, Lord, in the beginning laid the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands; they will perish, but you remain; and they will all grow old like a garment; like a cloak you will fold them up, and they will be changed. But you are the same, and your years will not fail’

The Greek for “Lord” is “κύριε”, which is vocative, “O Lord”. These words are taken from Psalm 102:25-27, which is spoken of “אל” (God, verse 24), and addressed to Him as The Creator. The Father, by taking these words, and using them for Jesus Christ, is saying that “The Son” is the Actual Creator of the heavens and earth. Not just some secondary, or intermediate. When we read in places like Hebrews 1:2, and John 1:3, where the Greek preposition “διά” is used for Creation. It is not to be understood as “agency”, as though the Father was Creating “through” Jesus Christ. But, as the original use of the preposition, “between, two”, as in Homer, “mutual operation, with one another”. Which agrees with the use of the plural in Genesis 1:26, “let US make man in OUR Image”, etc. And, Job 35:10, where it is literally, “God my Makers (עֹשָׂי, mas, plural)”.
That's quite a bit. But the question is, "who is the Father to Jesus?"
As you quoted "therefore God ,YOUR GOD".. Isn't that Jesus's testimony, that is the Father is His God?
And Hebrews 1 is "about the "Son" who was appointed by God as the heir of all things. Who was set above all other names by God and through whom God made all things.

Doesn't all that suggest to you the Father is greater?
 

SolaScriptura

Member
From
England
Gender
Male
Messages
201
Joined
Jul 20, 2021
That's quite a bit. But the question is, "who is the Father to Jesus?"
As you quoted "therefore God ,YOUR GOD".. Isn't that Jesus's testimony, that is the Father is His God?
And Hebrews 1 is "about the "Son" who was appointed by God as the heir of all things. Who was set above all other names by God and through whom God made all things.

Doesn't all that suggest to you the Father is greater?

The Father is YHWH. Jesus Christ is YHWH. The Holy Spirit is YHWH. The Name YHWH means "Eternal, Self-Existent", and therefore COEQUAL, COESSENTIAL, AND COETERNAL. Neither Person in the Godhead can be "greater or better" than the other. This is impossible.
 

Butch5

Member
From
Homer Georgia
Gender
Male
Christian
Yes
Messages
4,839
Joined
Jul 16, 2012
“και παν κτισμα ο εστιν εν τω ουρανω και εν τη γη και υποκατω της γης και επι της θαλασσης α εστιν και τα εν αυτοις παντα ηκουσα λεγοντας τω καθημενω επι του θρονου και τω αρνιω η ευλογια και η τιμη και η δοξα και το κρατος εις τους αιωνας των αιωνων” (Revelation 5:13-14)

"And ALL of the Creation, which is in the heaven, and on the earth, and under the earth, and on the sea, and all things that are in them, heard I saying, to Him Who sits on the throne, and unto the Lamb, be ALL the Blessing, and ALL the Honour, and ALL the Glory, and ALL the Might, for ever and ever. And the four living creatures said, Amen. And the elders fell down and worshipped." (so emphasized in the Greek)

Note the words, “τω καθημενω επι του θρονου και τω αρνιω”, “to Him Who sits on the throne AND to the Lamb”, where the Greek conjunction, “και”, is used for “sameness”, with absolute equality. Thus, we read in chapter 22, verse 1: “And he showed me a river of water of life, bright as crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb”. The Greek here is very important, “του θρονου του θεου και του αρνιου”, where “του θρονου” (the throne), is in the singular number. God and the Lamb, as “distinct” Persons, are united in Their Rule. This absolute unity, can also be seen in chapter 11:15, “And the seventh angel sounded; and there were great voices in heaven, saying, The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of His Christ; and He shall Reign for ever and ever”. Note the end, “He shall Reign”, which in the Greek is, “βασιλευσει”, which is in the singular number. It can refer to “His Christ”, or, to “our Lord and of His Christ”, the latter no doubt being the correct meaning, as seen from the main passage from chapter 5, and 22. Let no one suppose that there is some “subordination” with Jesus Christ to the Father, post-Incarnation, as this is proven as completely wrong from these passages in Revelation.

These passages are some of the strongest and clearest in the Holy Bible, that speak of the Deity of the Lord Jesus Christ. It also shows His equality with the Father, and further teaches that there are Two Persons in Scripture, Who are equally Almighty God. We read, "to Him Who (Gk, toi) sits on the throne, and to the (Gk, toi) Lamb". Where it is very clear from the Greek text, that two separate Persons are spoken of, God the Father, and God the Son (the Lamb).

Verse 13 speaks of "every created thing which is in the heaven, and on the earth, and under the earth, and on the sea, and all things that are in them", which is nothing less than the entirety of the human race, "every created thing", with no exceptions. Here the entire universe ascribes "THE blessing, and THE honour, and THE glory, and THE Might", where in the Greek text, the "article [the]" is repeated with each word, signifying, "whatever blessing, and honour, and glory, and might", there is in the entire universe, as in ALL blessings, honour, glory, might, is here said to belong "to Him that sits on the throne", which is God the Father in this case. So, let us be clear here what is being taught; that, ALL, "THE blessing, and ALL THE honour, and ALL THE glory, and ALL THE might", are said EQUALLY to belong to God the Father, and God the Son. In the Book of Isaiah we read these words: "to whom will ye liken me, and make me equal, and compare me, that we may be like? (46:5), and in 42:8, "I am Jehovah, that is my name; and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise unto graven images". It is very clear from these passages, that Almighty God would never "share" His glory, praise with another, nor can He ever be compared with, or made equal with anyone. And yet, in the passage in Revelation, this is exactly what the Apostle John, writing under the guiding of the Holy Spirit, has done! It would be nothing short of blasphemy, for the Apostle John, to have written as he did in Revelation 5:13-14, IF, Jesus Christ was a created being, as some, like the Jehovah's Witnesses falsely teach. How can the Almighty Creator God, be EVER "share" the " blessings, and honour, and glory, and might", with a someone Whom He created? Can the Creator be said to be EQUAL with His creation, IF as some blaspheme, that Jesus is a created being? Jesus Himself says in the Gospel of John, "My Father works until now, and I work" (5:17), which the Jews rightly understood as Jesus "making Himself equal (Gk, isos, "the same in quality". J H Thayer, Greek-English lexicon; "to claim for one's self the nature, rank, authority, which belongs to God, Jn. v.18", p.307. Thayer was a Unitarian, who, like the Jehovah's Witnesses, denied the Deity of Jesus Christ) to God (toi theoi)", because He had called God, "His OWN Father" (verse 18). Thus is their relationship. And in verse 23, Jesus says something that ONLY someone who was coequal to the Father could ever have said. We read: "That everyone (all humans) should honour (Gk, time, "worship, esteem, honour") the Son, even as (Gk, kathos, "just as, even as", indicating comparision) they honour the Father. He that does not honour the Son, does not honour the Father Who sent Him". Can a created being demand that SAME honour that God the Father is given? Regardless of highly exalted Jesus Christ might have been, if He were a created being, there is NO way that He could ever have used language as He does here, without blaspheming. Even as the Incarnate Son of God, Jesus Christ demanded EQUAL “HONOUR” with the Father, though He says that “The Father is greater than I” (John 14:28). Here is indeed a Great Mystery!

John then goes on to say in verse 14, “And the elders fell down and worshipped”. This “worship” is here directed to BOTH , “to Him Who sits on the throne, AND unto the Lamb”, which further shows that Jesus Christ, post-Incarnation, is 100% COEQUAL, with God the Father, and in the Godhead, His Deity is no “less”, in any way, than the Father. The fact that BOTH are WORSHIPPED TOGETHER, can only be understood to Their being also COESSENTIAL

Also, in Revelation 1:17, and 2:8, we read of Jesus Christ say of Himself, that He is, "the first and the last". Thayer says of the words, "ho protos kai ho eschatos, i.e. the eternal One" (page, 554). Which can ONLY mean that Jesus Christ is UNCREATED, and ETERNAL. Add to this the words of Jesus Christ in chapter 22, “I am THE Alpha and THE Omega, THE First and THE Last, THE Beginning and THE End”. In Isaiah 44:6, we read, “Thus says the LORD, the King of Israel and his Redeemer, the LORD of hosts: “I am THE First and I am THE Last; besides me there is no god”. It is not only impossible for Jesus to have said these words about Himself, IF, as some teach, that He is no more than a mere “created” being, but, it would also be the highest form of blasphemy. However, we are confident from what we read in the Infallible Word of God, that there can be no doubt, that Jesus Christ, IS indeed ALMIGHTY GOD, without beginning or end, as are God the Father, and God the Holy Spirit.


Jesus Christ IS The Great I AM, Yahweh, Almighty God.
Sorry, I'm going to have to disagree with you. It seems to me you're making some inferences that can't stand up to Scripture. The Father is Almighty God, Jesus is His Son. In Jewish culture the son is never equal with the Father. That's why the Jews look to Abraham as their father and not Jacob or Isaac. But aside from this Paul said that Christ did not think equality with God was something to be grasped.

5 Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus,
6 who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped,
7 but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men.
8 And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. (Phil. 2:5-8 NAS)

Actually, He will be subordinate to the Father.

24 Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.
25 For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet.
26 The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.
27 For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him.
28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.
(1 Cor. 15:24-28 KJV)

Paul says that Christ reigns until all things are made subject and that after He delivers the Kingdom to the Father, The Son Himself will be subject to the Father.

Also, the early Christians and the Nicene Creed say that Jesus was begotten before all worlds. How can one be eternal if they are begotten?
 

tigger 2

Member
From
pacific northwest
Gender
Male
Messages
50
Joined
Sep 26, 2020
Sorry, I'm going to have to disagree with you. It seems to me you're making some inferences that can't stand up to Scripture. The Father is Almighty God, Jesus is His Son. In Jewish culture the son is never equal with the Father. That's why the Jews look to Abraham as their father and not Jacob or Isaac. But aside from this Paul said that Christ did not think equality with God was something to be grasped.

5 Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus,
6 who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped,
7 but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men.
8 And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. (Phil. 2:5-8 NAS)

Actually, He will be subordinate to the Father.

24 Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.
25 For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet.
26 The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.
27 For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him.
28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.
(1 Cor. 15:24-28 KJV)

Paul says that Christ reigns until all things are made subject and that after He delivers the Kingdom to the Father, The Son Himself will be subject to the Father.

Also, the early Christians and the Nicene Creed say that Jesus was begotten before all worlds. How can one be eternal if they are begotten?
.................................................................
Phil. 2:6 (“grasp,” “held onto”?)

Harpagmos


Notice how these two very trinitarian Bibles have rendered it:

“He did not think to snatch at [harpagmos, ἁρπαγμὸς] equality with God” - NEB.

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

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

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

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

“725 harpagmós – to seize, especially by an open display of force. See 726 (harpazō).” - HELPS Word-studies, copyright © 1987, 2011 by Helps Ministries, Inc.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We can easily see this “taken by force” meaning in all the uses of harpazo (the source word for harpagmos) in the New Testament. But since harpagmos itself is used only at Phil. 2:6 in the NT, Bible scholars must go to the ancient Greek translation of the Old Testament (which is frequently quoted in the NT), the Septuagint.

In the Septuagint harpagmos (in its forms of harpagma[2,3] and harpagmata) is used 16 times according to trinitarian Zondervan’s A Concordance of the Septuagint, p. 32, 1979 printing. And in every case its meaning is the taking of something away from someone by force. Here they are in the Bagster Septuagint as published by Zondervan: Lev. 6:4 “plunder;” Job 29:17 “spoil” (a “prize” taken by force); Ps. 61:10 (Ps. 62:10 in most modern Bibles) “robberies;” Is. 42:22 “prey;” Is. 61:8 “robberies;” Ezek. 18:7 “plunder;” Ezek. 18:12 “robbery;” Ezek. 18:16 “robbery;” Ezek. 18:18 “plunder;” Ezek. 19:3 “prey;” Ezek. 19:6 “take prey;” Ezek. 22:25 “seizing prey;” Ezek. 22:27 “get dishonest gain” (through the use of “harpazo” or “force”); Ezek. 22:29 “robbery;” Ezek. 33:15 “has robbed;” and Malachi 1:13 “torn victims” (compare ASV).

So, in spite of some trinitarians’ reasonings and euphemistic renderings, it is clear from the way it was always used in scripture that harpagmos means either taking something away by force (a verb), or something which has been taken by force (a noun).

So, “He did not think that by force [harpagmos] he should try to become equal with God” - GNB) is more accurate than most Bibles.
 

Butch5

Member
From
Homer Georgia
Gender
Male
Christian
Yes
Messages
4,839
Joined
Jul 16, 2012
.................................................................
Phil. 2:6 (“grasp,” “held onto”?)

Harpagmos


Notice how these two very trinitarian Bibles have rendered it:

“He did not think to snatch at [harpagmos, ἁρπαγμὸς] equality with God” - NEB.

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

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

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

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

“725 harpagmós – to seize, especially by an open display of force. See 726 (harpazō).” - HELPS Word-studies, copyright © 1987, 2011 by Helps Ministries, Inc.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We can easily see this “taken by force” meaning in all the uses of harpazo (the source word for harpagmos) in the New Testament. But since harpagmos itself is used only at Phil. 2:6 in the NT, Bible scholars must go to the ancient Greek translation of the Old Testament (which is frequently quoted in the NT), the Septuagint.

In the Septuagint harpagmos (in its forms of harpagma[2,3] and harpagmata) is used 16 times according to trinitarian Zondervan’s A Concordance of the Septuagint, p. 32, 1979 printing. And in every case its meaning is the taking of something away from someone by force. Here they are in the Bagster Septuagint as published by Zondervan: Lev. 6:4 “plunder;” Job 29:17 “spoil” (a “prize” taken by force); Ps. 61:10 (Ps. 62:10 in most modern Bibles) “robberies;” Is. 42:22 “prey;” Is. 61:8 “robberies;” Ezek. 18:7 “plunder;” Ezek. 18:12 “robbery;” Ezek. 18:16 “robbery;” Ezek. 18:18 “plunder;” Ezek. 19:3 “prey;” Ezek. 19:6 “take prey;” Ezek. 22:25 “seizing prey;” Ezek. 22:27 “get dishonest gain” (through the use of “harpazo” or “force”); Ezek. 22:29 “robbery;” Ezek. 33:15 “has robbed;” and Malachi 1:13 “torn victims” (compare ASV).

So, in spite of some trinitarians’ reasonings and euphemistic renderings, it is clear from the way it was always used in scripture that harpagmos means either taking something away by force (a verb), or something which has been taken by force (a noun).

So, “He did not think that by force [harpagmos] he should try to become equal with God” - GNB) is more accurate than most Bibles.
I can agree with this.
 

SolaScriptura

Member
From
England
Gender
Male
Messages
201
Joined
Jul 20, 2021
Sorry, I'm going to have to disagree with you. It seems to me you're making some inferences that can't stand up to Scripture. The Father is Almighty God, Jesus is His Son. In Jewish culture the son is never equal with the Father. That's why the Jews look to Abraham as their father and not Jacob or Isaac. But aside from this Paul said that Christ did not think equality with God was something to be grasped.

5 Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus,
6 who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped,
7 but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men.
8 And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. (Phil. 2:5-8 NAS)

Actually, He will be subordinate to the Father.

24 Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.
25 For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet.
26 The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.
27 For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him.
28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.
(1 Cor. 15:24-28 KJV)

Paul says that Christ reigns until all things are made subject and that after He delivers the Kingdom to the Father, The Son Himself will be subject to the Father.

Also, the early Christians and the Nicene Creed say that Jesus was begotten before all worlds. How can one be eternal if they are begotten?

Firstly, you will see from the passage in Exodus chapter 3, and the Burning Bush, that the Person Who identified Himself to Moses, is "Malakh YHWH", that is, "The Messenger of Yahweh" (And the Malakh YHWH appeared unto him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush), Who, as we can see from passages like Isaiah 48:16, was "sent" by “Adonay Yahweh”, though the Speaker Himself is also YHWH, as the context tells us. Now, this Person Who is "Malakh YHWH", is called in verse 4, "And when YHWH saw that he turned aside to see, Elohim called unto him out of the midst of the bush". He is now also called "YHWH" and "Elohim", even though He is "sent" by YHWH! So, we have Two Persons Who are YHWH! In verse 6, Malakh YHWH, tells Moses, "I am the God of thy father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob". In verse 7 He is again identified as YHWH. In verse 11, we read, "And Moses said unto God". In verse 14, in response to Moses' question about the Name of Malakh YHWH, He responds by saying, "Ehyeh ’ăsher ’ehyeh", that is, "I am that I am", which the Jewish Greek Old Testament, the Septuagint, translates the Hebrew as, "Ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ὤν", which is, "I am the Eternal One", which Jesus uses in John 8:58, for which the Jews wanted to stone Him to death (verse 59).

In Genesis chapter 18, we have three men who physically visit Abraham (in verse 8 its says that they ate the food that Abraham gave them). In verses 1, 13, 14, 17, 19, 20, 22, 26, 33; One of these Men, is clearly YHWH. In chapter 19, while still present on earth, we read in verse 24, "Then the YHWH rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the YHWH out of heaven". Here we have One Person Who is YHWH on earth, call upon another Person Who is also YHWH, Who is in heaven!

In Isaiah 9:6, one of the Names that is used in Prophecy for Jesus Christ, is "’êl Gibbôr", which is, "Mighty God", which is how even the Jehovah's Witnesses translate the Hebrew, https://www.jw.org/en/library/bible/study-bible/books/isaiah/9/. In Isaiah chapter 20, verses 20-21, we read: "It will come to pass in that day that the remnant of Israel, and those who have escaped from the house of Jacob will no more again lean on him who struck them, but shall lean on YHWH, the Holy One of Israel, in truth. A remnant will return, even the remnant of Jacob, to the êl Gibbôr". Here, the Father is called "êl Gibbôr", as Jesus is in 9:6! Again, Two distinct Persons who are YHWH and êl Gibbôr.

The Jews will never see Jesus Christ as Almighty God, or accept the Holy Trinity, until they are born-again Christians, when the Holy Spirit will reveal these Truths to them.
 

Butch5

Member
From
Homer Georgia
Gender
Male
Christian
Yes
Messages
4,839
Joined
Jul 16, 2012
Firstly, you will see from the passage in Exodus chapter 3, and the Burning Bush, that the Person Who identified Himself to Moses, is "Malakh YHWH", that is, "The Messenger of Yahweh" (And the Malakh YHWH appeared unto him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush), Who, as we can see from passages like Isaiah 48:16, was "sent" by “Adonay Yahweh”, though the Speaker Himself is also YHWH, as the context tells us. Now, this Person Who is "Malakh YHWH", is called in verse 4, "And when YHWH saw that he turned aside to see, Elohim called unto him out of the midst of the bush". He is now also called "YHWH" and "Elohim", even though He is "sent" by YHWH! So, we have Two Persons Who are YHWH! In verse 6, Malakh YHWH, tells Moses, "I am the God of thy father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob". In verse 7 He is again identified as YHWH. In verse 11, we read, "And Moses said unto God". In verse 14, in response to Moses' question about the Name of Malakh YHWH, He responds by saying, "Ehyeh ’ăsher ’ehyeh", that is, "I am that I am", which the Jewish Greek Old Testament, the Septuagint, translates the Hebrew as, "Ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ὤν", which is, "I am the Eternal One", which Jesus uses in John 8:58, for which the Jews wanted to stone Him to death (verse 59).

In Genesis chapter 18, we have three men who physically visit Abraham (in verse 8 its says that they ate the food that Abraham gave them). In verses 1, 13, 14, 17, 19, 20, 22, 26, 33; One of these Men, is clearly YHWH. In chapter 19, while still present on earth, we read in verse 24, "Then the YHWH rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the YHWH out of heaven". Here we have One Person Who is YHWH on earth, call upon another Person Who is also YHWH, Who is in heaven!

In Isaiah 9:6, one of the Names that is used in Prophecy for Jesus Christ, is "’êl Gibbôr", which is, "Mighty God", which is how even the Jehovah's Witnesses translate the Hebrew, https://www.jw.org/en/library/bible/study-bible/books/isaiah/9/. In Isaiah chapter 20, verses 20-21, we read: "It will come to pass in that day that the remnant of Israel, and those who have escaped from the house of Jacob will no more again lean on him who struck them, but shall lean on YHWH, the Holy One of Israel, in truth. A remnant will return, even the remnant of Jacob, to the êl Gibbôr". Here, the Father is called "êl Gibbôr", as Jesus is in 9:6! Again, Two distinct Persons who are YHWH and êl Gibbôr.

The Jews will never see Jesus Christ as Almighty God, or accept the Holy Trinity, until they are born-again Christians, when the Holy Spirit will reveal these Truths to them.
But, the question isn't whether or not Jesus is Deity. It's whether or not He's equal with the Father. The Nicene creed states plainly that Jesus is God out of God. So, that's not the question. Jesus was equal with the Father in nautre, God out of God. However, He is not equal in authority. If He was the Father wouldn't have had to give Him all authority. However, Paul makes note that the Father is never subject to the Son, even though all authority was given to the Son.

As I pointed out, Jesus hands the Kingdom over to the Father and is then subject to Him. By definition there can only be one almighty. If there are two co-equals then neither can be almighty. The Father is God almighty. Jesus even said the Father is greater than I.

Jesus said that the words He spoke were not His but the Father's. If He spoke the words of the Father during His ministry why wouldn't we expect Him to have spoken the words if the Father prior to that? Especially, when John tells us that no one has seen the Father, but the Son has made Him known. We know that it was the Son who interacted with the OT saints. It was the Son who stood before Abraham. But again, Jesus spoke the words of the Father.
 

SolaScriptura

Member
From
England
Gender
Male
Messages
201
Joined
Jul 20, 2021
.................................................................
Phil. 2:6 (“grasp,” “held onto”?)

Harpagmos


Notice how these two very trinitarian Bibles have rendered it:

“He did not think to snatch at [harpagmos, ἁρπαγμὸς] equality with God” - NEB.

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

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

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

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

“725 harpagmós – to seize, especially by an open display of force. See 726 (harpazō).” - HELPS Word-studies, copyright © 1987, 2011 by Helps Ministries, Inc.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We can easily see this “taken by force” meaning in all the uses of harpazo (the source word for harpagmos) in the New Testament. But since harpagmos itself is used only at Phil. 2:6 in the NT, Bible scholars must go to the ancient Greek translation of the Old Testament (which is frequently quoted in the NT), the Septuagint.

In the Septuagint harpagmos (in its forms of harpagma[2,3] and harpagmata) is used 16 times according to trinitarian Zondervan’s A Concordance of the Septuagint, p. 32, 1979 printing. And in every case its meaning is the taking of something away from someone by force. Here they are in the Bagster Septuagint as published by Zondervan: Lev. 6:4 “plunder;” Job 29:17 “spoil” (a “prize” taken by force); Ps. 61:10 (Ps. 62:10 in most modern Bibles) “robberies;” Is. 42:22 “prey;” Is. 61:8 “robberies;” Ezek. 18:7 “plunder;” Ezek. 18:12 “robbery;” Ezek. 18:16 “robbery;” Ezek. 18:18 “plunder;” Ezek. 19:3 “prey;” Ezek. 19:6 “take prey;” Ezek. 22:25 “seizing prey;” Ezek. 22:27 “get dishonest gain” (through the use of “harpazo” or “force”); Ezek. 22:29 “robbery;” Ezek. 33:15 “has robbed;” and Malachi 1:13 “torn victims” (compare ASV).

So, in spite of some trinitarians’ reasonings and euphemistic renderings, it is clear from the way it was always used in scripture that harpagmos means either taking something away by force (a verb), or something which has been taken by force (a noun).

So, “He did not think that by force [harpagmos] he should try to become equal with God” - GNB) is more accurate than most Bibles.

 

SolaScriptura

Member
From
England
Gender
Male
Messages
201
Joined
Jul 20, 2021
But, the question isn't whether or not Jesus is Deity. It's whether or not He's equal with the Father. The Nicene creed states plainly that Jesus is God out of God. So, that's not the question. Jesus was equal with the Father in nautre, God out of God. However, He is not equal in authority. If He was the Father wouldn't have had to give Him all authority. However, Paul makes note that the Father is never subject to the Son, even though all authority was given to the Son.

As I pointed out, Jesus hands the Kingdom over to the Father and is then subject to Him. By definition there can only be one almighty. If there are two co-equals then neither can be almighty. The Father is God almighty. Jesus even said the Father is greater than I.

Jesus said that the words He spoke were not His but the Father's. If He spoke the words of the Father during His ministry why wouldn't we expect Him to have spoken the words if the Father prior to that? Especially, when John tells us that no one has seen the Father, but the Son has made Him known. We know that it was the Son who interacted with the OT saints. It was the Son who stood before Abraham. But again, Jesus spoke the words of the Father.

Firstly, the Nicene Creed is not the Infallible Word of God, and is very wrong in what it says about the relationship between Jesus Christ and the Father. so, when they use language like "Θεὸν ἐκ Θεοῦ", this is their theological position, rather than what the Bible actually teaches. As Jesus Christ is Almighty God, exactly as the Father and Holy Spirit are, there can be no "priority" within the eternal Godhead of the Three Persons.

Secondly, we read of Jesus being "sent", and and "given authority", etc, this is to do with His Incarnation only, as we read in passages like John 17:5, Philippians 2:5-11, and Hebrews 2:7-9, where it is clear that Jesus is eternally coequal with the Father, and became "lower", only during His time on earth.

Thirdly, it is very clear, that as Jesus was the Servant while on earth, that He said that "the Father is greater than I" (John 14:28); as Jesus Himself also said, "the servant is not greater than His master" (John 13:16). However, at the same time that Jesus was "subject" to the Father, while on earth, He was also equal to the Father, as is clear from John 5:23, "so that everyone will honor the Son, just as they honor the Father. Anyone who does not honor the Son is certainly not honoring the Father who sent Him". Here Jesus demands equal honor to the Father, if He were not Almighty God and a coequal, then Jesus could not say this. Jesus also says in John chapter 10, "I and the Father are one". In verses 28-29, Jesus says, "I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand". Notice how Jesus places Himself first, and then the Father. He also says that He has equal Authority, Protection and Power as the Father has. This is the "Oneness" of verse 30.

Fourthly, I do not believe that 1 Corinthians 15:28, refers to the eternal relationship between the Father and Jesus Christ, but only till the time of the end of the world. It is very clear from the Book of Revelation, where we read: "The seventh angel sounded, and great voices in heaven followed, saying, “The kingdom of the world has become the Kingdom of our Lord, and of his Christ. He will reign forever and ever!” (11:15). The Greek "βασιλεύσει" is in the singular, which either means, "Jesus Christ will Reign", or, "the Father and Jesus Christ", as they are both God, do so jointly. 22:1, 3, says, "He showed me a river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb...There will be no curse any more. The throne of God and of the Lamb will be in it, and his servants will serve him". Again, notice the singular "θρόνου, θρόνος" (Throne), and "αὐτοῦ, αὐτῷ" (His, Him). The Reign is Joint with the Father and Jesus Christ, and both equally will be served for all eternity. This is also very clear from 5:13-14, "I heard every created thing which is in heaven, on the earth, under the earth, on the sea, and everything in them, saying, “To him who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb be the blessing, the honor, the glory, and the might, forever and ever! Amen!” The four living creatures said, “Amen!” Then the elders fell down and worshiped." ALL "the blessing, the honor, the glory, and the might", is here EQUAL for both Father and Jesus, and they are both WORSHIPPED!
 

Randy

Member
Christian
Yes
Messages
2,331
Joined
Sep 10, 2012
Firstly, the Nicene Creed is not the Infallible Word of God, and is very wrong in what it says about the relationship between Jesus Christ and the Father. so, when they use language like "Θεὸν ἐκ Θεοῦ", this is their theological position, rather than what the Bible actually teaches. As Jesus Christ is Almighty God, exactly as the Father and Holy Spirit are, there can be no "priority" within the eternal Godhead of the Three Persons.

Secondly, we read of Jesus being "sent", and and "given authority", etc, this is to do with His Incarnation only, as we read in passages like John 17:5, Philippians 2:5-11, and Hebrews 2:7-9, where it is clear that Jesus is eternally coequal with the Father, and became "lower", only during His time on earth.

Thirdly, it is very clear, that as Jesus was the Servant while on earth, that He said that "the Father is greater than I" (John 14:28); as Jesus Himself also said, "the servant is not greater than His master" (John 13:16). However, at the same time that Jesus was "subject" to the Father, while on earth, He was also equal to the Father, as is clear from John 5:23, "so that everyone will honor the Son, just as they honor the Father. Anyone who does not honor the Son is certainly not honoring the Father who sent Him". Here Jesus demands equal honor to the Father, if He were not Almighty God and a coequal, then Jesus could not say this. Jesus also says in John chapter 10, "I and the Father are one". In verses 28-29, Jesus says, "I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand". Notice how Jesus places Himself first, and then the Father. He also says that He has equal Authority, Protection and Power as the Father has. This is the "Oneness" of verse 30.

Fourthly, I do not believe that 1 Corinthians 15:28, refers to the eternal relationship between the Father and Jesus Christ, but only till the time of the end of the world. It is very clear from the Book of Revelation, where we read: "The seventh angel sounded, and great voices in heaven followed, saying, “The kingdom of the world has become the Kingdom of our Lord, and of his Christ. He will reign forever and ever!” (11:15). The Greek "βασιλεύσει" is in the singular, which either means, "Jesus Christ will Reign", or, "the Father and Jesus Christ", as they are both God, do so jointly. 22:1, 3, says, "He showed me a river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb...There will be no curse any more. The throne of God and of the Lamb will be in it, and his servants will serve him". Again, notice the singular "θρόνου, θρόνος" (Throne), and "αὐτοῦ, αὐτῷ" (His, Him). The Reign is Joint with the Father and Jesus Christ, and both equally will be served for all eternity. This is also very clear from 5:13-14, "I heard every created thing which is in heaven, on the earth, under the earth, on the sea, and everything in them, saying, “To him who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb be the blessing, the honor, the glory, and the might, forever and ever! Amen!” The four living creatures said, “Amen!” Then the elders fell down and worshiped." ALL "the blessing, the honor, the glory, and the might", is here EQUAL for both Father and Jesus, and they are both WORSHIPPED!
Jesus the lamb of God and Gods Christ was found worthy of honor, power and glory.
That's not the issue.
Jesus is the radiance or reflection of Gods glory and that exact imprint of Gods being.
That's not the issue.

The testimony of the Father about the Son. His Son.
You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness; therefore God, your God, has set you above your companions by anointing you with the oil of joy.”

The testimony of the risen Jesus holds to His testimony as the Son of Man.

The one who is victorious I will make a pillar in the temple of my God. Never again will they leave it. I will write on them the name of my God and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem, which is coming down out of heaven from my God; and I will also write on them my new name.

According to the testimony of both the Father and Son the Father is Jesus's GOD.

John noted this as well in REV.

and has made us to be a kingdom and priests to serve his God and Father—to him be glory and power for ever and ever! Amen.

Jesus, the head of the body of Christ, also stated the Father is the only true God.

So clearly Jesus's God and our God is greater then His Son or ALL others.
 

Randy

Member
Christian
Yes
Messages
2,331
Joined
Sep 10, 2012
You note this: Heaven and earth move at the command of the Son.

But you need to see this as well: Even so the Son abides within the framework of His Father's "Will".

He didn't ask He gave His will. (below scripture) Jesus always does what pleases the Father and remains in the Fathers love.

“’The Lord said to my Lord: “Sit at my right hand until I put your enemies under your feet."’

For my Father’s will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day.”

I see the Father stating His will in this as well.
“Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness,
 

SolaScriptura

Member
From
England
Gender
Male
Messages
201
Joined
Jul 20, 2021
You note this: Heaven and earth move at the command of the Son.

But you need to see this as well: Even so the Son abides within the framework of His Father's "Will".

He didn't ask He gave His will. (below scripture) Jesus always does what pleases the Father and remains in the Fathers love.

“’The Lord said to my Lord: “Sit at my right hand until I put your enemies under your feet."’

For my Father’s will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day.”

I see the Father stating His will in this as well.
“Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness,

If Jesus Christ is not Almighty God and absolutely coequal to the Father then He is a mere created being.
 

Butch5

Member
From
Homer Georgia
Gender
Male
Christian
Yes
Messages
4,839
Joined
Jul 16, 2012
Firstly, the Nicene Creed is not the Infallible Word of God, and is very wrong in what it says about the relationship between Jesus Christ and the Father. so, when they use language like "Θεὸν ἐκ Θεοῦ", this is their theological position, rather than what the Bible actually teaches. As Jesus Christ is Almighty God, exactly as the Father and Holy Spirit are, there can be no "priority" within the eternal Godhead of the Three Persons.

Secondly, we read of Jesus being "sent", and and "given authority", etc, this is to do with His Incarnation only, as we read in passages like John 17:5, Philippians 2:5-11, and Hebrews 2:7-9, where it is clear that Jesus is eternally coequal with the Father, and became "lower", only during His time on earth.

Thirdly, it is very clear, that as Jesus was the Servant while on earth, that He said that "the Father is greater than I" (John 14:28); as Jesus Himself also said, "the servant is not greater than His master" (John 13:16). However, at the same time that Jesus was "subject" to the Father, while on earth, He was also equal to the Father, as is clear from John 5:23, "so that everyone will honor the Son, just as they honor the Father. Anyone who does not honor the Son is certainly not honoring the Father who sent Him". Here Jesus demands equal honor to the Father, if He were not Almighty God and a coequal, then Jesus could not say this. Jesus also says in John chapter 10, "I and the Father are one". In verses 28-29, Jesus says, "I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand". Notice how Jesus places Himself first, and then the Father. He also says that He has equal Authority, Protection and Power as the Father has. This is the "Oneness" of verse 30.

Fourthly, I do not believe that 1 Corinthians 15:28, refers to the eternal relationship between the Father and Jesus Christ, but only till the time of the end of the world. It is very clear from the Book of Revelation, where we read: "The seventh angel sounded, and great voices in heaven followed, saying, “The kingdom of the world has become the Kingdom of our Lord, and of his Christ. He will reign forever and ever!” (11:15). The Greek "βασιλεύσει" is in the singular, which either means, "Jesus Christ will Reign", or, "the Father and Jesus Christ", as they are both God, do so jointly. 22:1, 3, says, "He showed me a river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb...There will be no curse any more. The throne of God and of the Lamb will be in it, and his servants will serve him". Again, notice the singular "θρόνου, θρόνος" (Throne), and "αὐτοῦ, αὐτῷ" (His, Him). The Reign is Joint with the Father and Jesus Christ, and both equally will be served for all eternity. This is also very clear from 5:13-14, "I heard every created thing which is in heaven, on the earth, under the earth, on the sea, and everything in them, saying, “To him who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb be the blessing, the honor, the glory, and the might, forever and ever! Amen!” The four living creatures said, “Amen!” Then the elders fell down and worshiped." ALL "the blessing, the honor, the glory, and the might", is here EQUAL for both Father and Jesus, and they are both WORSHIPPED!
You've got a theology of inferences and you ignore or dismiss clear passages of Scripture. You dismiss the Nicene Creed because it doesn't agree with your beliefs. The Nicene Creed is essentially, the standard for the Christian faith. It is the basis of the faith. You're telling me that those Christians who were much, much, closer to the actual events than you were wrong, but you are right. Your doctrine faces many problems, a few of which I have mentioned. However, you also face the problem that your belief doesn't fit with church history. You see, your belief can't be found in church history before the 5th century. But, I guess all of those early Christians were wrong, correct? You also defy logic. As I pointed out, by definition there can only be one almighty. If there are coequals, then neither is almighty because they have no authority over each other. So, saying there are three coequal almighties is a logical fallacy. It is a contradiction.

Just because both get honor doesn't mean both are equal. The apostle Paul said to the Corinthians, 'to us there is one God, the Father'. That statement speaks directly to authority. We know Jesus is also called God, so Paul isn't talking about person in that statement. The fact that Paul says that the Father is never subject to the Son, tells us plainly that Jesus is not "The Almighty" God. In order to be the Almighty God He would have to have authority over the Father. According to Paul that never happened. However, we know that the Father has authority over the Son, thus making the Father "The Almighty" God

As far as Jesus saying 'I and the Father are one', It's pretty obvious that refers to unity and not person. Especially, since you have made the distinction between the Father and the Son.

Ignatius, who was a disciple of the apostle John, and was appointed bishop at Antioch by the apostle Peter, said that Jesus was begotten before time began. This is a man who personally knew and was taught by the apostles. He says that Jesus was begotten before time began. That's what the Nicene Creed says. Paul said that Jesus was the first born of all creation. So, Paul says that Jesus was begotten before time began. Jesus Himself said that He proceeded forth and came out of God. So, it would seem to me that the Nicene Creed is actually accurate and that what you claim is in error.
 

Randy

Member
Christian
Yes
Messages
2,331
Joined
Sep 10, 2012
If Jesus Christ is not Almighty God and absolutely coequal to the Father then He is a mere created being.
. In Him all the fullness of God dwells. Jesus testified that the Father is in Him and they are one.
From what I read the fullness was gifted, not created, and from the will of another.

He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; 16 for in him all things in heaven and on earth were created, things visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or powers—all things have been created through him and for him. 17 He himself is before all things, and in him all things hold together. 18 He is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, so that he might come to have first place in everything. 19 For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, 20 and through him God was pleased to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, by making peace through the blood of his cross.

A Son who is before all things. A Son that God was pleased to have all HIS fullness dwell. A Son through whom all things were created and they were created for Him.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JLB

JLB

Jesus is the Way, the Truth and the Life
Staff member
Administrator
From
Houston Texas
Gender
Male
Messages
30,787
Joined
Jul 13, 2012
You've got a theology of inferences and you ignore or dismiss clear passages of Scripture. You dismiss the Nicene Creed because it doesn't agree with your beliefs. The Nicene Creed is essentially, the standard for the Christian faith. It is the basis of the faith. You're telling me that those Christians who were much, much, closer to the actual events than you were wrong, but you are right. Your doctrine faces many problems, a few of which I have mentioned. However, you also face the problem that your belief doesn't fit with church history. You see, your belief can't be found in church history before the 5th century. But, I guess all of those early Christians were wrong, correct? You also defy logic. As I pointed out, by definition there can only be one almighty. If there are coequals, then neither is almighty because they have no authority over each other. So, saying there are three coequal almighties is a logical fallacy. It is a contradiction.

Just because both get honor doesn't mean both are equal. The apostle Paul said to the Corinthians, 'to us there is one God, the Father'. That statement speaks directly to authority. We know Jesus is also called God, so Paul isn't talking about person in that statement. The fact that Paul says that the Father is never subject to the Son, tells us plainly that Jesus is not "The Almighty" God. In order to be the Almighty God He would have to have authority over the Father. According to Paul that never happened. However, we know that the Father has authority over the Son, thus making the Father "The Almighty" God

As far as Jesus saying 'I and the Father are one', It's pretty obvious that refers to unity and not person. Especially, since you have made the distinction between the Father and the Son.

Ignatius, who was a disciple of the apostle John, and was appointed bishop at Antioch by the apostle Peter, said that Jesus was begotten before time began. This is a man who personally knew and was taught by the apostles. He says that Jesus was begotten before time began. That's what the Nicene Creed says. Paul said that Jesus was the first born of all creation. So, Paul says that Jesus was begotten before time began. Jesus Himself said that He proceeded forth and came out of God. So, it would seem to me that the Nicene Creed is actually accurate and that what you claim is in error.

We don’t base our doctrinal belief upon creeds.


Jesus Christ is YHWH, the Lord God Almighty; Creator of heaven and earth. He is the only begotten Son of God.


He is equal to God the Father, but as any Son submits to their Father to honor them, so it is with the Son of God.



Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God,
Philippians 2:5-6






JLB
 
Top