Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Jesus is God !

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Lon View Post
    Well, if you never did (I disagree) you did here. It is equivocating where the problem is, both you and I agree Moses was God's representation and that is all that was meant by the statement. It is that clear.
    I do not agree with you, Moses was not God's representation, he was God's representative. You said "Moses was God's representation and that is all that was meant by the statement" regarding Exo 7:1, do you have any hard evidence for this or is this simply your assertion?

    Now, you may have simply got the word 'representation' mixed up with representative, but even so, it seems like you're beating around the bush in regards to hard facts. You're trying to force the meaning of the word over what is actually said. I do not deny that Moses being called God relates to him being a representative of God, with God working through him. The meaning of the words or terms is not being called into question. The point I'm making, which it seems you're trying to smokescreen atm, is the fact Moses is directly called God by YHWH. So maybe you can answer directly:

    According to YHWH words as recorded in Exo 7:1, was Moses God to Pharoah?

    "So-called." εἰσὶ λεγόμενοι θεοὶ 1 Corinthians 8:5 There is only One God εἷς γὰρ Θεός, εἷς1 Timothy 2:5
    You made the same point in a previous post and I responded and questioned you regarding it, you then failed to answer, it appears you're now making the same point again. If there is only 'one God', and all other people called God are so-called Gods, then is Moses a so-called God (Exo 7:1)? Are the angels so-called Gods (Ps 8:5)? Are the men Jesus called God's so-called Gods (John 10:34)? Is the Israelite King a so-called God (Ps 45:6)

    It seems like just a moment ago you inferred Moses was called God in the sense that he was a representative, now it seems you're saying that anyone who is not the 'one God' is a so-called God, so is Moses a so-called God to Pharoah or a God in the sense of a voice of God, which is it?

    Heard this a LOT. Where, in all of scriptures, does it EVER say Jesus is created? You'll never find it. It is a doctrine of men and a rationalization, a contrivance never found in scripture
    Whether you know it or not you are creating a strawman here about the topic of Jesus being created. You questioned me about who the originator of creation was, I clearly showed you from scripture who the originator was. Since you originally asked me and I gave a clear and concise answer, let me ask you in return, according to Hebrews 1:1,2 and 1 Cor 8:6, who is creation from and who is creation through?

    To answer your question, Jesus is clearly identified as part of creation in a few scriptures, Col 1:15 being one of them and Prov 8:22 and Rev 3:14 being the others.

    Col 1:15 states that Jesus is the "firstborn of all creation". To be firstborn of any given group implies by definition that the person themselves belong to the group they are firstborn in, this is irrespective of the meaning of which dentition of firstborn applies, be it firstborn in the sense of preeminence or firstborn in the temporal sense. For example, Jesus was the "firstborn of the dead" (Col 1:18), to be firstborn of the dead Jesus needed to have died to be called firstborn of that particular group, if Jesus NEVER died he couldn't have been called firstborn of the dead, since again, to be called firstborn of something you by definition have to be part of the group. This rule can be applied in any example.

    If I was to ask you who the firstborn human was, you do not think of a rabbit, tree, or a giraffe, you think of a human since by definition you know the firstborn human has to be a human. If I was to ask you who the firstborn Israelite king was, you don't think of a rock, a slave, or a tax collector, you only think of someone who has been labelled as a King, since by definition you know the firstborn king had to be a king. If I was to ask you who the firstborn Son of Noah was, you don't think of anyone outside the group of Noah's children, such as Donald Trump, Usain Bold or any other person, you only think of someone who was a Son to Noah, since by definition you know the firstborn of Noah had to be one of his children.

    The firstborn dog was a dog, the firstborn cat was a cat, the firstborn tree itself was a tree, the firstborn human was a human, the firstborn of the kings was himself a king, the firstborn from the dead was himself dead, therefore the firstborn of creation must himself be part of creation.

    I could go on and on and use any and every example we find in the bible and any extra-biblical literature to date. Again, if you are firstborn in a group you are by way of definition and implication part of that group, this fact is inescapable. Thus if Jesus is the firstborn of creation he HAS to be part of the group to labeled as the firstborn in it, thus he is part of creation, meaning, he was created.

    Can you find me a single example in the bible (or any literature) where someone or something is called the firstborn of something(a group) and they themselves are not part of the group they are firstborn of?

    This is where YOUR lack of knowing all scriptures kicks in. Sorry, true. You can make assertions all day long, but if scripture doesn't say it (and it doesn't) you make assumptions that it 'must be the Father.' That assumption is all on you. Spiritual? It can be, but the problem is reading comprehension of Arians. It really and truly is. The only caution I give here is pride. It is bad to have pride in something you did not do well in school in. Reading comprehension is an important skill. We all hold to some wrong ideas, but most of us can be corrected when actually shown the problem. It is a very important part of our Spiritual growth instead of doubling-down on a rationalization that isn't explicitly given in scripture. If I can get you to do anything because of our interactions on TOL, it's simply be to be open to what scripture actually does and doesn't say.
    Let's break what I said down and compare it to see if I did in fact make assertions and only assertions.

    I made a point and provided a reference, I stated "it is the Father who creates all things, he simply does it through Jesus according to Hebrews 1:1,2", what does Hebrews 1:1,2 tell us? It states, "God...in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom also he made the world.."(Hebrews 1:1,2). The God here is speaking about the Father since it cleary reference "his son", it goes on to say he, the Father, created the world through his son? Where is my assertion?

    I made a point "It is the Father who all things are from, he is the source and originator of creation and it's through Jesus he does this, as can be seen in 1 Cor 8:6", what does 1 Cor 8:6 say? it states "the father, from whom all things came and for whom we exist.And there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came ", if you receive a letter from your Mother but through a postman who is the originator of that letter? Your Mother no doubt! The point I made was the Father was the originator of creation because all things are from him, as the scripture states, and Jesus is NOT the originator of creation because things are through him. So where is my assertion?

    I made a point "Since all things are made through Jesus it can also be said about Jesus that all things were made through him", supplying Hebrews 1:1,2 and 1 Cor 8:6 as evidence. If a King hires craftsmen and gives them all the materials, funds, and building plans to build a city, can the King say that he has built his kingdom? Yes, can the craftsmen also say they have built the kingdom, yes. Both have built the kingdom, the King has built the city through the workforce and the workforce themselves have built the kingdom. The Father is the one who has created all things, doing so through his son Jesus. Where was my assertion?

    Please explain to me what assertion I made.

    Also, whilst understanding that the God mentioned in Hebrews 1:1,2 is in reference to the Father, as v2 states the God created through "his son" and in v6 goes on to speak about how this same God is referenced saying "You are my son; today I have become your father", to Jesus. Who was is the originator of creation, the Father or Jesus by the words in relation to God the Father and Jesus, "through [Jesus] whom he [God] made the world?

    The Trinitarian view, as you know, is called a 'mystery' because the puzzle of all this isn't easily explained and the full of it isn't given but we do know the Son created all things Colossians 1:16-20 and we do know He accepts worship as God from both Thomas and John. There is no question. Where SHOULD such take us? For me, the step back to 'I don't exactly know, but I believe scripture" is a much better position because it doesn't rely on 'my' or another man's speculations, rationalizations, or logic. It relies on and until...God's word.
    I feel sorry for you, my God is not a mystery to me, what God has decided to reveal to us about himself through the bible I understand. I do not believe God would reveal himself to us in such a way that we could not understand him. Jesus said to God, "I have made your name known to them" and not "I have partially revealed you to them". You say "we do know the Son created all things Colossians 1:16-20", Col 1:16-20 doesn't say Jesus created all things, it expresses all things were created "through" him, morover we must use the entirety of scripture as revelation and not single verse, Hebrews 1:1,2 and 1 Cor 8:6 clealry highlight the Father as being the one who all things are from and who created through Jesus.

    In fact, passive is applied to 'all things' in the verse. This is important: It is grammar and you didn't pass on this. It is wrong. Whoever told you this was likewise inept and mistaken. The very next verse, if this wasn't enough, is written in the perfect active Indicative.

    As I've repeatedly said, too many times, those without any grammar skills attempt special pleading, even 'if' the first verb were addressed to the Lord Jesus Christ instead of 'things.'

    I JUST want you to ask 'am I wrong on this?' like I do when I'm reading scriptures. I STILL ask it. I want to be right and correctable, not stubborn and wrong, regardless of the discomfort.
    You said "In fact, passive is applied to 'all things' in the verse. This is important: It is grammar and you didn't pass on this. It is wrong...The very next verse, if this wasn't enough, is written in the perfect active Indicative. Where have you got your information from, the "all things" in Col 1:15 is Nominative, and as I previously stated the word ektisthē is passive, it is a aorist passive indicative.

    "In him were created" (εν αυτω εκτισθη). Paul now gives the reason (οτ, for) for the primacy of Christ in the work of creation (16f. ). It is the constative aorist passive indicative εκτισθη- A.T Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament

    Most online bible resources say the same thing, so what exactly am I wrong in and where did you get your information the greek word 'panta' ("all things") is passive?

    My point still stands, English translations of the verse clearly describe things being created "through" Jesus in the verse, the language is very obvious in the regard. It's so obvious that some translators go so far as to insert the word God in the verse as I've already mentioned "For through him God created everything in heaven and on earth", as it is clear due to the passive language and preposition "dia".

    ---------------------------------------------------

    I previously said : Your interpretation of the verse goes contrary to orthodox Trinitarian doctrine, God did not die or give his blood for us, Jesus the man did. Don't come to me to try and convince me otherwise when your best answer plainly said without the fluff is, 'God is a mystery', you're clueless on the matter, prove me wrong. Based on the overall context of scripture, did Jesus die in his humanity, in his deity, or both?​ I'm assuming you have nothing more to say on this matter?

    I previously said: This is a pure twisting of scripture and conjecture. Ps 8:5 states in regards to angels "you made him [man] a little lower than Elohim and crowned them with glory and honor" (many other bibles say Angels in place of Elohim here and the writer of Hebrews confirms Angels are in reference according to Hebrews 2:7). Firstly, nowhere do we find the term for God ever meaning "of God" as you assert, maybe you could provide a reference or two or show where such an idea is expressed, this is merely your assertion. Secondly, the Angels being the 'Prophet/voice' or 'of God' makes no sense in the context found in Ps 8:5, or even Exo 7:1 or Ps 45:6. Perhaps you can expand and explain how what you've asserted is correct, with references. I'm assuming you have nothing more to say on this matter?

    I previosly said: Again, you previously stated, "Scripture is very clear there is only One God. Scripture calls all other gods 'so-called-gods'" in post 3254, I can only understand this to mean that you believe there is only One God and call other gods are 'so-called gods', this is more or less a paraphrase of what you said. Instead of crying about nothing as you have done in your about comments above, maybe you can explain what you meant by what you said if you weren't implying anyone called God who is not the One God in the scripture are 'so-called gods'. I'm assuming you have nothing more to say on this matter?
    If you cant beat them join them

    Comment


    • Originally posted by NWL View Post
      I do not agree with you, Moses was not God's representation, he was God's representative. You said "Moses was God's representation and that is all that was meant by the statement" regarding Exo 7:1, do you have any hard evidence for this or is this simply your assertion?

      Representative:
      • One that serves as an example or type for others of the same classification.
      • n.
        One that serves as a delegate or agent for another.
      Representation:
      • n.
        The act of representing or the state of being represented.
      • n.
        Something that represents, as.
      • n.
        An image or likeness of something.
      Originally posted by NWL View Post
      Now, you may have simply got the word 'representation' mixed up with representative, but even so, it seems like you're beating around the bush in regards to hard facts. You're trying to force the meaning of the word over what is actually said. I do not deny that Moses being called God relates to him being a representative of God, with God working through him. The meaning of the words or terms is not being called into question. The point I'm making, which it seems you're trying to smokescreen atm, is the fact Moses is directly called God by YHWH. So maybe you can answer directly:

      According to YHWH words as recorded in Exo 7:1, was Moses God to Pharoah?
      Representative:
      • One that serves as an example or type for others of the same classification.
      • n.
        One that serves as a delegate or agent for another.
      Representation:
      • n.
        The act of representing or the state of being represented.
      • n.
        Something that represents, as.
      • n.
        An image or likeness of something.
      He was God's representative/representation (don't care if you argue over the exact word, I'm fine with whichever, as they mean the same).

      You made the same point in a previous post and I responded and questioned you regarding it, you then failed to answer, it appears you're now making the same point again. If there is only 'one God', and all other people called God are so-called Gods, then is Moses a so-called God (Exo 7:1)? Are the angels so-called Gods (Ps 8:5)? Are the men Jesus called God's so-called Gods (John 10:34)? Is the Israelite King a so-called God (Ps 45:6)
      No. There is only one God. Just one. Scripture says so. Moses wasn't a 'so-called' god, but a representative on God's behalf. Even Pharaoh understood this: Exodus 9:27And Pharaoh sent, and called for Moses and Aaron, and said unto them, I have sinned this time: the LORD is righteous, and I and my people are wicked. 28Intreat the LORD (for it is enough) that there be no more mighty thunderings and hail; and I will let you go, and ye shall stay no longer.

      Stop being confused. There is only one God. That is the answer. Even Pharaoh knew Moses needed to go talk to the real God.

      It seems like just a moment ago you inferred Moses was called God in the sense that he was a representative, now it seems you're saying that anyone who is not the 'one God' is a so-called God, so is Moses a so-called God to Pharoah or a God in the sense of a voice of God, which is it?
      So you DO know that representative is the same. YOU just said that I said 'representative.'
      He was 'so called.' It doesn't make him a god or God. It makes him God's representative.


      Whether you know it or not you are creating a strawman here about the topic of Jesus being created. You questioned me about who the originator of creation was, I clearly showed you from scripture who the originator was. Since you originally asked me and I gave a clear and concise answer, let me ask you in return, according to Hebrews 1:1,2 and 1 Cor 8:6, who is creation from and who is creation through?
      YOU said He was created, not me! YOU brought this up! Don't complain of strawmen at this point. Just stay with what scriptures actually say and mean.

      To answer your question, Jesus is clearly identified as part of creation in a few scriptures, Col 1:15 being one of them and Prov 8:22 and Rev 3:14 being the others.
      'Born' does not mean 'created.' John 17:5 And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began. WHATEVER we say about the Lord Jesus Christ, it better be right! Proverbs 8:22? It is Solomon speaking and the Hebrew term Kaw naw is simply 'erect' or 'lift up.' Created? Not by any necessity. Let's work off the original words without appealing to translations. A LOT of problems exist because of poor translations. Revelation 3:14, same thing see: Jamieson Fausset and Brown "not beginning, Beginner of all creation." κτίσεως is in the genetive (possessor of) case. It means he is the 'beginner' by the possessor of all creation. You cannot 'possess' and 'be' creation at the same time. This verse means He is the one who began all creation, AS an act of His sovereignty TO the Laodecians. He is giving them His credentials, because they are luke warm.

      Originally posted by NWL View Post
      Col 1:15 states that Jesus is the "firstborn of all creation". To be firstborn of any given group implies by definition that the person themselves belong to the group they are firstborn in, this is irrespective of the meaning of which dentition of firstborn applies, be it firstborn in the sense of preeminence or firstborn in the temporal sense. For example, Jesus was the "firstborn of the dead" (Col 1:18), to be firstborn of the dead Jesus needed to have died to be called firstborn of that particular group, if Jesus NEVER died he couldn't have been called firstborn of the dead, since again, to be called firstborn of something you by definition have to be part of the group. This rule can be applied in any example.
      Agree it means related to, but 'born' does not mean created. Hebrew 10:5 says that a body was 'prepared' for the Lord Jesus Christ. Having a body and being born doesn't mean 'created suddenly with no existence prior.' God IS Spirit, there is a need, when moving to the physical, to make a physical body to use. In a sense, humanity was created, first-time, for Him, but we have to be VERY careful what we say and conclude after that. We don't want to erase John 17:5 (given above). John 8:58, not just 'truly' but 'VERY truly' : John 8:58 "Very truly I tell you," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I am!" Jesus existed before He was given a human body. John 1:14 says the Word 'became' flesh. That Word, was with and was God.


      Originally posted by NWL View Post
      If I was to ask you who the firstborn human was, you do not think of a rabbit, tree, or a giraffe, you think of a human since by definition you know the firstborn human has to be a human. If I was to ask you who the firstborn Israelite king was, you don't think of a rock, a slave, or a tax collector, you only think of someone who has been labelled as a King, since by definition you know the firstborn king had to be a king. If I was to ask you who the firstborn Son of Noah was, you don't think of anyone outside the group of Noah's children, such as Donald Trump, Usain Bold or any other person, you only think of someone who was a Son to Noah, since by definition you know the firstborn of Noah had to be one of his children. The firstborn dog was a dog, the firstborn cat was a cat, the firstborn tree itself was a tree, the firstborn human was a human, the firstborn of the kings was himself a king, the firstborn from the dead was himself dead, therefore the firstborn of creation must himself be part of creation.

      I could go on and on and use any and every example we find in the bible and any extra-biblical literature to date. Again, if you are firstborn in a group you are by way of definition and implication part of that group, this fact is inescapable. Thus if Jesus is the firstborn of creation he HAS to be part of the group to labeled as the firstborn in it, thus he is part of creation, meaning, he was created.
      "Born" doesn't mean 'created' EXCEPT for most of the time. We have to be careful, because the above verses tell us the Lord Jesus Christ was 'pre-existent.' We know this at least from John 1:15 John bore witness of Him and cried out, saying, “This was He of whom I said, ‘He who comes after me is preferred before me, for He was before me.’

      Then, John 17:24 says clearly Jesus existed "Before the world began." You'd say 'first born' but that cannot be right. Where would He have lived? How could He have breathed air? First-born cannot mean what Arians or Unitarians think it means ('cannot').

      John the Baptist was born 'before' Jesus.



      Can you find me a single example in the bible (or any literature) where someone or something is called the firstborn of something(a group) and they themselves are not part of the group they are firstborn of?
      Yes, right in scripture: Jacob was called 'first-born' though his brother had the string around his wrist. Esau was the first hand out, thus born first.

      The point I made was the Father was the originator of creation because all things are from him, as the scripture states, and Jesus is NOT the originator of creation because things are through him. So where is my assertion?
      Here:
      Originally posted by NWL View Post
      This is where your spiritual blindness kicks in, as I will explain. Do you see the two above scriptures, it is the Father (who is the only person identified as being the 'one God') who creates all things, he simply does it through Jesus according to Hebrews 1:1,2. It is the Father who all things are from, he is the source and originator of creation and it's through Jesus he does this, as can be seen in 1 Cor 8:6. Since all things are made through Jesus it can also be said about Jesus that all things were made through him. Just because the Father created all things through Jesus, with scripture confirming this in places such as Col 1:16-17 and John 1:3 which express "all things" were made through Jesus, it should not be assumed Jesus is the creator since verses such as Hebrews 1:1,2 and 1 Cor 8:6 clearly express it was the Father creating through Jesus, thus its the Father who is the source/originator of creation, and thus the creator, not Jesus.

      NOTHING in Genesis 1:1 compared to Col 1:16-20 contradicts or goes contrary to what I just said. Gen 1:1 states God created the world, and Col 1:16-20 states "all things" were created through Jesus, what's more, the Greek words used in describing Jesus role in creation in Col 1:16 uses the passive verb EKTISQH showing that Jesus was an instrument/agent someone else used in the creation, hence why some translations go so far to insert the word God in the col 1:16 despite it not being in the greek, "For through him God created everything in heaven and on earth", since this is the idea the writer of Col 1:16 was trying to express according to the Greek. Please do not assume I'm claiming the word "God" should be inserted in the verse here, I'm merely making the point the language of Col 1:16 expresses that "all things" were created through Jesus with Jesus being an agent in creation, not the active cause, scholars themselves can see this and thus insert the word for the ease of readers understanding.
      You are. The "Father" isn't given in Colossians 1:17 nor in Genesis 1:1 You guessed.

      [QUOTE=NWL;n2767862]



      Originally posted by NWL View Post
      I feel sorry for you, my God is not a mystery to me, what God has decided to reveal to us about himself through the bible I understand. I do not believe God would reveal himself to us in such a way that we could not understand him. Jesus said to God, "I have made your name known to them" and not "I have partially revealed you to them". You say "we do know the Son created all things Colossians 1:16-20", Col 1:16-20 doesn't say Jesus created all things, it expresses all things were created "through" him, morover we must use the entirety of scripture as revelation and not single verse, Hebrews 1:1,2 and 1 Cor 8:6 clealry highlight the Father as being the one who all things are from and who created through Jesus.
      And I feel sorry for you, I know what the scripture says. You are going to display your lack here in the next paragraph and I'll explain why you are wrong. It was, btw, God who felt sorry for both of us, and sent His Son, because if we are left to our wits, we are both in trouble. That said, you don't know Greek and are stuck with Robertson's and others to do your work for you.

      Originally posted by NWL View Post
      You said "In fact, passive is applied to 'all things' in the verse. This is important: It is grammar and you didn't pass on this. It is wrong...The very next verse, if this wasn't enough, is written in the perfect active Indicative. Where have you got your information from, the "all things" in Col 1:15 is Nominative, and as I previously stated the word ektisthē is passive, it is a aorist passive indicative.
      And what does 'passive' mean to you? That the one doing it is doing so 'passivley?' That isn't what the word means. As I told you, it indicates that the world received the action NOT that the world was DOING the action.

      "In him were created" (εν αυτω εκτισθη). Paul now gives the reason (οτ, for) for the primacy of Christ in the work of creation (16f. ). It is the constative aorist passive indicative εκτισθη- A.T Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament
      "were created" is perhaps the best way to convey 'passive' in English. Question and you'll get this: What 'were created?'
      Most online bible resources say the same thing, so what exactly am I wrong in and where did you get your information the greek word 'panta' ("all things") is passive?
      They do, but YOU are the one who got it wrong, if you followed above.

      My point still stands, English translations of the verse clearly describe things being created "through" Jesus in the verse, the language is very obvious in the regard. It's so obvious that some translators go so far as to insert the word God in the verse as I've already mentioned "For through him God created everything in heaven and on earth", as it is clear due to the passive language and preposition "dia".
      NOT someone created 'through' Jesus! It is that NOTHING was created except THROUGH HIM! You are assuming what is given as 'passive' and made a huge theology off of that misapprehension (as do all Arians and Unitarians that can follow this portion of the conversation).

      Originally posted by NWL View Post
      ---------------------------------------------------

      I previously said : Your interpretation of the verse goes contrary to orthodox Trinitarian doctrine, God did not die or give his blood for us, Jesus the man did. Don't come to me to try and convince me otherwise when your best answer plainly said without the fluff is, 'God is a mystery', you're clueless on the matter, prove me wrong. Based on the overall context of scripture, did Jesus die in his humanity, in his deity, or both?​ I'm assuming you have nothing more to say on this matter?
      "Today you will be with me in Paradise." True or false? Was the thief with Jesus in Paradise? Answer, True. If we say God cannot die, we don't mean that He cannot cease at that moment in the flesh. The flesh, indeed, does die, but this answer doesn't help an Arian/Unitarian. He's still God, just His flesh died.

      I previously said: This is a pure twisting of scripture and conjecture. Ps 8:5 states in regards to angels "you made him [man] a little lower than Elohim and crowned them with glory and honor" (many other bibles say Angels in place of Elohim here and the writer of Hebrews confirms Angels are in reference according to Hebrews 2:7). Firstly, nowhere do we find the term for God ever meaning "of God" as you assert, maybe you could provide a reference or two or show where such an idea is expressed, this is merely your assertion. Secondly, the Angels being the 'Prophet/voice' or 'of God' makes no sense in the context found in Ps 8:5, or even Exo 7:1 or Ps 45:6. Perhaps you can expand and explain how what you've asserted is correct, with references. I'm assuming you have nothing more to say on this matter?
      You'll need to explain. My point was that there is only one "I Am" and only one God because 1 Timothy specifically says there is only one God.

      Originally posted by NWL View Post
      I previosly said: Again, you previously stated, "Scripture is very clear there is only One God. Scripture calls all other gods 'so-called-gods'" in post 3254, I can only understand this to mean that you believe there is only One God and call other gods are 'so-called gods', this is more or less a paraphrase of what you said. Instead of crying about nothing as you have done in your about comments above, maybe you can explain what you meant by what you said if you weren't implying anyone called God who is not the One God in the scripture are 'so-called gods'. I'm assuming you have nothing more to say on this matter?
      Remember me asking if I should bow down to you as a god? You didn't answer. Why shouldn't I bow down and worship you as a god if you are a god?
      My New Years Resolution: 1 Peter 3:15
      Omniscient without man's qualification. John 1:3 "Nothing"
      Colossians 1:17 "Nothing" John 15:5 "Nothing"
      Mighty, ALL mighty (omnipotent). Revelation 1:8
      No possible limitation Isaiah 40:25 Joshua 24:15
      Infinite (Omnipresent) Psalm 145:3 Hebrews 4:13

      ? Yep

      Now to Him who is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think... Amen. -Ephesians 3:20 & 21

      ... when I became an adult, I set aside childish ways. Titus 3:10 Ephesians 4:29-32; 5:11

      Separation of church and State is not atheism "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."

      Comment


      • Lon

        WHATEVER we say about the Lord Jesus Christ, it better be right! Proverbs 8:22? It is Solomon speaking and the Hebrew term Kaw naw is simply 'erect' or 'lift up.' Created
        The word possessed in Prov 8:22 does carry the meaning of creating:
        qanah:

        qânâh, kaw-naw'; a primitive root; to erect, i.e. create; by extension, to procure, especially by purchase

        to get, acquire, create, buy, possess
        1. (Qal)
          1. to get, acquire, obtain
            1. of God originating, creating, redeeming His people
        "... I have my own private opinion that there is no such a thing as
        preaching Christ and him crucified, unless you preach what now-a-days is
        called Calvinism. I have my own ideas, and those I always state boldly. It is
        a nickname to call it Calvinism; Calvinism is the gospel, and nothing else."

        Charles Spurgeon !

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Lon View Post
          He was God's representative/representation (don't care if you argue over the exact word, I'm fine with whichever, as they mean the same).
          Yes, let's not argue about what does not really matter. I will say this though, someone being the 'representation of God' carries a very different connotation than be a 'representative of God'. The primary meaning of representation caries the connotation that whoever is the representation is some sort of manifestation or like for like image of whatever is being represented. Whereas a representative most often means that someone is simply acting on behalf of someone else. To try and say the words are synonymous is to ignore their primary common English usage over root or possible meaning of the words, that aren't so common.

          No. There is only one God. Just one. Scripture says so. Moses wasn't a 'so-called' god, but a representative on God's behalf. Even Pharaoh understood this: Exodus 9:27[-28]
          It seems as if we are going in circles mostly because of your sidestepping of the text. I have no issue in agreeing that other beings being called God means something different to how the term is typically applied (to the one deity), but to deny that others are called God and that there is only one God is to rob the Bible of what it plainly states.

          Again, does Exo 7:1 say that Moses is "God to Pharaoh?", if you deny it states that can you tell me in verbatim what the verse does say?
          In the Greek in Psalms 8:5, when talking about Angels upon reviewing Hebrews 2:7, does the text use the word 'Elohim' (God) when speaking about angels?
          Is satan called the "THE GOD (ho theos) of this world" in 2 Cor 4:4?

          Stop being confused. There is only one God. That is the answer. Even Pharaoh knew Moses needed to go talk to the real God.
          Yes, of course, there is only 'one God' in the fullest sense of the word, but to deny that texts call Angels, Satan, Moses, Human kings, and men Gods in scripture is deny scripture. This is where you and I differ, your theology cannot deal with the fact that others are called God, the prepose the meaning of why others are called God and think this somehow makes it acceptable to deny they are called God in the first place. This is exactly my point and what I've been expressing to you, the term 'God' has a secondary meaning, you accept this in principle, as can be seen by what you said in regards to Moses, but then deny it and can't admit they are in fact called God, irrespective of why they are called God.
          So you DO know that representative is the same. YOU just said that I said 'representative.' He was 'so called.' It doesn't make him a god or God. It makes him God's representative.
          No, I simply used the word representative instead of your word representation as I believed you intially made a mistake.

          You said "He was 'so called.' It doesn't make him a god or God. It makes him God's representative", so hold on, YHWH himself calls Moses "GOD", but you're saying Moses is rather a "so-called" God. When Paul used the words "if indeed there are those called GODS", what do you believe his expression "called" or "so-called" means, how are they "so-called"?

          When Paul writes in 1 Cor 8:5 about "those called Gods" was he speaking in reference to persons called God in the OT or was he speaking about idols as per the context?

          "Now concerning the eating of food offered to idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world and that there is no God but one. 5 For even though there are so-called gods" (1 Cor 8:4-5)

          YOU said He was created, not me! YOU brought this up! Don't complain of strawmen at this point. Just stay with what scriptures actually say and mean.
          You are correct that I brought it up, but let me remind you for the third time, your question to me was about who sourced creation, I explained how it was the father who created Jesus and then after created through Jesus, the fact that Jesus was created was irrelevant to your question and to the point I made by my answer, that being, it was the Father creating through his son. I could have left out the detail that Jesus was created by the Father and this would not have corrupted my position or changed what I said. YOU decided to try to shift the argument to Jesus being created, which I have no issue with, I simply wanted to make your actions apparent.

          'Born' does not mean 'created.' John 17:5 And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began. WHATEVER we say about the Lord Jesus Christ, it better be right! Proverbs 8:22? It is Solomon speaking and the Hebrew term Kaw naw is simply 'erect' or 'lift up.' Created? Not by any necessity. Let's work off the original words without appealing to translations. A LOT of problems exist because of poor translations. Revelation 3:14, same thing see: Jamieson Fausset and Brown "not beginning, Beginner of all creation." κτίσεως is in the genetive (possessor of) case. It means he is the 'beginner' by the possessor of all creation. You cannot 'possess' and 'be' creation at the same time. This verse means He is the one who began all creation, AS an act of His sovereignty TO the Laodecians. He is giving them His credentials, because they are luke warm.
          Where have I stated that the term "firstborn" means created? I made it extremely clear that my argument had to do with categorization and had nothing to do with what sense the word "prototokos" (firstborn) means, be it in the temporal sense (in relation to time), or in the sense of preeminence. Again, my argument was that whenever anyone is labelled as firstborn of something, in the bible or any literature, they themselves are always part of the group they are firstborn of or over. It is quite impossible to be firstborn of a group and not be part of it.

          "Proverbs 8:22? It is Solomon speaking and the Hebrew term Kaw naw is simply 'erect' or 'lift up.' Created? Not by any necessity."
          You are plainly wrong, I do not know where you get your information:

          Strong's Exhaustive Concordance
          קָנָה qânâh, kaw-naw'; a primitive root; to erect, i.e. create; by extension, to procure, especially by purchase (causatively, sell); by implication to own:—attain..

          Brown-Driver-Briggs Definition
          1.A. of God as originating, creating: Genesis 14:19,22, Deuteronomy 32:6,m Psalm 139:13,Proverbs 8:22

          The NAS Old Testament Hebrew Lexicon
          to get, acquire, create, buy, possess (Qal) 1. to get, acquire, obtain. 2.of God originating, creating, redeeming His people 1a

          A quote by trinitarian scholar Michael V. Fox: "Since ancient times, interpreters have disputed whether the verb "kanah" means "created" or "acquired." The latter allows for the possibility that wisdom existed from eternity and was coeval with God. Some Christian groups preferred this, since they identified wisdom with the Logos, which in turn identified with Christ. It is, however, clear from v. 23 that wisdom is a created being. In fact, "kanah" refers to acquisition by any means, including creation, as here."

          There are numerous places and scholars referencing that qanah as relating to creating, most bibles renders the word that way which is proof in itself scholars understand it can mean created. Despite the word having other meanings, many scholars understand the usage in Prov 8:22 to be in relation to the act of creating, such as the Brown-Driver-Briggs reference. To claim the word qanah cannot mean create is to ignore Genesis 14:19,22, Deuteronomy 32:6,m Psalm 139:13, that clearly show the word being in reference to creating. ALSO, the LXX clearly uses the word 'ktizo' meaning to “create” or “make. There is no ambiguity with the LXX, in Prov 8:22.

          Revelation 3:14, same thing see: Jamieson Fausset and Brown "not beginning, Beginner of all creation." κτίσεως is in the genetive (possessor of) case. It means he is the 'beginner' by the possessor of all creation. You cannot 'possess' and 'be' creation at the same time. This verse means He is the one who began all creation,
          This is why it would be good for you to deal with my question rather than constantly evading them. I've asked you numerous times to tell me who is the originator of creation according to Hebrews 1:1,2 and 1 Cor 8:6, you've failed to answer. Again, it is the Father who is the source of creation, it is him who all things are from and it is through Jesus all things are through since the Father created all things through Jesus, as per Hebrews 1:1,2 and 1 Cor 8:6. This is irrefutable, hence why you keep running from the question. NOW you're trying to say in regards to Rev 3:14, which most trinitarian scholars translate in relation to Jesus that he is the "beginning of the creation by God", you are claiming the word "arche" here means 'beginner'. This is wrong for two reasons, firstly, as I have shown above, it is the Father who is the beginner, source and originator of creation as shown by Hebrews 1:1,2 and 1 Cor 8:6, it is through Jesus creation comes, therefore to claim the word 'arche' should be understood as "beginner (originator/source)" contradicts Scripture since scripture has Jesus as the agent by which the originator of creation, namely the Father, created. Secondly, nowhere in the entire Bible do we find the word 'arche' ever meaning origin, originator, beginning, source, or any other variation anywhere in the bible or during that century. It was only in later centuries, I believe the 8th, that the word started to be used in the sense of origin.

          Please find me a single example in the bible where the term 'arche' means origin, source, originator, beginner? (Good luck with that)

          Jesus is the beginning of the creation by God, show me otherwise.

          According to Hebrews 1:1,2 and 1 Cor 8:6, who is creation from and who is creation through?

          We don't want to erase John 17:5 (given above). John 8:58, not just 'truly' but 'VERY truly' : John 8:58 "Very truly I tell you," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I am!" Jesus existed before He was given a human body. John 1:14 says the Word 'became' flesh. That Word, was with and was God.
          John 17:5 does nothing in regards to what I said, Jesus existed alongside God before the world was, ok, so what, I agree with you. The angels too also existed alongside God before the world was, is this too meant to infer something against my point too? I don't understand how Jesus existing alongside God prior to the world was does anything to my point?

          "Born" doesn't mean 'created' EXCEPT for most of the time. We have to be careful, because the above verses tell us the Lord Jesus Christ was 'pre-existent.' We know this at least from John 1:15 John bore witness of Him and cried out, saying, “This was He of whom I said, ‘He who comes after me is preferred before me, for He was before me.’ Then, John 17:24 says clearly Jesus existed "Before the world began." You'd say 'first born' but that cannot be right. Where would He have lived? How could He have breathed air? First-born cannot mean what Arians or Unitarians think it means ('cannot').
          Its anthropomorphic language my friend, its the same way the bible states God has blood, eyes, nose and a hand, do you think God is currently breathing oxygen in heaven atm? Do you really think God has a literal eyeball as mankind and animals do, a literal throne he sits down on, a crown on his head, and blood running his veins to keep his organs and brain alive, I hope not? These are all things that relate to human nature and God through the bible makes use of this by using anthropomorphic language to express to us the things that cannot be explained in the spiritual. Instead of trying to explain to us how God, who is an invisible spirit, is capable of seeing when we cannot even begin to understand his metaphysics, the bible simply says he has an eye. Likewise, instead of trying to explain to us how Jesus was created and the metaphysical relationship the Father and Jesus have, it simply attributes the closest comparable human equivalent, that being, that of the firstborn.

          Therefore when the term 'firstborn' is applied to Jesus it doesn't mean that literally all the attributes that apply to the human term need apply to him, but rather only the primary understanding and rules of the word. One of those rules being that in order for Jesus to be called 'firstborn' of any given group he had to be part of the group. Ask yourself, if Jesus didn't give his life for us and die could he be called the 'firstborn from the dead' in Col 1:18? Of course not, he HAD to either be dead or be dead and raised to life to ever be labeled as 'firstborn from the dead', why, because to be labeled as firstborn of any group you HAVE to be part of it. Therefore Jesus is part of creation since he is the firstborn in it, this is an irrefutable argument.

          Yes, right in scripture: Jacob was called 'first-born' though his brother had the string around his wrist. Esau was the first hand out, thus born first.
          Firstborn of what though, the firstborn of Isaac! Remember what I said, it does not matter in what sense someone is firstborn, it doesn't matter if it's firstborn in the sense of time (temporal), or firstborn in the sense of preeminence (rank). Who was Isaac firstborn Son? Esau was Isaac's literal firstborn right, but Jacob was the firstborn in the sense of preeminence since he inherited the firstborn right, BUT THEY ARE STILL BOTH PART OF THE GROUP THEY ARE FIRSTBORN IN! When I ask "who was Isaac firstborn Son?", you don't think of ANYONE else other than Isaacs children, why, because YOU YOURSELF know that ONLY children who are part of that specific group, namely Isaacs family, could ever be called firstborn in it. You didn't think of Noah's sons, you didn't think of Abrahams's children, or Josephs's children, you straight away know the firstborn of Isaac can ONLY relate to the person in Isaacs group, his offspring. So your attempt fails, any my question remains unanswered.

          Again, find me a single example in the bible (or any literature) where someone or something is called the firstborn of something(a group) and they themselves are not part of the group they are firstborn of?

          The funny thing is, with any and every example you give you will only be proving yourself more wrong and bolstering my argument since there is no single example you can possibly give.

          The point I made was the Father was the originator of creation because all things are from him, as the scripture states, and Jesus is NOT the originator of creation because things are through him. So where is my assertion?
          Lol, you are clearly losing this point. I'm aware what paragraphs you claimed I made assertions with, I even broke them down for you, please state specifically what points I asserted.

          If you stop claiming I'm making assertions all the time and leave your emotions out of this maybe you wouldn't have such a hard time explaining your own assertions that I'm asserting.

          You are. The "Father" isn't given in Colossians 1:17 nor in Genesis 1:1 You guessed.
          It is widely known and evidenced that God in the OT mostly always refers to the Father. In almost all the occurrences of an unidentifed God in the NT it is also widely accepted and hardly argued that the person being spoken of is the Father. Are you contending that the unidentified God in Gen 1:1 does not relate to the Father but is speaking of who you believe to be the 2nd or 3rd person of the trinity?

          Once again, we must use scripture to interpret scripture. If Col 1:15 and 1 Cor 8:6 both express that creation is from the Father and only through Jesus then we must view verse such as Gen 1:1 and Col chapter 1 in line with this, do you not agree with this?

          And I feel sorry for you, I know what the scripture says. You are going to display your lack here in the next paragraph and I'll explain why you are wrong... That said, you don't know Greek and are stuck with Robertson's and others to do your work for you.
          Lol, no, you are in trouble, hence the reason why you've evaded point after point with me, answering many of course but also leaving many questions unanswered. I hardly believe you know Greek at all based on your denial of basic and widely accepted definitions.

          "were created" is perhaps the best way to convey 'passive' in English. Question and you'll get this: What 'were created?'
          All things, so what's your point bearing in mind Hebrews 1:1,2 and 1 Cor 8:6?

          NOT someone created 'through' Jesus! It is that NOTHING was created except THROUGH HIM! You are assuming what is given as 'passive' and made a huge theology off of that misapprehension (as do all Arians and Unitarians that can follow this portion of the conversation).
          This whole time you've been talking about Col chapter 1, where in Col 1:16-20 does it express "NOTHING was created except THROUGH HIM" or like variation as you just said? Are you now talking about John 1:3?

          "Today you will be with me in Paradise." True or false? Was the thief with Jesus in Paradise? Answer, True. If we say God cannot die, we don't mean that He cannot cease at that moment in the flesh. The flesh, indeed, does die, but this answer doesn't help an Arian/Unitarian. He's still God, just His flesh died.
          "Today you will be with me in Paradise", was Jesus with the thief in paradise that day", you asked me, well what does Jesus say in John 20:17 three days after he died, "for I have not yet ascended to the Father". So to answer your question, no, your point was false, Jesus was not with the thief in paradise that day, some translations recognizing this have translated the passage, "truly I tell you today, you will be with me in Paradise", this rendering does not contradict the fact Jesus did not enter ascend the day he died but rather many days after (see also Matt 12:40 that states Jesus was 'in the heart of the earth for three days and nights').

          You have a habit of not answering questions directly, what are you afraid of. I'm aware you believe Jesus was God and died in his flesh, this does not answer my question, again, based on the overall context of scripture, did Jesus die in his humanity, in his deity, or both?

          You say"Jesus was God and died in his flesh....He's still God, just His flesh died", did only his flesh die?

          You'll need to explain. My point was that there is only one "I Am" and only one God because 1 Timothy specifically says there is only one God.
          I'll need to explain what? You aren't being very clear. I understand you only believe in 'one God', this is exactly what I'm questioning you on, how is it there is only one God if Satan is called GOD (2 Cor 4:4) and Angels are called GODS (Ps 8:5). You said before they are "of God", that's fine for you to assert, just explain to me what it means for Satan to be "God" or "of God" and Angels to be "of God".

          Again, your theology is twisted and makes little sense when put under scrutiny, you know it hence why you can't prove your basic assertions.

          Remember me asking if I should bow down to you as a god? You didn't answer. Why shouldn't I bow down and worship you as a god if you are a god?
          Let me first say I do not believe mankind are referred to as gods, this is what I believe you've previously attributed to Arians, perhaps this is why I never answered it since I do not believe this and never proclaimed such a thing. You should not bow down to me since I'm not a god. Even if I was a god, such as Moses, angels and Satan were called, then you still should not because this would be taking away worship from the 'one God', I should remind you that Jesus, who in my theology is another God who only represents God, in a similar fashion you attributed to Moses when he is called God, is a person whom the 'one God' the Father has ordained to whom we should worship him through. Jesus said in John 14:6, "no ones comes to the Father except through me", moreover, in Phill 2:10-11 we find the bending of the knee towards Jesus, BUT for the glory of God the Father and NOT Jesus own glory.

          "in the name of Jesus every knee should bend—of those in heaven and those on earth and those under the ground— 11 and every tongue should openly acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father." (Phil 2:10-11)

          We worship God the Father through Jesus, so by worshipping Jesus we are worshipping the Father since Jesus passes all glory to his Father and keeps none for himself.

          Please do tell why your question is relevant?
          Last edited by NWL; September 25, 2020, 06:38 AM.
          If you cant beat them join them

          Comment


          • Originally posted by NWL View Post

            Yes, let's not argue about what does not really matter. I will say this though, someone being the 'representation of God' carries a very different connotation than be a 'representative of God'. The primary meaning of representation caries the connotation that whoever is the representation is some sort of manifestation or like for like image of whatever is being represented. Whereas a representative most often means that someone is simply acting on behalf of someone else. To try and say the words are synonymous is to ignore their primary common English usage over root or possible meaning of the words, that aren't so common.
            It also means you grasp what it meant that Moses was God's representative, rather than a god.



            Originally posted by NWL View Post
            It seems as if we are going in circles mostly because of your sidestepping of the text. I have no issue in agreeing that other beings being called God means something different to how the term is typically applied (to the one deity), but to deny that others are called God and that there is only one God is to rob the Bible of what it plainly states.
            We'll have to disagree. As with above, we both recognize that Moses wasn't God. The text didn't mean he was God.


            Originally posted by NWL View Post
            Again, does Exo 7:1 say that Moses is "God to Pharaoh?", if you deny it states that can you tell me in verbatim what the verse does say?
            In the Greek in Psalms 8:5, when talking about Angels upon reviewing Hebrews 2:7, does the text use the word 'Elohim' (God) when speaking about angels?
            Is satan called the "THE GOD (ho theos) of this world" in 2 Cor 4:4?
            Hebrew was an initial language. One word in most cases, is vague. It is why there is a caution in approaching it from a Western mindset where you and I are very concerned with every jot and tittle. In this case, it means 'god' but it also means 'godly' 'of god' or several other things pertaining to God, or as we've discussed and above, agree: God's representative.

            Originally posted by NWL View Post
            Yes, of course, there is only 'one God' in the fullest sense of the word, but to deny that texts call Angels, Satan, Moses, Human kings, and men Gods in scripture is deny scripture. This is where you and I differ, your theology cannot deal with the fact that others are called God, the prepose the meaning of why others are called God and think this somehow makes it acceptable to deny they are called God in the first place. This is exactly my point and what I've been expressing to you, the term 'God' has a secondary meaning, you accept this in principle, as can be seen by what you said in regards to Moses, but then deny it and can't admit they are in fact called God, irrespective of why they are called God.
            * When God created man 'in His image' there is a sense that we are children of God. It separates us from all animals on earth but we have to be careful to also make clear separations. Pharaoh, for instance, was a 'god' to his people. In Japan, the emperor was revered as a god. We don't ever want to hold a position that elevates man, angels, or any other creation to be worshiped. Romans 1 says that was the problem "They worshiped the image, rather than the creator.' Thus 'so-called' gods is also appropriate from the Apostle Paul's pen.

            Originally posted by NWL View Post
            No, I simply used the word representative instead of your word representation as I believed you intially made a mistake.
            That's fine.

            Originally posted by NWL View Post
            You said "He was 'so called.' It doesn't make him a god or God. It makes him God's representative", so hold on, YHWH himself calls Moses "GOD", but you're saying Moses is rather a "so-called" God. When Paul used the words "if indeed there are those called GODS", what do you believe his expression "called" or "so-called" means, how are they "so-called"?
            Well, yes, because he was 'so called' by God.

            Originally posted by NWL View Post
            When Paul writes in 1 Cor 8:5 about "those called Gods" was he speaking in reference to persons called God in the OT or was he speaking about idols as per the context?
            He was trying to convey monotheism in its strictest sense and as you agree. The caution, I believe, is like the one above. Paul lived during a time when many 'gods' were worshiped/revered including rulers.


            Originally posted by NWL View Post
            You are correct that I brought it up, but let me remind you for the third time, your question to me was about who sourced creation, I explained how it was the father who created Jesus and then after created through Jesus, the fact that Jesus was created was irrelevant to your question and to the point I made by my answer, that being, it was the Father creating through his son. I could have left out the detail that Jesus was created by the Father and this would not have corrupted my position or changed what I said. YOU decided to try to shift the argument to Jesus being created, which I have no issue with, I simply wanted to make your actions apparent.
            I just didn't want to take the blame


            Originally posted by NWL View Post
            Where have I stated that the term "firstborn" means created? I made it extremely clear that my argument had to do with categorization and had nothing to do with what sense the word "prototokos" (firstborn) means, be it in the temporal sense (in relation to time), or in the sense of preeminence. Again, my argument was that whenever anyone is labelled as firstborn of something, in the bible or any literature, they themselves are always part of the group they are firstborn of or over. It is quite impossible to be firstborn of a group and not be part of it.
            Right, where does scripture say the Lord Jesus Christ was created?


            Originally posted by NWL View Post
            You are plainly wrong, I do not know where you get your information:

            Strong's Exhaustive Concordance
            קָנָה qânâh, kaw-naw'; a primitive root; to erect, i.e. create; by extension, to procure, especially by purchase (causatively, sell); by implication to own:—attain..
            See? Even your own source doesn't mandate 'create.' I wasn't wrong.

            Originally posted by NWL View Post
            Brown-Driver-Briggs Definition
            1.A. of God as originating, creating: Genesis 14:19,22, Deuteronomy 32:6,m Psalm 139:13,Proverbs 8:22
            Even in English, sometimes one word can mean multiple things. You don't have to read 'a' and then never take another definition, but read them all and figure out the best sense contextually.
            Hebrew nearly always has multiple meanings.

            Originally posted by NWL View Post
            The NAS Old Testament Hebrew Lexicon
            to get, acquire, create, buy, possess (Qal) 1. to get, acquire, obtain. 2.of God originating, creating, redeeming His people 1a

            A quote by trinitarian scholar Michael V. Fox: "Since ancient times, interpreters have disputed whether the verb "kanah" means "created" or "acquired." The latter allows for the possibility that wisdom existed from eternity and was coeval with God. Some Christian groups preferred this, since they identified wisdom with the Logos, which in turn identified with Christ. It is, however, clear from v. 23 that wisdom is a created being. In fact, "kanah" refers to acquisition by any means, including creation, as here."
            Here, even Fox recognizes that others disagree with him. It is simply 'acquisition' as he rightly says. Only context would drive 'created' and thus "created" if the text forces or allows.

            Originally posted by NWL View Post
            There are numerous places and scholars referencing that qanah as relating to creating, most bibles renders the word that way which is proof in itself scholars understand it can mean created. Despite the word having other meanings, many scholars understand the usage in Prov 8:22 to be in relation to the act of creating, such as the Brown-Driver-Briggs reference. To claim the word qanah cannot mean create is to ignore Genesis 14:19,22, Deuteronomy 32:6,m Psalm 139:13, that clearly show the word being in reference to creating. ALSO, the LXX clearly uses the word 'ktizo' meaning to “create” or “make. There is no ambiguity with the LXX, in Prov 8:22.
            I didn't say it cannot mean create. My argument is simply that it isn't the only proper translation, even the LXX has 'create' in greek many times and the Lord Jesus Christ may have read from that translation.


            Originally posted by NWL View Post
            This is why it would be good for you to deal with my question rather than constantly evading them. I've asked you numerous times to tell me who is the originator of creation according to Hebrews 1:1,2 and 1 Cor 8:6, you've failed to answer. Again, it is the Father who is the source of creation, it is him who all things are from and it is through Jesus all things are through since the Father created all things through Jesus, as per Hebrews 1:1,2 and 1 Cor 8:6. This is irrefutable, hence why you keep running from the question. NOW you're trying to say in regards to Rev 3:14, which most trinitarian scholars translate in relation to Jesus that he is the "beginning of the creation by God", you are claiming the word "arche" here means 'beginner'. This is wrong for two reasons, firstly, as I have shown above, it is the Father who is the beginner, source and originator of creation as shown by Hebrews 1:1,2 and 1 Cor 8:6, it is through Jesus creation comes, therefore to claim the word 'arche' should be understood as "beginner (originator/source)" contradicts Scripture since scripture has Jesus as the agent by which the originator of creation, namely the Father, created. Secondly, nowhere in the entire Bible do we find the word 'arche' ever meaning origin, originator, beginning, source, or any other variation anywhere in the bible or during that century. It was only in later centuries, I believe the 8th, that the word started to be used in the sense of origin.
            No, I've answered, but let me turn it around for a second: Who do you think "I" would say in answer?

            Originally posted by NWL View Post
            Please find me a single example in the bible where the term 'arche' means origin, source, originator, beginner? (Good luck with that)
            As in 'Archetype?'
            Originally posted by NWL View Post
            John 17:5 does nothing in regards to what I said, Jesus existed alongside God before the world was, ok, so what, I agree with you. The angels too also existed alongside God before the world was, is this too meant to infer something against my point too? I don't understand how Jesus existing alongside God prior to the world was does anything to my point?
            Originally posted by NWL View Post
            Jesus is the beginning of the creation by God, show me otherwise.
            Again, how would He exist without an earth, as a physical being? Is it your belief God created Him twice, once before creation of anything, and then again at His birth? Sometimes, I think, Arians/Unitarians get in to trouble with Trinitarians because they don't explain very well, thus none of it ever makes sense, especially from Unitarian to Unitarian where it really gets confused and confusing.

            According to Hebrews 1:1,2 and 1 Cor 8:6, who is creation from and who is creation through?
            Hebrews 1:2 Heb 1:2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world.
            1Co 8:6 yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.

            While I believe every word given above, I try to keep them separate rather than proof-text verses, so each NEEDS to be discussed in its own context.

            Hebrews 1:2 is clear enough: God created through the Son. I've no problem with that. You are correct to insist that Father is not the Son at that point and Trinitarians have to be careful that we don't argue the point over our own doctrine. Thus there is agreement here.

            Then, there is one God, and one Lord given in 1 Corinthians 8:6 and again Trinitarians have to be careful to agree with you.

            Does it make us too, Unitarian/Arian? Only if we stopped short and didn't recognize the scriptures that make Father and Son "One" not just in purpose, but in the sense that the Son is worshiped and that God will 'share His glory with NO ONE else." It is part of why it is so hard for a Hebrew to become a Christian. Most Hebrews are Trinitarian, who become Christians. They have to be. Its an important consideration for Unitarians, because it is significant and necessary that both Judaism and Christianity are monotheistic (One God).

            Originally posted by NWL View Post
            Its anthropomorphic language my friend, its the same way the bible states God has blood, eyes, nose and a hand, do you think God is currently breathing oxygen in heaven atm? Do you really think God has a literal eyeball as mankind and animals do, a literal throne he sits down on, a crown on his head, and blood running his veins to keep his organs and brain alive, I hope not? These are all things that relate to human nature and God through the bible makes use of this by using anthropomorphic language to express to us the things that cannot be explained in the spiritual. Instead of trying to explain to us how God, who is an invisible spirit, is capable of seeing when we cannot even begin to understand his metaphysics, the bible simply says he has an eye. Likewise, instead of trying to explain to us how Jesus was created and the metaphysical relationship the Father and Jesus have, it simply attributes the closest comparable human equivalent, that being, that of the firstborn.

            Therefore when the term 'firstborn' is applied to Jesus it doesn't mean that literally all the attributes that apply to the human term need apply to him, but rather only the primary understanding and rules of the word. One of those rules being that in order for Jesus to be called 'firstborn' of any given group he had to be part of the group. Ask yourself, if Jesus didn't give his life for us and die could he be called the 'firstborn from the dead' in Col 1:18? Of course not, he HAD to either be dead or be dead and raised to life to ever be labeled as 'firstborn from the dead', why, because to be labeled as firstborn of any group you HAVE to be part of it. Therefore Jesus is part of creation since he is the firstborn in it, this is an irrefutable argument.
            Interestingly, most Unitarians have argued with me for a literal 'first-born' and I'm (and other Trinitarians) argue as you just have.

            The problem, for Trinitarians, in what you just said, is that we know Jesus Christ is the same 'Yesterday, today, and forever.' There is no record from the Lord Jesus Christ, of when He never existed or when he 'began.'


            Originally posted by NWL View Post
            Firstborn of what though, the firstborn of Isaac! Remember what I said, it does not matter in what sense someone is firstborn, it doesn't matter if it's firstborn in the sense of time (temporal), or firstborn in the sense of preeminence (rank). Who was Isaac firstborn Son? Esau was Isaac's literal firstborn right, but Jacob was the firstborn in the sense of preeminence since he inherited the firstborn right, BUT THEY ARE STILL BOTH PART OF THE GROUP THEY ARE FIRSTBORN IN! When I ask "who was Isaac firstborn Son?", you don't think of ANYONE else other than Isaacs children, why, because YOU YOURSELF know that ONLY children who are part of that specific group, namely Isaacs family, could ever be called firstborn in it. You didn't think of Noah's sons, you didn't think of Abrahams's children, or Josephs's children, you straight away know the firstborn of Isaac can ONLY relate to the person in Isaacs group, his offspring. So your attempt fails, any my question remains unanswered.

            Again, find me a single example in the bible (or any literature) where someone or something is called the firstborn of something(a group) and they themselves are not part of the group they are firstborn of?
            No, that's good. Many Unitarians have argued with me (and your statements here). That we agree is good.

            Originally posted by NWL View Post
            The funny thing is, with any and every example you give you will only be proving yourself more wrong and bolstering my argument since there is no single example you can possibly give.
            As I said, most of the Unitarians on TOL will argue with you as well as me over this. They literally believe 'first born' means He was born. First.





            Originally posted by NWL View Post
            If you stop claiming I'm making assertions all the time and leave your emotions out of this maybe you wouldn't have such a hard time explaining your own assertions that I'm asserting.
            In a word, a statement, given as fact, without the support, is simply posturing/assertion until substantiated. Thus any time I call such into question, it is an opportunity 1) to examine wher eyou got the idea, and 2) to make it cogent and clear and prove the statement true.


            Originally posted by NWL View Post
            It is widely known and evidenced that God in the OT mostly always refers to the Father. In almost all the occurrences of an unidentifed God in the NT it is also widely accepted and hardly argued that the person being spoken of is the Father. Are you contending that the unidentified God in Gen 1:1 does not relate to the Father but is speaking of who you believe to be the 2nd or 3rd person of the trinity?
            In Genesis 1:1, we clearly know the Son created, by example and as you say immediately:


            Originally posted by NWL View Post
            Once again, we must use scripture to interpret scripture. If Col 1:15 and 1 Cor 8:6 both express that creation is from the Father and only through Jesus then we must view verse such as Gen 1:1 and Col chapter 1 in line with this, do you not agree with this?



            Originally posted by NWL View Post
            Lol, no, you are in trouble, hence the reason why you've evaded point after point with me, answering many of course but also leaving many questions unanswered. I hardly believe you know Greek at all based on your denial of basic and widely accepted definitions.

            Some of this may be strawman, as you argue against other Unitarians, thus I assumed a blanket agreement among you. You are a Unitarian of a different flavor and you and I actually agree on quite a bit. We (I) just have to figure out where you stop being a Trinitarian. Other Unitarians aren't as apt as you are and I appreciate this intelligent conversation. Thanks for it.


            Originally posted by NWL View Post
            All things, so what's your point bearing in mind Hebrews 1:1,2 and 1 Cor 8:6?
            Simply that passive doesn't convey that Jesus merely was the vessel God created through. It would become confusing trying to explain how the Father 'created' through the Son as a 'passive' vessel. In a lot of ways, as state prior, when conjecture splits hairs, I'd rather we simply didn't side-up in opposition. Reading a bit of Sir Isaac Newton, he had Unitarian friends and argued 'for' them not to be excluded from Trinitarian fellowship. Sometimes Unitarians create their own shunning. The Watchtower does it on purpose when dialogue is a much better thing.

            Originally posted by NWL View Post
            This whole time you've been talking about Col chapter 1, where in Col 1:16-20 does it express "NOTHING was created except THROUGH HIM" or like variation as you just said? Are you now talking about John 1:3?
            Col 1:16 For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him.
            Col 1:17 And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together.
            Although John 1:3 works great too

            Originally posted by NWL View Post
            "Today you will be with me in Paradise", was Jesus with the thief in paradise that day", you asked me, well what does Jesus say in John 20:17 three days after he died, "for I have not yet ascended to the Father". So to answer your question, no, your point was false, Jesus was not with the thief in paradise that day, some translations recognizing this have translated the passage, "truly I tell you today, you will be with me in Paradise", this rendering does not contradict the fact Jesus did not enter ascend the day he died but rather many days after (see also Matt 12:40 that states Jesus was 'in the heart of the earth for three days and nights').
            On this, I'd have to wade a bit through discussion: Paradise was not heaven at the time, if I'm correct.

            Originally posted by NWL View Post
            You have a habit of not answering questions directly, what are you afraid of. I'm aware you believe Jesus was God and died in his flesh, this does not answer my question, again, based on the overall context of scripture, did Jesus die in his humanity, in his deity, or both?
            Could it be, you are a bit too wordy in your questions to GET an answer shorter than your initial wordy query?
            He died in His flesh. His being continued to exist. Clear enough? I don't know if we've talked long enough yet, for you to declare any particular habit of mine.

            Originally posted by NWL View Post
            You say"Jesus was God and died in his flesh....He's still God, just His flesh died", did only his flesh die?
            Yes. Why was this hard to understand? Why in a second do you say it is twisted? Isn't it clear?



            Originally posted by NWL View Post
            I'll need to explain what? You aren't being very clear. I understand you only believe in 'one God', this is exactly what I'm questioning you on, how is it there is only one God if Satan is called GOD (2 Cor 4:4) and Angels are called GODS (Ps 8:5). You said before they are "of God", that's fine for you to assert, just explain to me what it means for Satan to be "God" or "of God" and Angels to be "of God".
            We've talked about this plenty. We agree on a good bit of it, disagree on some. As I said, I believe scriptures and the Trinitarian position explain the need for caution ( *as given above in this redress). "Of Elohim" is easily provided.

            Originally posted by NWL View Post
            Again, your theology is twisted and makes little sense when put under scrutiny, you know it hence why you can't prove your basic assertions.
            Assertions are like opinions (are opinions): everybody has one and often times should keep them to themselves. There is no point in this one. You know very well there is no twisting at all.

            Originally posted by NWL View Post
            Let me first say I do not believe mankind are referred to as gods, this is what I believe you've previously attributed to Arians, perhaps this is why I never answered it since I do not believe this and never proclaimed such a thing. You should not bow down to me since I'm not a god. Even if I was a god, such as Moses, angels and Satan were called, then you still should not because this would be taking away worship from the 'one God', I should remind you that Jesus, who in my theology is another God who only represents God, in a similar fashion you attributed to Moses when he is called God, is a person whom the 'one God' the Father has ordained to whom we should worship him through. Jesus said in John 14:6, "no ones comes to the Father except through me", moreover, in Phill 2:10-11 we find the bending of the knee towards Jesus, BUT for the glory of God the Father and NOT Jesus own glory.
            Gotcha, it helps to know where you differ and thanks for making it clear. As to the last: I'm not sure it helps, but it isn't too far removed from Trinitarian thought. IOW, we both see a oneness in God and a uniqueness between Father in Son that allows for the further separation in thought some Unitarians such as yourself, promote, but most Unitarians don't distinguish or allow for the Triune forumula. Your's often does.

            "in the name of Jesus every knee should bend—of those in heaven and those on earth and those under the ground— 11 and every tongue should openly acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father." (Phil 2:10-11)

            We worship God the Father through Jesus, so by worshipping Jesus we are worshipping the Father since Jesus passes all glory to his Father and keeps none for himself.

            Please do tell why your question is relevant?[/QUOTE] Again, because it allows for agreement to some degree. Where we differ? Obvious (I'd think): Revelation 117 When I saw him, I fell at his feet as though dead. But he laid his right hand on me, saying, “Fear not, I am the first and the last,
            Rev 1:18 and the living one. I died, and behold I am alive forevermore, and I have the keys of Death and Hades.

            (no mention of the Father, as if the two were one)

            John 20:28 Thomas answered him, “My Lord and my God!”
            John 20:29 Jesus said to him, “Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”

            (no mention of the Father, as if the two were one, who would 'share His glory with no other).

            We are each responsible for our own theology and must reconcile all scriptures under a cogent belief. In discussions, we get to see where those thoughts are 'not' cogent and rectify them (or posture that we are right without considering).

            In Him -Lon



            My New Years Resolution: 1 Peter 3:15
            Omniscient without man's qualification. John 1:3 "Nothing"
            Colossians 1:17 "Nothing" John 15:5 "Nothing"
            Mighty, ALL mighty (omnipotent). Revelation 1:8
            No possible limitation Isaiah 40:25 Joshua 24:15
            Infinite (Omnipresent) Psalm 145:3 Hebrews 4:13

            ? Yep

            Now to Him who is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think... Amen. -Ephesians 3:20 & 21

            ... when I became an adult, I set aside childish ways. Titus 3:10 Ephesians 4:29-32; 5:11

            Separation of church and State is not atheism "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Lon View Post
              It also means you grasp what it meant that Moses was God's representative, rather than a god.
              Again and again, I have to repeat myself, no amount of meaning will ever change the fact that Moses was referred to as a God, IT DOESN'T matter why Moses is called a God, all that matters in relation to my point is that Moses is directly called a God. You keep repeating yourself like a parrot. The fact that needs to be realized in the Moses was called a God in Exo 7:1, once you accept that fact, then you can start pushing the idea that Moses was called a God in the sense he was representative. The fact you and I believe he was called a God because he was a representative doesn't change the fact he was called a God.

              Originally posted by NWL
              Again, does Exo 7:1 say that Moses is "God to Pharaoh?", if you deny it states that can you tell me in verbatim what the verse does say?
              In the Greek in Psalms 8:5, when talking about Angels upon reviewing Hebrews 2:7, does the text use the word 'Elohim' (God) when speaking about angels?
              Is satan called the "THE GOD (ho theos) of this world" in 2 Cor 4:4?
              Hebrew was an initial language. One word in most cases, is vague. It is why there is a caution in approaching it from a Western mindset where you and I are very concerned with every jot and tittle. In this case, it means 'god' but it also means 'godly' 'of god' or several other things pertaining to God, or as we've discussed and above, agree: God's representative.
              My friend I do not understand why you can't even bring yourself to quote the passages as I asked as they so very clearly state what I claim they state! Do you not think it convenient that when a passage calls other beings 'gods' it becomes just a "jot and tittle" that we should just overlook. If the bible states there is only "one God" and then goes onto call other beings who are not identified as the 'one God' gods then that means something and should not just be brushed aside what madness.

              I asked you "Is satan called the "THE GOD (ho theos) of this world" in 2 Cor 4:4?", you again outright refused to answer this question, since not only does it destroy your biblical worldview as previously mentioned but also you previous comment that when others are called Gods it means they are the 'voice/representative' and 'of God'.

              I asked you, "does Exo 7:1 say that Moses is "God to Pharaoh?", if you deny it states that can you tell me in verbatim what the verse does say?", you've refused to answer and refused to tell the verbatim of Exo 7:1 regarding Moses when it states "Jehovah then said to Moses: “See, I have made you God to Pharʹaoh". Again, it doesn't matter what it means for Moses to be called a God in the verse, my point still stands, other beings who are not the 'one God' CAN be called gods. You refuse to accept this as being true despite scripture clearly showing it.

              I asked you "In the Greek in Psalms 8:5, when talking about Angels upon reviewing Hebrews 2:7, does the text use the word 'Elohim' (God) when speaking about angels?", you've outright refused to answer as you know by confirming what Ps 8:5 clearly states utterly destroys your biblical worldview. Ps 8:5 is undeniableproof that other beings CAN and are referred to as gods, again, it doesn't matter what sense and why they are called GODS, that is beside the point, the point is other can be called gods.


              * When God created man 'in His image' there is a sense that we are children of God. It separates us from all animals on earth but we have to be careful to also make clear separations. Pharaoh, for instance, was a 'god' to his people. In Japan, the emperor was revered as a god. We don't ever want to hold a position that elevates man, angels, or any other creation to be worshiped. Romans 1 says that was the problem "They worshiped the image, rather than the creator.' Thus 'so-called' gods is also appropriate from the Apostle Paul's pen.
              Being made in the image of God is not comparable to being called 'GOD/a GOD' as Moses, Angels, Satan, and some Men are in the bible, if I'm wrong then show me where the bible ever expresses such a thought. Your other examples also do not fit, both the Emperor and Pharaoh were called gods by their own people, as you yourself admitted, those people who called them Gods were not inspired and claims were no more credible than if I were to proclaim you Lon were God himself. On the other hand, the bible IS inspired and its the bible, not un-inspired men like with your examples, that calls Moses, Angels, Satan, and on some occasions Men, gods. So your point fails.

              Originally posted by NWL
              You said "He was 'so called.' It doesn't make him a god or God. It makes him God's representative", so hold on, YHWH himself calls Moses "GOD", but you're saying Moses is rather a "so-called" God. When Paul used the words "if indeed there are those called GODS", what do you believe his expression "called" or "so-called" means, how are they "so-called"?
              Well, yes, because he was 'so called' by God.
              Let me remind you that the expression "so-called" is not found in the Greek. Typically, scholars insert the "so-called" word in relation to the word 'eiper' (indeed) as they believe Paul was trying to express that the idols (as per the immediate context) were 'false gods' and in that sense "so called" gods, so-called as in wrongly and falsely named. You say "yes, because he [Moses] was 'so called' by" God", are you admitting then that Moses was called a God by YHWH? If aren't then on what grounds can you say "he [Moses] was 'so called' [God] by" God"????

              You are having a very hard time explaining yourself, may it be because your theology isn't in line with what the bible actually expresses.

              Originally posted by NWL
              When Paul writes in 1 Cor 8:5 about "those called Gods" was he speaking in reference to persons called God in the OT or was he speaking about idols as per the context?
              He was trying to convey monotheism in its strictest sense and as you agree. The caution, I believe, is like the one above. Paul lived during a time when many 'gods' were worshiped/revered including rulers.
              You completely ignored my question and answered with something unrelated. I wasn't asking if Paul was speaking about monotheism, my question was about the context. You've applied the Greek word eiper (indeed - often conveyed as "so-called" in 1 Cor 8:5) in relation to YHWH and Moses in Exo 7:1 despite no apparent link, I, therefore, asked you to confirm you believe this despite the context clearly being in relation to the idols as v4 shows, "we know that an idol is nothing in the world and that there is no God but one. 5 For even though there are so-called gods". What makes more sense, that Paul was making a random reference to the only time YHWH directly called another person a God, or, Paul was merely referencing the false idols the nation were worshipping and sacrificing to as 'so-called' and then went onto to mention that despite these false idols (so-called) gods existing, there was only one God, the Father, as per the context. Which one is more believable when taking into account the context? Arguments not only need to be verifiable... but also convincing.

              "Now concerning the eating of food offered to idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world and that there is no God but one. 5 For even though there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth, just as there are many “gods” and many “lords,” 6 there is actually to us one God, the Father (1 Cor 8:4-6)

              Right, where does scripture say the Lord Jesus Christ was created?
              It is by way of implication Lon, as I have explained already. Let's pretend your Fathers name is John Smith, and you Lon are your Father only son and therefore also his firstborn Son, you as his firstborn Son by way of implication are part of your Fathers family, ONLY you can be the firstborn Son of John Smith since ONLY the offspring of can ever be called the firstborn of the group of John smiths family. You Lon, being the 'the firstborn of John Smith' implies you are the Son of John Smith. In like manner, Jesus is the 'firstborn' in relation to creation, is part of creation because posses the title "firstborn of creation" the same way you are part of the offspring of John smith because you are the firstborn of John Smith.

              So again, Jesus is created by way of implication. If you're asking me if there is a verse that uses the exact words you used, "where does scripture say the Lord Jesus Christ was created", there are none, there are however Rev 3:14 and Prov 8:22, both of which talk about Jesus directly say he was the "beginning of the creation by God" and that "YHWH made/produced/created" Jesus as the beginning of his way. Both verses paraphrase the answer to your question. Since we are already reasoning about these passages I will speak about them in their relevant places below.

              See? Even your own source doesn't mandate 'create.' I wasn't wrong.
              When have I ever claimed that Qanah must be translated as create whenever it is used? I never have. Words have many different meanings, we both know this, It is YOU however that insists qanah should not be translated as 'create' in Prov 8:22, you have given no actual reason as to why this is the case and thus it remains an assertion. As most translations show and most scholars do not deny, this is the agreeable understanding of the word in relation to Prov 8:22. As you have also admitted yourself, even the LXX, along with the early church Father all understood qanah in Prov 8:22, to not only be relating to Jesus but also in reference to him being "created". The overwhelming amount of evidence alines with me, and all you've made so far are assertions in relation to this text, therefore the burden of proof is on you. Again, my position is that Jesus is the Wisdom being spoken of in Prov 8:22, when it states "Jehovah made me [wisdom] at the beginning of his way" this was in relation to Jesus pre-incarnation.

              Even in English, sometimes one word can mean multiple things. You don't have to read 'a' and then never take another definition, but read them all and figure out the best sense contextually.
              Hebrew nearly always has multiple meanings.

              Here, even Fox recognizes that others disagree with him. It is simply 'acquisition' as he rightly says. Only context would drive 'created' and thus "created" if the text forces or allows.

              I didn't say it cannot mean create. My argument is simply that it isn't the only proper translation, even the LXX has 'create' in greek many times and the Lord Jesus Christ may have read from that translation.
              Good, then we are in agreement, please note that I never denied the fact qanah can have more than one meaning, my point in all this was only to show that it can mean "create" as you have readily admitted. AsI said in my last post and as you have just acknowleged, the LXX not only has 'create' in greek many times but in the very verse you deny the meaning of the word 'create', namely, in Prov 8:22.

              LXX - "The Lord made me the beginning of his ways for his works. 23 He established me before time in the beginning, before he made the earth: 24 even before he made the depths; before the fountains of water came forth: 25 before the mountains were settled, and before all hills, he begets me."

              No, I've answered, but let me turn it around for a second: Who do you think "I" would say in answer?
              I think your trinitarian trained mind demands you to say the Father, Son and HS are all equally the originator of creation despite scripture clearly rubbishing this. But from the looks of the rest of your post to me I may be wrong.

              Originally posted by NWL
              Please find me a single example in the bible where the term 'arche' means origin, source, originator, beginner? (Good luck with that)
              As in 'Archetype?'
              When I say 'arche' this is in relation to Rev 3:14 which uses the word in the Greek, "These are the things that the Amen says, the faithful and true witness, the beginning (arche) of the creation by God". Again, you claim "arche" means 'beginner' in the sense of origin/source/originator. I made a counterclaim to your statement that the translation should read "Jesus is the beginner of creation" by claiming the Greek word 'arche' never means beginner, origin, source of any such word with that meaning during the time the entire bible was written even in contemporary literature written in that period. This all being said, if your point was true and the word "arche" should be understood as beginner then you should be able to find the word being in such a way in the Greek scriptures including the LXX, please do so. If you can't find such an occurrence, then to suggest 'arche' should be understood as beginner over the word beginning is special pleading.

              Again, how would He exist without an earth, as a physical being? Is it your belief God created Him twice, once before creation of anything, and then again at His birth? Sometimes, I think, Arians/Unitarians get in to trouble with Trinitarians because they don't explain very well, thus none of it ever makes sense, especially from Unitarian to Unitarian where it really gets confused and confusing.
              Jesus was a spirit being prior coming to earth, this much is clear. God, the angels, the pre-incarnate Jesus, as well as Satan and his fallen angels are all spirits, they are not physical beings and are all invisible (See John 4:24, Heb 1:13,14, Luke 9:42). My position is really not hard to fathom: YHWH, who is a Spirit (John 4:24), was alone, he then created Jesus (Prov 8:22, Rev 3:14) as his first creation, Jesus existed as a spirit being alongside God, God then created all things through Jesus, Jesus later on "became flesh" (John 1:14) when coming to earth.

              I do not believe he was created again, Jesus only had one creation and that was when he was brought into existence by the Father. Jesus becoming flesh can hardly be referred to as being created again, since being created has to do with the bringing into existence of a being who did not exist prior to existing, this is a position I have never stated nor do I hold.

              This is the third time I will be explaining myself, so let me say it a few times so you can't miss it this time, anthropomorphism, anthropomorphism, anthropomorphism. This idea you have that since I believe Jesus is the literal firstborn somehow implies he needed to be literally born in a literal fleshly body is beyond me. You believe Jesus is the "Son of God" as I do, do you demand that all the human qualities that being a "Son" demands be applied to the Father and his Son Jesus, did the Father have to impregnate a female with his physical sperm after ejaculation to be referred to as Jesus Father, if these things are not demanded by the term "Son" when applied to the Father and Jesus, then why can you not seem to understand the term 'firstborn' does not necessitate that all the human attributes that are typically associated with it need apply to Jesus? Jesus is called firstborn in the sense that he was YHWH's first creation, human qualities of the term need not apply.

              According to Hebrews 1:1,2 and 1 Cor 8:6, who is creation from and who is creation through?
              Hebrews 1:2 Heb 1:2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world.
              1Co 8:6 yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.

              While I believe every word given above, I try to keep them separate rather than proof-text verses, so each NEEDS to be discussed in its own context.

              Hebrews 1:2 is clear enough: God created through the Son. I've no problem with that. You are correct to insist that Father is not the Son at that point and Trinitarians have to be careful that we don't argue the point over our own doctrine. Thus there is agreement here.

              Then, there is one God, and one Lord given in 1 Corinthians 8:6 and again Trinitarians have to be careful to agree with you.
              You said above, "Hebrews 1:2 is clear enough: God created through the Son. I've no problem with that. You are correct to insist that Father is not the Son at that point", so that I know we're on the same page, what person of the trinity do you mean when you said 'God' in your last statement?

              You also said "Then, there is one God, and one Lord given in 1 Corinthians 8:6 and again Trinitarians have to be careful to agree with you", I don't see how this is an answer to my question, all you seem to do is paraphrase part of the verse which identifies who God is and who the Lord is, despite my question being about the identity of who sourced creation. Again, according to 1 Cor 8:6, who is creation from and who is creation through?

              Does it make us too, Unitarian/Arian? Only if we stopped short and didn't recognize the scriptures that make Father and Son "One" not just in purpose, but in the sense that the Son is worshiped and that God will 'share His glory with NO ONE else." It is part of why it is so hard for a Hebrew to become a Christian. Most Hebrews are Trinitarian, who become Christians. They have to be. Its an important consideration for Unitarians, because it is significant and necessary that both Judaism and Christianity are monotheistic (One God).
              My friend, you have been lied to, you may not see it at present but believe me you have been, centuries of twisting of scripture is the real issue. Christendom has pushed this idea that Jesus is God based on such verses above, "there is only one God" they say, whilst showing you texts that call Jesus God and pushing the idea that he is YHWH whilst hiding text that calls others Gods whilst claiming when beings who are not the 'one God' are called gods, they are gods in a different, well why can't this idea be applied to Jesus, since he too is not categorized as the 'one God', only the Father ever is. Then they show you verse such as the one above, God will not 'share His glory with NO ONE else' they will say, whilst showing you verses that has people bending the knee to Jesus, but what they don't show you is that God does share his glory, "I [Jesus] have given them the glory that you have given me, in order that they may be one just as we are one" (John 17:22), and, "Then an angelof the Lord stood before them, and the glory of the Lord shone around them, and they were terrified." (Luke 2:9)

              They will say Jesus is the "one God" based on verses such 'there is only one God', 'God shares his glory with no one' and that has Jesus being called God and receiving glory, but when these very same things are applied to others somehow it doesn't imply they are the 'one God', it makes little sense. Our theology must be consistent. Jesus is called God the same way others who are not the 'one God' are called gods, they are representative, Jesus is the greatest representative of God, how much more can he be referred to as God than Moses was by Pharoah, as YOU yourself admitted, this is all in spite of the fact there is only one God, who is the Father (1 Cor 8:6), in the ultimate sense. Jesus receives glory (I have given them the glory that you have given me) the same way his followers received glory, this is in spite of the fact that 'God does not share his glory'.

              You need to learn why the bible states things such as 'there is only one God' and 'God will not share his glory' despite other beings who are not the 'one God' both being called God/gods(a god) and receiving glory. If you learnt such things you would see Jesus being called God and Jesus being given glory does not necessitate he is the 'one God' any more than it does Moses, Angel, Satan, or followers of Christ and Angels who were giving Gods glory depsite NOT being the 'one God'

              Interestingly, most Unitarians have argued with me for a literal 'first-born' and I'm (and other Trinitarians) argue as you just have.

              The problem, for Trinitarians, in what you just said, is that we know Jesus Christ is the same 'Yesterday, today, and forever.' There is no record from the Lord Jesus Christ, of when He never existed or when he 'began.'
              Interestingly there is such a record, you simply choose not to believe it, even Micah confirms it, ""But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans of Judah, out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins are from of old, from ancient times". God does not have an origin, but his Son does, Jesus himself said "Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father" (John 6:57). Jesus lives because of the Father, he is alive because of him,. You Lon live because of your human Father and I NWL live because of my own Father, they are who we got our life from, Jesus too lives because of his own Father. Almighty God, on the other hand, is not alive because of ANYONE, he has no origin.

              I do however believe the term firstborn is applied to Jesus literally here, I'm just not using that as my argument at present.

              No, that's good. Many Unitarians have argued with me (and your statements here). That we agree is good.

              As I said, most of the Unitarians on TOL will argue with you as well as me over this. They literally believe 'first born' means He was born. First.
              Unitarians do not argue that firstborn means he was born, they apply the literal term to Christ in relation to his coming into existence. Again, Jesus is called the "Son of God", now, to a trinitarian, who believe Jesus has eternally been the Son, do all the human attributes of being a "Son" apply to Jesus in relation to his Father, of course not. If they did then you would have to accept Jesus is a literal Son to the Father and not simply a Son in relationship as trinitarian believe. In like manner, the term "firstborn" does not necessitate all the human attributes be applied including the one relating to birth, the term is merely applied in anthropomorphism in view in relation to unexplainable spiritual relationships, that being, that the Father created Jesus as the first of his creation.

              Also, I think you've misunderstood my argument, since if you did agree with me then you'd be agreeing that Jesus was created. I will pose these following question rather than repeating my argument in an attempt to get you to understand my position, for the reason to take full effect please answer each and every question, none of them requires much thought:

              Is the firstborn Son of your own Father Lon, part of your family?
              Was the firstborn Human a human?
              Was the firstborn King himself a king?
              Was the firstborn from the dead in Col 1:18 himself at one point dead?
              Was the firstborn of Pharoah sons one of Pharaoh sons?
              Was the firstborn dog it itself a dog?
              Was the firstborn of creation part of creation?

              Now answer the question but somewhat flipped:

              Could the firstborn Son of your own Father Lon be someone who is not in your famiy
              Could the firstborn Human be something not human?
              Could the firstborn King be someone who was never a king?
              Could the firstborn from the dead in Col 1:18 have the title if he never died for us?
              Could the firstborn son of Pharoah family be someone who was not his Son?
              Could the firstborn dog be a creature that is not a dog?
              Could the firstborn of creation be something not in creation?

              In Genesis 1:1, we clearly know the Son created, by example and as you say immediately:
              You're allowing your ignorance of the scripture creep through. You're the first person I've ever spoken to thats claimed Jesus was the God in Genesis 1:1, this has big implications for you that you do not understand, its also good to know you go agaisnt the strain in regards to orthadox trinitariam now, many would call you a hertitc for what you've Just said. For instance, John 1:1, who copies the opening of Genesis 1:1 in his Gospel states "in the beginning was the word, and the Word was with God". The 'beginning' John talks about is the same 'beginning' mentioned in John 1:1 -lest we believe there are two beginnings- where he clearly states the Word, namely Jesus, was with God. You seem to contradict John by claiming Jesus was the God he was with as per comparison of Genesis 1:1 and John 1:1, this cannot be. Jesus cannot both be the God in Gen 1:1 and be the God he was with in John 1:1, this is clearly a contradiction. On this basis alone we can rest your claim to bed. But lets not stop there, lets dig the hole you're going to be stuck in a little bit deeper. Gen 1:26 states "Then God said: “Let us make man in our image, according to our likeness", now who calls the shots in regards to creation, the creator or the person who the creator creates through? Apparently, Jesus was calling the shots according to your understanding of Gen 1:1, since its him that states "Let us make man in our image", orthodox trinitarian doctrine typically states this is the Father talking to the Son, that exactly what I say is taking place, but you, who Trinitarians would call a heretic according to your understanding here, no better than the entire every scholar I know and the scholarly community in fact.

              Want more? Gen 1:27, "And God went on to create the man in his image, in God’s image he created him; male and female he created them", what happens in Gen 1:27, God, who is apprenelty the pre-carnate Jesus here creates man, "male and female he created them", who does Jesus ascribe this God to being when on earth? Mark 10:5 "But Jesus said to them: “Out of regard for your hard-heartedness, he wrote this commandment for you. 6 However, from the beginning of creation, ‘He made them male and female". Hold up, WHAT IS JESUS TALKING ABOUT!!!! He was the God who created male and female in Gen 1:27, why is he referring it to another person? #Sarcasm. In all seriousness, It should be plain to see that Jesus was not the God in Genesis 1, there are numerous examples that could be given to disprove this as I have done, it has serious implication trying to push this idea.

              Some of this may be strawman, as you argue against other Unitarians, thus I assumed a blanket agreement among you. You are a Unitarian of a different flavor and you and I actually agree on quite a bit. We (I) just have to figure out where you stop being a Trinitarian
              I think you've misunderstood my position on a few things especially my last post.

              Col 1:16 For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him.
              Col 1:17 And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together.
              Although John 1:3 works great too
              I do not believe you fully understand the bible use of negative phrases, just because scripture states a negative and seemingly definite phrase, such as, "Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made" doesn't necessitate that the statement was 100% literal, or in this case with Jesus, mean that he himself was not made, as I will demonstrate. Refer to Hebrews 2:7 that states in reference to man "All things you subjected under his feet.” By subjecting all things to him, God left nothing that is not subject to him. Now, though, we do not yet see all things in subjection to him". Notice what it said in regard to man before his fall, it states subject "all things" under him and goes so far to futher define that statement by saying God LEFT NOTHING NOT subject to man. This verse is similar if not stronger in its speech than John 1:3, if we are to view John 1:3 so litreally leaving no wriggle room in its understanding compared to other scripture that seems to suggest other beliefs (Jesus being part of creation), then we must be consistend and do the same for Hebrews 2:8. Since it states all things were subject to man andGod left nothing that is not subject to him does that mean the Angels and God himself were subjected to man at some point since God and the angels are no doubt part of the all things and the Nothing that was not left subject to man, according to your stringent reasoning we do, which is an issue.

              SO let me ask you, were God and the Angels at some point in time subjected under man according to the langauge in Hebrews 2:8?

              I should say, I believe, since it is evident, that the bible leaves things that go without saying at times (as well as context), such as the subject of "all things" under man in Hebrews 2:8, it goes without saying that God and the angel's aren't to be excluded due to prior knowledge from the rest of the scripture. Likewise, statements such as the ones found in John 1:3 and Col 1:16-17 can use such language that seems to exclude Jesus from creation as it was common knowledge to Jesus followers that he himself was the first created thing through whom all other things were made.

              He died in His flesh. His being continued to exist. Clear enough? I don't know if we've talked long enough yet, for you to declare any particular habit of mine.
              If the life Jesus gave to us was in regards to his humanity then you have no legs to stand on in regards to your claim that Jesus was the God mentioned in Acts 20:28, either God gave his blood for us by dying for us on the cross which contradicts orthodox Christianity and God eternalness or the blood mentioned in Acts 20:28 does not relate to the literal blood of God. You cannot have it both ways, you cannot have two statements/idea that both contradict each other that are both correct. Our arguments must be convincing.

              Gotcha, it helps to know where you differ and thanks for making it clear. As to the last: I'm not sure it helps, but it isn't too far removed from Trinitarian thought. IOW, we both see a oneness in God and a uniqueness between Father in Son that allows for the further separation in thought some Unitarians such as yourself, promote, but most Unitarians don't distinguish or allow for the Triune forumula. Your's often does.

              We do share the same bible remember so there will no doubt be similarities as you have noticed. However, the method is not the same, Trinitarians worship the Father, Son and HS equally, I do not, I worship with only the Father in view as per scripture (John 4:23,24) through Jesus Christ. Trinitarians are forced to believe that glory is shared equally with all three persons of the trinity, I do not, I believe in Phil 2:11 that highlight all glory going to the God of Jesus and no other.

              Again, because it allows for agreement to some degree. Where we differ? Obvious (I'd think): Revelation 117 When I saw him, I fell at his feet as though dead. But he laid his right hand on me, saying, “Fear not, I am the first and the last,
              Rev 1:18 and the living one. I died, and behold I am alive forevermore, and I have the keys of Death and Hades.

              (no mention of the Father, as if the two were one)
              There are numerous places in Revelation that clearly have jesus and the Father seperate, the opening verse is one of them, that topic is the very reason why I started speaking on this thread a week or so ago, see post 3222.

              John 20:28 Thomas answered him, “My Lord and my God!”
              John 20:29 Jesus said to him, “Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”
              (no mention of the Father, as if the two were one, who would 'share His glory with no other).
              Jesus has been divinely appointed by God to act as his representative and is thus called God the same way many others are called God, such as Moses, such as Angels, you yourself should be open to this idea since you too believe such an idea is possible in scripture. We know Jesus is not the 'one God' as the one God is clearly identified as being the Father in 1 Cor 8:6, there is no way around that passage my friend.

              [/QUOTE]

              If you cant beat them join them

              Comment


              • Originally posted by NWL View Post

                Again and again, I have to repeat myself, no amount of meaning will ever change the fact that Moses was referred to as a God, IT DOESN'T matter why Moses is called a God, all that matters in relation to my point is that Moses is directly called a God. You keep repeating yourself like a parrot.
                So do you. If you don't want to talk about it, drop it. There are no rules here. You've already trimmed and haven't heard a word of complaint from me.

                The fact that needs to be realized in the Moses was called a God in Exo 7:1, once you accept that fact, then you can start pushing the idea that Moses was called a God in the sense he was representative. The fact you and I believe he was called a God because he was a representative doesn't change the fact he was called a God.
                "God's representative." As far as 'a god' to Pharaoh, we both know Pharaoh didn't think Moses was The God. AS LONG as you recognize and concede, then we are talking about definition here and it is more than obvious I see 'god' as an adjective and you a noun in the case of Moses.

                It may help you, and Arians, and Unitarians, in the future, to know Trinitarians and Modalists (the majority of people, let alone Christians on the planet), will not have your definition of 'gods' in mind. It'll help you avoid issues if you let other people also define a term. If not, you are definitely going to have to have this conversation over and over and over and over (like a parrot).

                Because I don't have this issue with any other theologian BUT Arians and Unitarians, it really places an onus on you for all your conversations, not just with me to 1) know exactly what the difference is and 2) to anticipate the discussion then finally 3) realize that hardly anybody is going to agree with your definition of gods here, whether I was particularly convinced by your argument or not. In short, it won't make a lot of headway in any conversation because definition is the foundation of disagreement. Without that agreement, the discussion is all less than academic, if you follow.


                My friend I do not understand why you can't even bring yourself to quote the passages as I asked as they so very clearly state what I claim they state! Do you not think it convenient that when a passage calls other beings 'gods' it becomes just a "jot and tittle" that we should just overlook. If the bible states there is only "one God" and then goes onto call other beings who are not identified as the 'one God' gods then that means something and should not just be brushed aside what madness.
                The answer 'why' is rather simple: I don't do translations for authority. I go back to languages, look at the context, etc. Trinitarians wrote, in English "I will make you a god to Pharaoh." The Hebrew language allows for variance in that statement such that 'as a god' or like I said "Elohim" can be translated easily "my representative" to Pharaoh. The context is a timid man who doesn't want to speak. The passage doesn't mean "god" as in 1) to be worshiped or 2) the Creator 3) Lord over all. Give me a good working definition of 'god.'

                Here is Webster's: Definition of god

                1God : the supreme or ultimate reality: such as
                a: the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped (as in Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and Hinduism) as creator and ruler of the universe
                Throughout the patristic and medieval periods, Christian theologians taught that God created the universe
                bChristian Science : the incorporeal divine Principle ruling over all as eternal Spirit : infinite Mind
                2or less commonly God : a being or object that is worshipped as having more than natural attributes and powers
                specifically : one controlling a particular aspect or part of reality
                3: a person or thing of supreme value
                4: a powerful ruler
                # 3 might be seen as Moses' description but it doesn't fit the passage, he wasn't of value to Pharaoh. It means, necessarily, that translation HAS to give way to meaning and meaning has Moses, contextually, as God's representative and voice to Pharaoh.

                I asked you "Is satan called the "THE GOD (ho theos) of this world" in 2 Cor 4:4?", you again outright refused to answer this question, since not only does it destroy your biblical worldview as previously mentioned but also you previous comment that when others are called Gods it means they are the 'voice/representative' and 'of God'.
                Quit over-committing yourself. Look at the definition above: Did Satan 'create' this world? In a sense he 'recreated' it, but that's just messing around with Someone Else's work, right?
                Second, does Satan rule over all the Universe? Is he worshiped? Is he of supreme value? It comes down to #4. He is a usurper, a 'ruler.' Because it falls so low on the scale of 'god' it is rarely used of Satan and only in connection, not with believers, but those who do not know Christ. He is not a 'god' to us but a 'so-called' god that Christ has defeated at the cross.

                While I appreciate you coming back to specific questions you want answered, try not to use so much flamboyance. A simple "will you PLEASE answer this" will suffice. I've dropped a lot of posturing with you. You have a good mind and I trust God to get your attention on these matters and I appreciate your conversation otherwise. Its a good discussion.

                I asked you, "does Exo 7:1 say that Moses is "God to Pharaoh?", if you deny it states that can you tell me in verbatim what the verse does say?", you've refused to answer and refused to tell the verbatim of Exo 7:1 regarding Moses when it states "Jehovah then said to Moses: “See, I have made you God to Pharʹaoh". Again, it doesn't matter what it means for Moses to be called a God in the verse, my point still stands, other beings who are not the 'one God' CAN be called gods. You refuse to accept this as being true despite scripture clearly showing it.
                I've told you. I've even repeated it here. You COULD ask 'what did you say? I didn't catch it. Could you say it in a different way or earmark it for me? Thanks"

                I asked you "In the Greek in Psalms 8:5, when talking about Angels upon reviewing Hebrews 2:7, does the text use the word 'Elohim' (God) when speaking about angels?", you've outright refused to answer as you know by confirming what Ps 8:5 clearly states utterly destroys your biblical worldview. Ps 8:5 is undeniableproof that other beings CAN and are referred to as gods, again, it doesn't matter what sense and why they are called GODS, that is beside the point, the point is other can be called gods.
                Again, incorrect. I answered, adjective, not noun. A 'god' to Pharaoh doesn't mean "God very God." There IS only one. It means rather clearly that Moses was God's representative (as you've already said yourself!). Angels? Same thing: in some way, a representation of some aspect of their Creator, or serving as His communication such as "an angel of the Lord appeared." The angel is but the vessel in that instance. Before telephones, God used people, messengers. They served as His communicators (not dumbing this down, just trying to get the idea across). As I said above, few will accept that Moses is God or 'a god' in the sense you've given it. Even when the Lord Jesus Christ says 'ye are gods' it isn't to convey rulers and creators to be subservient to, indeed not when we are to serve one another above ourselves, but rather that in some aspects we reflect (represent) aspects of the Father. Again, a Trinitarian, mostly is reserved in his use of the term.

                Being made in the image of God is not comparable to being called 'GOD/a GOD' as Moses, Angels, Satan, and some Men are in the bible, if I'm wrong then show me where the bible ever expresses such a thought.
                Genesis: " I will make man in my own image" (try to see that I do answer your questions as best as I can).


                Your other examples also do not fit, both the Emperor and Pharaoh were called gods by their own people, as you yourself admitted, those people who called them Gods were not inspired and claims were no more credible than if I were to proclaim you Lon were God himself. On the other hand, the bible IS inspired and its the bible, not un-inspired men like with your examples, that calls Moses, Angels, Satan, and on some occasions Men, gods. So your point fails.
                Well, perhaps another will explain it further/better one day. I'm not hung up if we don't agree on every point. I obviously do believe it fits the text, especially in light of Webster's and other definitions. Daniel Webster was a Christian man and knew scriptures well enough to define the term god correctly.


                Let me remind you that the expression "so-called" is not found in the Greek.
                Incorrect: 1 Corinthians 8:5 Literally: λεγόμενοι θεοὶ "So called" "Gods" verbatim.

                Typically, scholars insert the "so-called" word in relation to the word 'eiper' (indeed) as they believe Paul was trying to express that the idols (as per the immediate context) were 'false gods' and in that sense "so called" gods, so-called as in wrongly and falsely named. You say "yes, because he [Moses] was 'so called' by" God", are you admitting then that Moses was called a God by YHWH? If aren't then on what grounds can you say "he [Moses] was 'so called' [God] by" God"????
                "Moses was god (representative, as you've agreed) to Pharaoh 'so called' by God." Does 'so-called' always mean 'fake' to you or something? If so, either we need to fix the definition for you, or me. Yes?

                You are having a very hard time explaining yourself, may it be because your theology isn't in line with what the bible actually expresses.
                Was that a question? I don't have a hard time explaining myself. This is an indepth discussion with limited space. If I skip too far ahead, simply ask, no?



                You completely ignored my question and answered with something unrelated. I wasn't asking if Paul was speaking about monotheism, my question was about the context. You've applied the Greek word eiper (indeed - often conveyed as "so-called" in 1 Cor 8:5) in relation to YHWH and Moses in Exo 7:1 despite no apparent link, I, therefore, asked you to confirm you believe this despite the context clearly being in relation to the idols as v4 shows, "we know that an idol is nothing in the world and that there is no God but one. 5 For even though there are so-called gods". What makes more sense, that Paul was making a random reference to the only time YHWH directly called another person a God, or, Paul was merely referencing the false idols the nation were worshipping and sacrificing to as 'so-called' and then went onto to mention that despite these false idols (so-called) gods existing, there was only one God, the Father, as per the context. Which one is more believable when taking into account the context? Arguments not only need to be verifiable... but also convincing.
                "So called" means that someone calls the person 'such and such.' It also casts doubt here that such is an accurate description, because the people aren't reliable. That God 'so called' Moses god? It means he was, in some sense, an aspect, voice, or some other representation of God's intent to Pharaoh (er, representative, because you are hung up, but the idea is given here clearly, regardless).

                "Now concerning the eating of food offered to idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world and that there is no God but one. 5 For even though there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth, just as there are many “gods” and many “lords,” 6 there is actually to us one God, the Father (1 Cor 8:4-6)
                Part of the problem in replying to all of your questions is that they get lost. Here is basically how this sentence looks on my side, when replying:

                [QUOTE}{QUOTE}"[U} {B]{COLOR=#c0392b}Now{/COLOR}{ /B }{/U}{ COLOR=#0033cc }concerning the eating of food {/COLOR COLOR=#e74c3c}{I}{B}offered to idols{/B}{/I}, {I}{B}we know that an idol is nothing in the world{/B}{/I}{/COLOR}{COLOR=#0033cc}{I}{B}] and that there is no God but one{/B}{/I}. 5 {/COLOR}{I}{B}{COLOR=#e74c3c}For even though there are so-called gods,{/COLOR}{/B}{/I}{COLOR=#0033cc} whether in heaven or on earth, just as there are many “gods” and many “lords,” 6[I}{B} there is actually to us one God{/B}{/I}, the Father (1 Cor 8:4-6){/COLOR}{/QUOTE}
                {/QUOTE]
                Just realize why it isn't always easy to see any particular question. It is how the forum is set up so not a lot to do about it when you bold and color, italicize and underline text. Just perhaps be gracious if someone misses one of your questions.

                It is by way of implication Lon, as I have explained already. Let's pretend your Fathers name is John Smith, and you Lon are your Father only son and therefore also his firstborn Son, you as his firstborn Son by way of implication are part of your Fathers family, ONLY you can be the firstborn Son of John Smith since ONLY the offspring of can ever be called the firstborn of the group of John smiths family. You Lon, being the 'the firstborn of John Smith' implies you are the Son of John Smith. In like manner, Jesus is the 'firstborn' in relation to creation, is part of creation because posses the title "firstborn of creation" the same way you are part of the offspring of John smith because you are the firstborn of John Smith.
                I fully grasp this. Just be aware that a good many TOL Arians and Unitarians disagree with us.

                So again, Jesus is created by way of implication. If you're asking me if there is a verse that uses the exact words you used, "where does scripture say the Lord Jesus Christ was created", there are none, there are however Rev 3:14 and Prov 8:22, both of which talk about Jesus directly say he was the "beginning of the creation by God" and that "YHWH made/produced/created" Jesus as the beginning of his way. Both verses paraphrase the answer to your question. Since we are already reasoning about these passages I will speak about them in their relevant places below.
                As a reminder, Jamieson-Fausset-Brown (Greek Scholars) said "beginner" not "beginning." It is a substantial disqualification upon the assertion.


                When have I ever claimed that Qanah must be translated as create whenever it is used? I never have. Words have many different meanings, we both know this, It is YOU however that insists qanah should not be translated as 'create' in Prov 8:22, you have given no actual reason as to why this is the case and thus it remains an assertion. As most translations show and most scholars do not deny, this is the agreeable understanding of the word in relation to Prov 8:22. As you have also admitted yourself, even the LXX, along with the early church Father all understood qanah in Prov 8:22, to not only be relating to Jesus but also in reference to him being "created". The overwhelming amount of evidence alines with me, and all you've made so far are assertions in relation to this text, therefore the burden of proof is on you. Again, my position is that Jesus is the Wisdom being spoken of in Prov 8:22, when it states "Jehovah made me [wisdom] at the beginning of his way" this was in relation to Jesus pre-incarnation.
                I did give a reason: that it isn't given in clarity that created should be applied. It MUST be clear for such to be insisted upon else it is 'special pleading' by definition as if it can ONLY be translated. IOW, One text doesn't prove a point when it is about this vague. It is important thus, for BOTH of us to be careful about insisting anything of the sort. That is the point.



                Good, then we are in agreement, please note that I never denied the fact qanah can have more than one meaning, my point in all this was only to show that it can mean "create" as you have readily admitted. AsI said in my last post and as you have just acknowleged, the LXX not only has 'create' in greek many times but in the very verse you deny the meaning of the word 'create', namely, in Prov 8:22.

                LXX - "The Lord made me the beginning of his ways for his works. 23 He established me before time in the beginning, before he made the earth: 24 even before he made the depths; before the fountains of water came forth: 25 before the mountains were settled, and before all hills, he begets me."
                It is why I mentioned it, yes. The LXX does say 'beget' and 'established' rather than create in translation however. An important point but you've also said you realize there is no verse that says the Lord Jesus Christ is a created being so it's good to see where there is scriptural clarity, and where there is speculation and I appreciate that you see that


                I think your trinitarian trained mind demands you to say the Father, Son and HS are all equally the originator of creation despite scripture clearly rubbishing this. But from the looks of the rest of your post to me I may be wrong.


                When I say 'arche' this is in relation to Rev 3:14 which uses the word in the Greek, "These are the things that the Amen says, the faithful and true witness, the beginning (arche) of the creation by God". Again, you claim "arche" means 'beginner' in the sense of origin/source/originator. I made a counterclaim to your statement that the translation should read "Jesus is the beginner of creation" by claiming the Greek word 'arche' never means beginner, origin, source of any such word with that meaning during the time the entire bible was written even in contemporary literature written in that period. This all being said, if your point was true and the word "arche" should be understood as beginner then you should be able to find the word being in such a way in the Greek scriptures including the LXX, please do so. If you can't find such an occurrence, then to suggest 'arche' should be understood as beginner over the word beginning is special pleading.
                Again, however, what does 'Arche-type' mean? What does the prefix mean? I'm not trying to give you every answer, but get you to come up with an answer, or at least a moment's contemplation. I don't have to defend every hill here. I appreciate you meeting me AND looking up our discussion points. Your academic integrity seems pretty much intact to me and I appreciate that. When this is all over, I've some confidence because I know you've the tools to continue looking into these matters.



                Jesus was a spirit being prior coming to earth, this much is clear.


                God, the angels, the pre-incarnate Jesus, as well as Satan and his fallen angels are all spirits, they are not physical beings and are all invisible (See John 4:24, Heb 1:13,14, Luke 9:42). My position is really not hard to fathom: YHWH, who is a Spirit (John 4:24), was alone, he then created Jesus (Prov 8:22, Rev 3:14) as his first creation,
                Again, as we've discussed, the last is for us 'conjecture.' There is no scripture that says that He is a created being. It is VERY important that there should be, if such were true! VERY important because it'd be a major doctrine. Because there isn't, the disagreement has been huge and stark throughout all of Christian history.

                Jesus existed as a spirit being alongside God
                The problem is that Isaiah and the prophets say 'beside me, there is no other.' This speculation delves into polytheism and this against Judaism and Christendom at large. It is, to date, and insurmountable hurdle.

                God then created all things through Jesus, Jesus later on "became flesh" (John 1:14) when coming to earth. I do not believe he was created again, Jesus only had one creation and that was when he was brought into existence by the Father. Jesus becoming flesh can hardly be referred to as being created again, since being created has to do with the bringing into existence of a being who did not exist prior to existing, this is a position I have never stated nor do I hold.
                It makes better sense than a few other Arians/Unitarians have described when they (unlike you) believe in a literal 'born first.' It is surreal talking to them, but as I'm sure you've discovered, there is no way the 'created' part can be accepted because our doctrine is already against it and such doesn't fit well with our grasp of the rest of scriptures. In finality, unless a scripture ever said it, it is too big of a leap thus leaves us on our respectives.



                This is the third time I will be explaining myself, so let me say it a few times so you can't miss it this time, anthropomorphism, anthropomorphism, anthropomorphism. This idea you have that since I believe Jesus is the literal firstborn somehow implies he needed to be literally born in a literal fleshly body is beyond me. You believe Jesus is the "Son of God" as I do, do you demand that all the human qualities that being a "Son" demands be applied to the Father and his Son Jesus, did the Father have to impregnate a female with his physical sperm after ejaculation to be referred to as Jesus Father, if these things are not demanded by the term "Son" when applied to the Father and Jesus, then why can you not seem to understand the term 'firstborn' does not necessitate that all the human attributes that are typically associated with it need apply to Jesus? Jesus is called firstborn in the sense that he was YHWH's first creation, human qualities of the term need not apply.
                It wasn't a question, just explaining 'why' I needed to traverse it with you. I got it the second time and understand where you are coming from.



                You said above, "Hebrews 1:2 is clear enough: God created through the Son. I've no problem with that. You are correct to insist that Father is not the Son at that point", so that I know we're on the same page, what person of the trinity do you mean when you said 'God' in your last statement?
                Sure, the Father and Spirit were involved in creation. We too, believe the Son is subordinate to the Father. It isn't one of our contentions with you.

                You also said "Then, there is one God, and one Lord given in 1 Corinthians 8:6 and again Trinitarians have to be careful to agree with you", I don't see how this is an answer to my question, all you seem to do is paraphrase part of the verse which identifies who God is and who the Lord is, despite my question being about the identity of who sourced creation. Again, according to 1 Cor 8:6, who is creation from and who is creation through?
                Well, realize we believe there is only one God. In some sense, the Father is God, the Son is God, and Spirit is God (even as Unitarians would agree, this far) BUT we also believe there is but One God and so, as I've stated above, we avoid Polytheism. Jews believe even Trinitarians are Polytheists because we talk of Father Son and Spirit, but as you can see, we are stubbornly not Unitarians because of such. Often when we pray to God, we don't discuss Father, Son, or Spirit as often (not to ignore any). Jehovah Witnesses insist we pray to the Father through the Lord Jesus Christ. I don't have a problem with that as a Trinitarian, but as they don't recognize that the Lord Jesus Christ accepts prayer and worship.


                My friend, you have been lied to, you may not see it at present but believe me you have been, centuries of twisting of scripture is the real issue. Christendom has pushed this idea that Jesus is God based on such verses above, "there is only one God" they say, whilst showing you texts that call Jesus God and pushing the idea that he is YHWH whilst hiding text that calls others Gods whilst claiming when beings who are not the 'one God' are called gods, they are gods in a different, well why can't this idea be applied to Jesus, since he too is not categorized as the 'one God', only the Father ever is.
                "He is the image of the Invisible God..." My 'image' is me. Isaiah says "Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace" without a problem. I simply have to disagree. At the VERY least, you are going to have to drop the 'lied to' because scripture itself says this, not just a creed.


                Then they show you verse such as the one above, God will not 'share His glory with NO ONE else' they will say, whilst showing you verses that has people bending the knee to Jesus, but what they don't show you is that God does share his glory, "I [Jesus] have given them the glory that you have given me, in order that they may be one just as we are one" (John 17:22), and, "Then an angelof the Lord stood before them, and the glory of the Lord shone around them, and they were terrified." (Luke 2:9)
                Such would contradict scriptures, no? How can we reconcile scriptures if we disbelieve one over the other?

                They will say Jesus is the "one God" based on verses such 'there is only one God', 'God shares his glory with no one' and that has Jesus being called God and receiving glory, but when these very same things are applied to others somehow it doesn't imply they are the 'one God', it makes little sense. Our theology must be consistent. Jesus is called God the same way others who are not the 'one God' are called gods, they are representative, Jesus is the greatest representative of God, how much more can he be referred to as God than Moses was by Pharoah, as YOU yourself admitted, this is all in spite of the fact there is only one God, who is the Father (1 Cor 8:6), in the ultimate sense. Jesus receives glory (I have given them the glory that you have given me) the same way his followers received glory, this is in spite of the fact that 'God does not share his glory'.
                Correct, I said Moses was God's representative, but Colossians says 'the "exact" representation of the Father! Simply read it with me. It HAS to take you somewhere.

                You need to learn why the bible states things such as 'there is only one God' and 'God will not share his glory' despite other beings who are not the 'one God' both being called God/gods(a god) and receiving glory. If you learnt such things you would see Jesus being called God and Jesus being given glory does not necessitate he is the 'one God' any more than it does Moses, Angel, Satan, or followers of Christ and Angels who were giving Gods glory depsite NOT being the 'one God'
                I do, I believe the Triune (for me, a better term over trinity) view best represents all of scripture. Like above, I've always had scriptures in mind, with Unitarian propositions: They just don't add up to what I know of the rest of the scriptures so I have to find a statement that better/best fits all scripture expressions. As we've discussed, conjecture or speculation over the creation of the Lord Jesus Christ is a difficult proposition. I try very hard not to believe anything unless it is explicit and very clear in scripture.

                Interestingly there is such a record, you simply choose not to believe it, even Micah confirms it, ""But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans of Judah, out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins are from of old, from ancient times". God does not have an origin, but his Son does, Jesus himself said "Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father" (John 6:57). Jesus lives because of the Father, he is alive because of him,. You Lon live because of your human Father and I NWL live because of my own Father, they are who we got our life from, Jesus too lives because of his own Father. Almighty God, on the other hand, is not alive because of ANYONE, he has no origin.
                Agree, I choose not to. It simply isn't at all that clear to me. Hebrews compares Christ to Melchizedek, 'without parent.'

                I do however believe the term firstborn is applied to Jesus literally here, I'm just not using that as my argument at present.
                Not really, born and created are different terms.



                Unitarians do not argue that firstborn means he was born, they apply the literal term to Christ in relation to his coming into existence.
                As I said, some of them disagree with you. They believe it literally means 'born.'


                Again, Jesus is called the "Son of God", now, to a trinitarian, who believe Jesus has eternally been the Son, do all the human attributes of being a "Son" apply to Jesus in relation to his Father, of course not. If they did then you would have to accept Jesus is a literal Son to the Father and not simply a Son in relationship as trinitarian believe. In like manner, the term "firstborn" does not necessitate all the human attributes be applied including the one relating to birth, the term is merely applied in anthropomorphism in view in relation to unexplainable spiritual relationships, that being, that the Father created Jesus as the first of his creation.
                All good. As I said "-arian" does apply to us. We have to agree on some of this or we'd neither of us be reading a bible.

                [QUOTE]Also, I think you've misunderstood my argument, since if you did agree with me then you'd be agreeing that Jesus was created. I will pose these following question rather than repeating my argument in an attempt to get you to understand my position, for the reason to take full effect please answer each and every question, none of them requires much thought:

                Is the firstborn Son of your own Father Lon, part of your family?
                Mine? I've no idea even who this one might be. I'd assume it is my brother, but illustrations always get lost in details.

                Was the firstborn Human a human?
                Cain? Yes. Or do you mean Adam?

                Was the firstborn King himself a king?
                A firstborn 'king' would be a 'king'....

                Was the firstborn from the dead in Col 1:18 himself at one point dead?
                yes

                Was the firstborn of Pharoah sons one of Pharaoh sons?
                yes but if you mean first - preferred, it depends what Pharaoh you are talking about, no?


                Could the firstborn Son of your own Father Lon be someone who is not in your famiy
                Could the firstborn Human be something not human?
                Could the firstborn King be someone who was never a king?
                Could the firstborn from the dead in Col 1:18 have the title if he never died for us?
                Could the firstborn son of Pharoah family be someone who was not his Son?
                Could the firstborn dog be a creature that is not a dog?
                Could the firstborn of creation be something not in creation?
                Some yes, some no. Yes to 1. Maybe to #2 as some people leave inheritance to their animals
                Yes to #3, etc. etc.



                You're allowing your ignorance of the scripture creep through.
                LOL. Sorry, have to stop here. This is simply unreal. I'm confident I know them AS good as you, if not better :rotflol:

                You're the first person I've ever spoken to thats claimed Jesus was the God in Genesis 1:1, this has big implications for you that you do not understand, its also good to know you go agaisnt the strain in regards to orthadox trinitariam now, many would call you a hertitc for what you've Just said.
                Read up on Theophanies. You don't know half of what you think you do regarding us. I'm a seminary grad.... I'll leave it here. The posturing and attempted going for the kill failed. Try to be open to honest discussion instead of doing this.


                My New Years Resolution: 1 Peter 3:15
                Omniscient without man's qualification. John 1:3 "Nothing"
                Colossians 1:17 "Nothing" John 15:5 "Nothing"
                Mighty, ALL mighty (omnipotent). Revelation 1:8
                No possible limitation Isaiah 40:25 Joshua 24:15
                Infinite (Omnipresent) Psalm 145:3 Hebrews 4:13

                ? Yep

                Now to Him who is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think... Amen. -Ephesians 3:20 & 21

                ... when I became an adult, I set aside childish ways. Titus 3:10 Ephesians 4:29-32; 5:11

                Separation of church and State is not atheism "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Lon View Post
                  "God's representative." As far as 'a god' to Pharaoh, we both know Pharaoh didn't think Moses was The God. AS LONG as you recognize and concede, then we are talking about definition here and it is more than obvious I see 'god' as an adjective and you a noun in the case of Moses.

                  It may help you, and Arians, and Unitarians, in the future, to know Trinitarians and Modalists (the majority of people, let alone Christians on the planet), will not have your definition of 'gods' in mind. It'll help you avoid issues if you let other people also define a term. If not, you are definitely going to have to have this conversation over and over and over and over (like a parrot).

                  Because I don't have this issue with any other theologian BUT Arians and Unitarians, it really places an onus on you for all your conversations, not just with me to 1) know exactly what the difference is and 2) to anticipate the discussion then finally 3) realize that hardly anybody is going to agree with your definition of gods here, whether I was particularly convinced by your argument or not. In short, it won't make a lot of headway in any conversation because the definition is the foundation of disagreement. Without that agreement, the discussion is all less than academic, if you follow.
                  Lon, it doesn't matter whether you see the term 'god' in Exo 7:1 as an adjective or if I see it as a noun, neither matter since Moses, as well as others are still called 'gods'. It is irrelevant in what sense they are called gods, this is the point I was referring to when I said I keep having to repeat myself. For example, we have the word "firstborn" in Col 1:15, Trinitarians will argue the word means firstborn IN THE SENSE of preeminence, lots of unitarians will argue it means firstborn in its normal temporal sense. Jesus, irrespective of what sense was intended by the writer, is called 'firstborn', the only contention people have is what MEANING should be applied. Likewise, Moses was called Elohim, the meaning behind why he is called Elohim does not change the fact that he was called Elohim/god. What you are doing is concluding that because Moses being called 'Elohim' means he was "Gods representative/representation", that this somehow negates that the term should be translated "God to Pharoah" in the first place, it doesn't, that is what you need to acknowledge.

                  The answer 'why' is rather simple: I don't do translations for authority. I go back to languages, look at the context, etc. Trinitarians wrote, in English "I will make you a god to Pharaoh." The Hebrew language allows for variance in that statement such that 'as a god' or like I said "Elohim" can be translated easily "my representative" to Pharaoh. The context is a timid man who doesn't want to speak. The passage doesn't mean "god" as in 1) to be worshiped or 2) the Creator 3) Lord over all. Give me a good working definition of 'god.'
                  You're in error, the meaning or sense of the word does not change the word itself. You say "The Hebrew language allows for variance in that statement such that 'as a god' or like I said "Elohim" can be translated easily "my representative" to Pharaoh". NO it cannot, as said above 'Elohim' in the passage can be UNDERSTOOD as relating to Moses being God's representative, but to claim the word "Elohim" can be translated and penned as "representative" is plain wrong and absurd, again, the sense and meaning of a word does not change the word itself. Can you should me as single authority that has ever translated the word 'elohim' as "representative" in this passage. I don't deny "elohim" can have connotations that convey 'representative' in meaning and context, but that doesn't change the word itself from the meaning of 'god'.

                  I should also add, you conflate two of your own conflicting ideas. On one hand, you accept that Moses was called God when you say "God so-called him god", and on the other hand, you say "The Hebrew language allows for variance in that statement such that 'as a god' or like I said "Elohim" can be translated easily "my representative". So which is it, was Moses so-called god by God or should the translation in Exo 7:1 be "representative" as you claim it should be understood? We have a contradiction on our hands.

                  You asked me for a definition for the word god (I assume Elohim), this is too much a task to properly define here, please simply refer to Brown-Driver-Briggs lexicon in the following link, 430. I accept most of the things detailed in the lexicon that pertains to the definition of God.

                  # 3 might be seen as Moses' description but it doesn't fit the passage, he wasn't of value to Pharaoh. It means, necessarily, that translation HAS to give way to meaning and meaning has Moses, contextually, as God's representative and voice to Pharaoh.
                  Again, the definitions of words do not change the word itself. Please see my two last remarks above.
                  Quit over-committing yourself. Look at the definition above: Did Satan 'create' this world? In a sense he 'recreated' it, but that's just messing around with Someone Else's work, right?Second, does Satan rule over all the Universe? Is he worshiped? Is he of supreme value? It comes down to #4. He is a usurper, a 'ruler.' Because it falls so low on the scale of 'god' it is rarely used of Satan and only in connection, not with believers, but those who do not know Christ. He is not a 'god' to us but a 'so-called' god that Christ has defeated at the cross.
                  We have the same issue on our hands. It is irrelevant why Satan is called god in regards to my original argument, the only thing that matters is that he is called a god, the sense of how and why Satan is a god does not change the fact that he is called one. I'm not trying to suggest Satan should be worshipped or that him being god implies he created the world, I'm simply highlighting the fact he is called god, why he is called god is irrelevant to my point. Others, such a satan, can be called god who are not the 'one God', do you accept this or deny it?

                  While I appreciate you coming back to specific questions you want answered, try not to use so much flamboyance. A simple "will you PLEASE answer this" will suffice. I've dropped a lot of posturing with you. You have a good mind and I trust God to get your attention on these matters and I appreciate your conversation otherwise. Its a good discussion.
                  No problem.

                  Again, incorrect. I answered, adjective, not noun. A 'god' to Pharaoh doesn't mean "God very God." There IS only one. It means rather clearly that Moses was God's representative (as you've already said yourself!). Angels? Same thing: in some way, a representation of some aspect of their Creator, or serving as His communication such as "an angel of the Lord appeared." The angel is but the vessel in that instance. Before telephones, God used people, messengers. They served as His communicators (not dumbing this down, just trying to get the idea across). As I said above, few will accept that Moses is God or 'a god' in the sense you've given it. Even when the Lord Jesus Christ says 'ye are gods' it isn't to convey rulers and creators to be subservient to, indeed not when we are to serve one another above ourselves, but rather that in some aspects we reflect (represent) aspects of the Father. Again, a Trinitarian, mostly is reserved in his use of the term.
                  It is your assumption that when someone is referred to as god that it implies worship to be given to them, I say this because you said "Even when the Lord Jesus Christ says 'ye are gods' it isn't to convey rulers and creators to be subservient to". Nowhere do we find this notion that when the term 'GOD/god' is applied to someone they need to be worshipped for you to then deny the term should literally be applied to them in the first place. Moses was called a god, I can accept the fact that he was called a god in the sense he was a representative, a messenger for God. This is also exactly what I say in regards to Jesus and why he is called a God in scripture, Jesus came as Gods spokesperson and representative, "For I [Jesus] have not spoken of my own initiative, but the Father who sent me has himself given me a commandment about what to say and what to speak", and therefore is called God in scripture, the same way you accept Moses is.

                  As I said from the get-go, the term god has a secondary other than when it is applied to the 'one God'.

                  Genesis: " I will make man in my own image" (try to see that I do answer your questions as best as I can).
                  I do not understand your example, perhaps you could expand, where do we find the comparison of being in the image of God as in reference to being called "Elohim" here?

                  Well, perhaps another will explain it further/better one day. I'm not hung up if we don't agree on every point. I obviously do believe it fits the text, especially in light of Webster's and other definitions. Daniel Webster was a Christian man and knew scriptures well enough to define the term god correctly.
                  Your above statement would only be accurate if Webster agreed with your definition when it came to Exo 7:1 and the word Elohim, he apparently didn't, "And the LORD said to Moses, See, I have made thee a god to Pharaoh" (WBT). Webster may have believed the term "Elohim" here referred to his third definition that you earlier showed, he may have even believed that Moses was a representative of God when called Elohim, this does not change the actual word "Elohim" (God) though, since senses of words do not change the word itself, it only changes how it should be understood.

                  Incorrect: 1 Corinthians 8:5 Literally: λεγόμενοι θεοὶ "So called" "Gods" verbatim.
                  Sorry I made a partial mistake when I earlier said "Typically, scholars insert the "so-called" word in relation to the word 'eiper' (indeed)". I was still correct however when I said "the expression "so-called" is not found in the Greek". The word I was meant to reference was the one you correctly used, λεγόμενοι (legomenoi). The word legomenoi is derived from the word λέγω (legó) and simply means "called".

                  "Moses was god (representative, as you've agreed) to Pharaoh 'so called' by God." Does 'so-called' always mean 'fake' to you or something? If so, either we need to fix the definition for you, or me. Yes?
                  I believe the expression is applied to beings who are not what they, or other claim them to be such as idols, and gods of pagan worships, they are “so-called”. Do I believe the expression always means this, no. As I have mentioned before, the “so” in so-called is an insertion. It is only inserted in by translators as the accepted understanding of this verse is that its in relation to ‘falsely labelled beings as gods’.

                  Barnes' Notes on the Bible: That are called gods - Gods so called. The pagans everywhere worshipped multitudes, and gave to them the name of gods.

                  Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary: "For even supposing there are (exist) gods so called (2Th 2:4), whether in heaven (as the sun, moon, and stars) or in earth (as deified kings, beasts, &c.), as there be (a recognized fact, De 10:17; Ps 135:5; 136:2) gods many and lords many." Angels and men in authority are termed gods in Scripture

                  As you can see above, two different authorities clearly express the ‘so-called’ (called) in 1 Cor 8:5a was in relation to beings called gods in name only.

                  Do you have any verse that you have used to link the two passages and idea you have or are you simply assuming the "so-called" expression refers to Exo 7:1 (God calling other gods)?​


                  "So called" means that someone calls the person 'such and such.' It also casts doubt here that such is an accurate description, because the people aren't reliable. That God 'so called' Moses god? It means he was, in some sense, an aspect, voice, or some other representation of God's intent to Pharaoh (er, representative, because you are hung up, but the idea is given here clearly, regardless).
                  You haven't dealt with my question. I'm aware of what you believe about the expression "so-called", my question was about linkage, not meaning. I asked the question above, I will leave it here again in case you missed it: On what basis do you conclude the "so-called" expression in 1 Cor 8:4 pertains to God calling people gods, such as in Exo 7:1, over the clear immediate context which talks about "idols who are nothing" also compared to the expression "so-called gods" in The 2:4 that is clearly referring to false gods? Do you have any verse that you have used to link the two passages and idea you have or are you simply assuming the "so-called" expression refers to Exo 7:1 (God calling other gods)?

                  Part of the problem in replying to all of your questions is that they get lost.

                  Just realize why it isn't always easy to see any particular question. It is how the forum is set up so not a lot to do about it when you bold and color, italicize and underline text. Just perhaps be gracious if someone misses one of your questions.
                  I was unaware of this, on my computer and mobile devices it highlights the text plainly. I typically only add colors, italics, and boldness for the ease of others. I will refrain from using any for your ease.

                  As a reminder, Jamieson-Fausset-Brown (Greek Scholars) said "beginner" not "beginning." It is a substantial disqualification upon the assertion.
                  Yes, but the issue with many commentaries is that they do not always go into depth as to prove what they say. Whilst I appreciate the Jamieson-Fausset-Brown commentary of Rev 3:14 states arche means "the Beginner" in Rev 3:14 it does not explain why. What is also interesting is the comment along with its context, "the Beginner of all creation, its originating instrument. All creation would not be represented adoring Him, if He were but one of themselves. His being the Creator". Notice the scholars of the Jamieson-Fausset-Brown commentary stated, the "beginner" is in reference to him being the "originating instrument" and "creator".

                  Now ask yourself, is what they say in line with what 1 Cor 8:6 and Hebrews 1:1,2 state? Both those text have the Father as the "originating instrument" and Jesus as the person he creates through, how can they be correct, therefore, when they say Jesus is the "originating instrument", they cannot be! Their word does not trump Gods word. Therefore, their conclusion, which they don't even fully evidence, can be disregarded. Jesus is not the beginner as it was the Father who began creation.

                  I did give a reason: that it isn't given in clarity that created should be applied. It MUST be clear for such to be insisted upon else it is 'special pleading' by definition as if it can ONLY be translated. IOW, One text doesn't prove a point when it is about this vague. It is important thus, for BOTH of us to be careful about insisting anything of the sort. That is the point.
                  You said above, in relation to why you reject the word 'create' as being probable in relation to Prov 8:22, "it isn't given in clarity that created should be applied. It MUST be clear for such to be insisted upon else it is 'special pleading'". Lon, I gave numerous examples of why it is the most probable explanation, you yourself acknowledged one example. Here they are again with some extras:

                  Firstly, the LXX clearly uses the word ektise in Prov 8:22 which means "create". Secondly, no early church trinitarian, who would have had better access to early manuscript evidence, denied that the word in question was not "create", instead they argued -very badly- that the creation mentioned was in relation to something other than Jesus being brought into existence, such as him becoming flesh. Thirdly, early church fathers (even some trinitarian ones) were mostly in agreement that Prov 8:22 was in relation to Jesus and his literal creation, “But this Offspring, which was truly brought forth from the Father, was with the Father before all the creatures, and the Father communed with Him; even as the Scripture by Solomon has made clear, that He WHOM SOLOMON CALLS WISDOM, was begotten as a Beginning before all His creatures and as Offspring by God” - Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, chapter LXII (62)

                  It is why I mentioned it, yes. The LXX does say 'beget' and 'established' rather than create in translation however.
                  In v22 or in the later verses. Could you show me this, please?

                  An important point but you've also said you realize there is no verse that says the Lord Jesus Christ is a created being so it's good to see where there is scriptural clarity, and where there is speculation and I appreciate that you see that
                  No, this was only a part of my sentence in a paragraph, I said, "If you're asking me if there is a verse that uses the EXACT WORDS 'YOU' USED, "where does scripture say the Lord Jesus Christ was created", there are none, there are however Rev 3:14 and Prov 8:22...BOTH VERSES PARAPHRASE THE ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION".

                  Again, however, what does 'Arche-type' mean? What does the prefix mean? I'm not trying to give you every answer, but get you to come up with an answer, or at least a moment's contemplation. I don't have to defend every hill here. I appreciate you meeting me AND looking up our discussion points. Your academic integrity seems pretty much intact to me and I appreciate that. When this is all over, I've some confidence because I know you've the tools to continue looking into these matters.
                  If you're referring to biblical Arche-types then the term refers to the original model or type after which other similar things are patterned. I do not understand why you ask such a question and if this is an attempt to answer my question. You may be wrongly thinking the the "arche" in the term 'arche-type' somehow proves that arche means "origin". Again, I should make it clear that words no doubt evolve over time. I maintain that yes, the term "arche" was used to mean origin (in some senses) in old and even new literature, such as with the word 'archetype', however, the word in 'arche' in the 1CE did not mean 'origin'. There is NO LITERATURE contemporary with the bible that ever uses it this way, not until hundreds of years after the bible was penned did the word ever mean 'origin'.

                  From my perspective, you are unable to deal with my point here in Rev 3:14 in regards to arche. My point still stands, Jesus is the "beginning of the creation of God". We know arche means beginning in the verse because EVERY SINGLE TIME John uses the word 'arche' in his writings (22+ times) he always uses it in reference to something as the 'beginning of series of things', not once does he use the word in a different sense, or in the sense of beginner, nor does any other bible writer use it in that sense. Therefore, to claim he meant otherwise is special pleading.

                  Again, as we've discussed, the last is for us 'conjecture.' There is no scripture that says that He is a created being. It is VERY important that there should be, if such were true! VERY important because it'd be a major doctrine. Because there isn't, the disagreement has been huge and stark throughout all of Christian history.
                  "as we've discussed"??? The topic you said "we've discussed" are still very much under discussion. You've yet to show any reason why Prov 8:22 isn't in reference to Jesus and why the word in question should not be translated as "create", and you've shown me no good reason why Rev 3:14 should be understood to mean that Jesus wasn't the 'beginning of the creation by God', all you've done is quote one commentary, which I've shown to be wrong, and asked me what archetype means. You've given no good reason why my interpretation of the texts is incorrect.

                  The problem is that Isaiah and the prophets say 'beside me, there is no other.' This speculation delves into polytheism and this against Judaism and Christendom at large. It is, to date, and insurmountable hurdle.
                  The prophets say 'beside me, there is no other God', NOT 'beside me, there is no other spirit.'. John 17:5 does not state what it means for Jesus to 'live alongside God before the world was', nothing about the John 17:5 suggest Jesus was God, so I don't know how Isaiah 45:5 is relevant here. Perhaps you can explain how John 17:5 shows Jesus is God in your opinion for you to bring up Isaiah 45:5?

                  It makes better sense than a few other Arians/Unitarians have described when they (unlike you) believe in a literal 'born first.' It is surreal talking to them, but as I'm sure you've discovered, there is no way the 'created' part can be accepted because our doctrine is already against it and such doesn't fit well with our grasp of the rest of scriptures. In finality, unless a scripture ever said it, it is too big of a leap thus leaves us on our respectives.
                  I'm glad it makes more sense to you than other positions, its most probably why JW's are the biggest "Unitarian" religion today. You said, "unless a scripture ever said it, it is too big of a leap thus leaves us on our respectives", the scripture do say it, they state "YHWH created me as the beginning of his way", in relation to Jesus, and that Jesus is "the beginning of the creation of God".

                  Can I for a minute ask you a question which, to you, is hypothetical, let's say I am correct with my claims in Rev 3:14 and Prov 8:22, they are both talking about Jesus and mean how they literally read in this paragraph, do they both say that Jesus was created? Hypothetically.

                  Sure, the Father and Spirit were involved in creation. We too, believe the Son is subordinate to the Father. It isn't one of our contentions with you.
                  You have not properly understood my question, my contention isn't about how trinititrains call the Father God, Jesus God, and the HS God, despite their being only one God, I'm not playing that game don't worry. I'm aware trinitrains refer to each person of the trinity as God whilst understanding there is only one God. All I want to know is that when you said, "Hebrews 1:2 is clear enough: God created through the Son", which person of the trinity were you speaking about when you said "God", were you speaking about the Father?

                  Well, realize we believe there is only one God. In some sense, the Father is God, the Son is God, and Spirit is God (even as Unitarians would agree, this far) BUT we also believe there is but One God and so, as I've stated above, we avoid Polytheism. Jews believe even Trinitarians are Polytheists because we talk of Father Son and Spirit, but as you can see, we are stubbornly not Unitarians because of such. Often when we pray to God, we don't discuss Father, Son, or Spirit as often (not to ignore any). Jehovah Witnesses insist we pray to the Father through the Lord Jesus Christ. I don't have a problem with that as a Trinitarian, but as they don't recognize that the Lord Jesus Christ accepts prayer and worship.
                  As I mentioned above, I'm not playing that game, dw, I'm aware of what Trinitarians believe. My question is in regards to the creation aspect mentioned in 1 Cor 8:6, I previously asked you who are all things from and who are all things through according to the verse, you replied "Then, there is one God, and one Lord given in 1 Corinthians 8:6 and again Trinitarians have to be careful to agree with you", this did not answer my question so I asked it again and received the above response. Again, please just review 1 Cor 8:6 and answer, who is creation 'from' and who is creation 'through' according to the verse?
                  "He is the image of the Invisible God..." My 'image' is me. Isaiah says "Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace" without a problem. I simply have to disagree. At the VERY least, you are going to have to drop the 'lied to' because scripture itself says this, not just a creed.
                  Your image is YOU??? So if I go and punch an image of you am I punching you? No! I'm punching your image, this is basic logic Lon. Jesus is the image of the invisible God, this implies Jesus is NOT God but his image. If I went and punched God's mage, I'm not punching God, I'm punching his image (sorry Jesus), the language demands Jesus is not God in this case.

                  You said "Isaiah says "Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace" without a problem. I simply have to disagree". Whenever I speak to Trinitarians and they use it in defense it really does make me chuckle as they have no clue how to answer when questioned regarding it. Isaiah 9:6 does not help the doctrine of the trinity, rather, it denies it. As you yourself will know none of the three persons of the trinity are each other, each are distinct and separate persons. Yet, Isaiah 9:6 states that Jesus "is the eternal Father", this goes contrary to the trinity doctrine that states Jesus is NOT the Father. So if you want to raise this verse, please explain to me how Jesus is the Father according to the verse if the trinity doctrine states he isn't.

                  Again, this verse is prophetic, I do not deny Jesus is called God anymore I do with Moses or the angels, Jesus is the greatest representative of God and God's very image. You trying to use this verse to prove Jesus is the 'one God' is like me trying to prove to you (which I never have tried to do) that Moses is the 'one God' according to Exo 7:1.

                  Such would contradict scriptures, no? How can we reconcile scriptures if we disbelieve one over the other?
                  This is the thing, I do not disbelieve one over the other. It is you who denies the commonly accepted reading of scriptures such as Exo 7:1 and Ps 8:5 as directly calling others gods, you have to do this because the typical translation does not harmonize with how you interpret other scripture, "there is only one God". Likewise, you show the same attitude above in relation to John 17:23 compared to statements such as, "I do not share my glory", whereas I do not have this problem since I believe I have the truth of the scriptures, please correct me if I'm wrong.

                  Again, both these comments are true in my world view "I am YHWH...my glory will I not give to another", and "I [Jesus] have given them the glory that you have given me", only one of these statements are true to you. When scripture states "there is no God beside me" this was God speaking in relation to the false gods of the nation of Israel, EVERY time you find such a comment its always YHWH speaking in regards to false gods. YHWH was not denying the existence of other gods per se, we know this cannot be true as there are numerous occasions in the bible where others are referenced as Gods. YHWH was only denying the existence of the false gods the surrounding nations were worshipping. Likewise, when God states "I am YHWH...my glory will I not give to another" the context was about sharing his glory is in relation to the nation of Israel worshipping false gods, he wasn't making an all-encompassing statement that he will never share his glory, we know this because John 17:22 -among other verse- has him sharing his glory.

                  Correct, I said Moses was God's representative, but Colossians says 'the "exact" representation of the Father! Simply read it with me. It HAS to take you somewhere.
                  Colossians does not say "exact" representation of the Father as you claim, Col 1:15 states Jesus is the "image of the invisible God" as you earlier mentioned. Maybe you mean Hebrews 1:3 that states "He is the reflection of God’s glory and the exact representation of his very being". It should be noted this is also where the primary meaning of the terms representative and representation part ways from their variations. Jesus is a representation of God according to Hebrews 1:3, not a representative (not that I deny Jesus being a representative of God, just not according to this text). It should also be noted Jesus being the exact representation of God is not proof he is God, such an idea would suggest that the Father solely forms the 'one God' which Jesus is also, this would suggest modalism, which Trinitarians reject.

                  I do, I believe the Triune (for me, a better term over trinity) view best represents all of scripture. Like above, I've always had scriptures in mind, with Unitarian propositions: They just don't add up to what I know of the rest of the scriptures so I have to find a statement that better/best fits all scripture expressions. As we've discussed, conjecture or speculation over the creation of the Lord Jesus Christ is a difficult proposition. I try very hard not to believe anything unless it is explicit and very clear in scripture.
                  But then how do you harmonize statements that stated YHWH does not share his glory with statements that suggest others who are not YHWH do share his glory (John 17:22)?

                  By giving an answer that harmonizes the two you'll also be demonstrating that Jesus sharing God's glory does not necessitate that he is YHWH since he may be sharing it the same way others share it. The only way a trinitarian can answer the above is to reject what is stated in John 17:22, or, reject the idea Jesus sharing glory with God necessitates that he is God, if there is any other way then I'm sure I'll be hearing it from you shortly.

                  Agree, I choose not to. It simply isn't at all that clear to me. Hebrews compares Christ to Melchizedek, 'without parent.'
                  Instead of recognizing that scripture states Jesus has an origin, you throw scripture at it which seemingly contradicts it, this is what I often call fighting scripture with scripture and is not beneficial. Is it possible for an eternal God to have an origin?

                  It's surprising that someone who graduated seminary is saying such things. Firstly, Hebrews 7:3 compares Melchizedek to Christ, not the other way around. It should be obvious the "without parent" remark is not directly being applied to Christ, the passage reads, "In being fatherless, motherless, without genealogy, having neither a beginning of days nor an end of life, BEING MADE LIKE THE SON OF GOD, he remains a priest for all time". The "being made like the Son of God" is in relation to remaining "a priest for all time", THAT is the direct comparison being made, that both are priests forever. The words "In being fatherless, motherless, without genealogy, having neither a beginning of days nor an end of life" are not directly being applied to Christ and they are simply a description of Melchizedek in relation to how he himself is "a priest for all time". The passage makes very little sense if one were to claim Melchizedek "being made like the Son of God" was in relation to the preceding comments of "In being fatherless, motherless, without genealogy", also, no translation renders it that way. Again, the writer was expressing that both persons remain priests forever, he was not stating Jesus was fatherless or motherless.

                  Look how these translation render it:

                  ISV: He has no father, mother, or genealogy, no birth date recorded for him, nor a date of death. Like the Son of God, he continues to be a priest forever.
                  APB: Without his father and his mother being written in the genealogies, neither having beginning of his days nor end of his life, but in the likeness of The Son of God, his Priesthood remains for eternity.
                  GNT: There is no record of Melchizedek's father or mother or of any of his ancestors; no record of his birth or of his death. He is like the Son of God; he remains a priest forever.

                  Not really, born and created are different terms.
                  Yes, but the term used wasn't "born", it was "firstborn". The term firstborn, when speaking about something/someone first position temporally in a group, does not necessitate that the person be "born". For example, prior to King David being made the firstborn King, King Saul was the "firstborn King of Israel". The group "firstborn king of Israel" cannot give birth to anyone, rather, the expression exists to express the temporal position of an individual, the firstborn of the king of israel relates either to the first litreal king or the King who is preeminent. Likewise, me claiming the term "Firstborn of all creation" relates to Jesus temporal position as the first thing created does not get negated by the normal use of the word, again, anthropomorphism is in play.

                  Furthermore, there was no word for "first-create" in biblical times, this would have been the most suitable word to use in relation to expressing something was the first thing created, hence why the expression is applied to King David in regards to his kingship which cannot be "born", rather the kingship was made/created and brought into being.

                  I'm sure "some" people do, but 'most' don't. The vast majority of people that I know in life are unitarian as well as the ones I've seen and heard online, I know of none that suggest Jesus was "born" in relation to Col 1:15, maybe "born" in the sense of being created, made, or given life, but not literally born birth.

                  Mine? I've no idea even who this one might be. I'd assume it is my brother, but illustrations always get lost in details.
                  Cain? Yes. Or do you mean Adam?
                  A firstborn 'king' would be a 'king'....
                  [I asked, was the firstborn from the dead in Col 1:18 himself at one point dead?, Lon answered:] yes
                  [I asked, was the firstborn of Pharoah sons one of Pharaoh sons? Lon answered:] yes but if you mean first - preferred, it depends what Pharaoh you are talking about, no?
                  You've already stated you agree with the reason behind the questions here, so I will simply ask this. If you agree that being firstborn of a group means you yourself are part of a group, please explain how Jesus is part of the group of creation, wouldn't such a thing imply he is part of the created order, much like he had to be dead to be called part of the dead, wouldn't Jesus have to be created to be called part of creation?

                  LOL. Sorry, have to stop here. This is simply unreal. I'm confident I know them AS good as you, if not better :rotflol:

                  Read up on Theophanies. You don't know half of what you think you do regarding us. I'm a seminary grad.... I'll leave it here. The posturing and attempted going for the kill failed. Try to be open to honest discussion instead of doing this.
                  I've read about Theophanies many times, unless you tell me which ones you believe in its hard for me to make a comment about them.

                  You said "LOL. Sorry, have to stop here. This is simply unreal. I'm confident I know them AS good as you, if not better", If what you say is true then please explain who Jesus was speaking to when he stated "let us make man in our image", whether or not you know the scripture better than me I'm doubtful you know them better than the general scholarly community where there is no dispute that the God in Gen 1 and v26 is the Father. So please explain.

                  Also, who was the scholar you mentioned that agrees with your position here about Jesus being God in Genesis 1.

                  ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                  I said "If the life Jesus gave to us was in regards to his humanity then you have no legs to stand on in regards to your claim that Jesus was the God mentioned in Acts 20:28, either God gave his blood for us by dying for us on the cross which contradicts orthodox Christianity and God eternalness or the blood mentioned in Acts 20:28 does not relate to the literal blood of God. You cannot have it both ways, you cannot have two statements/idea that both contradict each other that are both correct. Our arguments must be convincing."

                  Do you not have anything further to say on the above matter?

                  I said and asked "[Hebrews 2:8] is similar if not stronger in its speech than John 1:3, if we are to view John 1:3 so literally leaving no wriggle room in its understanding compared to other scripture that seems to suggest other beliefs (Jesus being part of creation), then we must be consistent and do the same for Hebrews 2:8. Since it states 'all things were subject to man and God left nothing that is not subject to him', does that mean the Angels and God himself were subjected to man at some point, since God and the angels are no doubt part of every-day 'all things' and the 'Nothing' 'that was not left subject to man. [Again] were God and the Angels at some point in time subjected under man according to the langauge in Hebrews 2:8?"

                  Do you not have anything further to say on the above matter? Can you answer the question which will aid our discussion.
                  Last edited by NWL; September 28, 2020, 05:07 AM.
                  If you cant beat them join them

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by NWL View Post

                    Lon, it doesn't matter whether you see the term 'god' in Exo 7:1 as an adjective or if I see it as a noun, neither matter since Moses, as well as others are still called 'gods'. It is irrelevant in what sense they are called gods, this is the point I was referring to when I said I keep having to repeat myself. For example, we have the word "firstborn" in Col 1:15, Trinitarians will argue the word means firstborn IN THE SENSE of preeminence, lots of unitarians will argue it means firstborn in its normal temporal sense. Jesus, irrespective of what sense was intended by the writer, is called 'firstborn', the only contention people have is what MEANING should be applied. Likewise, Moses was called Elohim, the meaning behind why he is called Elohim does not change the fact that he was called Elohim/god. What you are doing is concluding that because Moses being called 'Elohim' means he was "Gods representative/representation", that this somehow negates that the term should be translated "God to Pharoah" in the first place, it doesn't, that is what you need to acknowledge.
                    Incorrect. Your lack of grammar is showing.



                    You're in error, the meaning or sense of the word does not change the word itself. You say "The Hebrew language allows for variance in that statement such that 'as a god' or like I said "Elohim" can be translated easily "my representative" to Pharaoh". NO it cannot, as said above 'Elohim' in the passage can be UNDERSTOOD as relating to Moses being God's representative, but to claim the word "Elohim" can be translated and penned as "representative" is plain wrong and absurd, again, the sense and meaning of a word does not change the word itself. Can you should me as single authority that has ever translated the word 'elohim' as "representative" in this passage. I don't deny "elohim" can have connotations that convey 'representative' in meaning and context, but that doesn't change the word itself from the meaning of 'god'.
                    Incorrect. Your lack is showing. We can do this all day, but as I said in my initial post, this IS the problem with most Arians and Unitarians. They just aren't too good when it comes to languages. Let me make this easy and clip all the rest:

                    Let's say I'm a Unitarian/Arian. I"m reading my bible and I come to the book of John. End of Unitarian/Arian, BY NECESSITY!

                    I CANNOT read John 1 and 20 and be a Unitarian any longer SIMPLY for this: God's Word wouldn't allow it.

                    Part of "TRINITARIAN" is "ARIAN." We agree on a good number of scriptures but you Unitarians miss a lot and I'm convinced it is because most of you didn't do well in school when they were teaching basic grammar.

                    My New Years Resolution: 1 Peter 3:15
                    Omniscient without man's qualification. John 1:3 "Nothing"
                    Colossians 1:17 "Nothing" John 15:5 "Nothing"
                    Mighty, ALL mighty (omnipotent). Revelation 1:8
                    No possible limitation Isaiah 40:25 Joshua 24:15
                    Infinite (Omnipresent) Psalm 145:3 Hebrews 4:13

                    ? Yep

                    Now to Him who is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think... Amen. -Ephesians 3:20 & 21

                    ... when I became an adult, I set aside childish ways. Titus 3:10 Ephesians 4:29-32; 5:11

                    Separation of church and State is not atheism "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by NWL View Post
                      Can I for a minute ask you a question which, to you, is hypothetical, let's say I am correct with my claims in Rev 3:14 and Prov 8:22, they are both talking about Jesus and mean how they literally read in this paragraph, do they both say that Jesus was created? Hypothetically.
                      A scripture that simply said "God the Father created the Son" is never given in scripture and it needs to be that clear. Proverbs to me: Ambiguous.

                      As I said just above, if Arian/Unitarian was my original position and belief, simply reading the rest of scriptures would force me from that position. I simply couldn't honestly, against scriptural integrity, be Arian/Unitarian. It doesn't mean I'd automatically be Trinitarian, but close.
                      My New Years Resolution: 1 Peter 3:15
                      Omniscient without man's qualification. John 1:3 "Nothing"
                      Colossians 1:17 "Nothing" John 15:5 "Nothing"
                      Mighty, ALL mighty (omnipotent). Revelation 1:8
                      No possible limitation Isaiah 40:25 Joshua 24:15
                      Infinite (Omnipresent) Psalm 145:3 Hebrews 4:13

                      ? Yep

                      Now to Him who is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think... Amen. -Ephesians 3:20 & 21

                      ... when I became an adult, I set aside childish ways. Titus 3:10 Ephesians 4:29-32; 5:11

                      Separation of church and State is not atheism "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Lon View Post
                        Incorrect. Your lack is showing. We can do this all day, but as I said in my initial post, this IS the problem with most Arians and Unitarians. They just aren't too good when it comes to languages. Let me make this easy and clip all the rest:

                        Let's say I'm a Unitarian/Arian. I"m reading my bible and I come to the book of John. End of Unitarian/Arian, BY NECESSITY!

                        I CANNOT read John 1 and 20 and be a Unitarian any longer SIMPLY for this: God's Word wouldn't allow it.

                        Part of "TRINITARIAN" is "ARIAN." We agree on a good number of scriptures but you Unitarians miss a lot and I'm convinced it is because most of you didn't do well in school when they were teaching basic grammar.
                        By your response here, you've simply 'asserted' I am incorrect, used an ad hominem, and then made another assertion that unitarian cannot be correct because you say they aren't based on the reading of John 1 and 20. I could make a similar statement, "You Lon are wrong, Trinitarians aren't good at reasoning and understanding scripture. I, a unitarian, cannot read Rev 3, Prov 8, John 6, Col 1, John 17, and become a trinitarian SIMPLY for this: God's Word wouldn't allow it". Do you see how weak a statement this is, what does it prove, nothing! It certainly does nothing in negating anything you've ever said or proving anything I've said, yet you thought it a worthy reply to one of my questions.

                        Instead of asserting I'm incorrect are you not able to show exactly how instead, in relation to the topic in hand?

                        A scripture that simply said "God the Father created the Son" is never given in scripture and it needs to be that clear. Proverbs to me: Ambiguous.

                        As I said just above, if Arian/Unitarian was my original position and belief, simply reading the rest of scriptures would force me from that position. I simply couldn't honestly, against scriptural integrity, be Arian/Unitarian. It doesn't mean I'd automatically be Trinitarian, but close.
                        You've ignored my question and made a statement that does nothing in regards to my position. My question was this, if the two statements, "Jehovah made me [Jesus/Wisdom] as the beginning of his way", and, "the Amen, [who is] the beginning of the creation of God", are truly in regards to Jesus, and the "beginning" and "made" are in reference to the beginning of creation being made literally, would both be evidence of Jesus creation?

                        You said, "A scripture that simply said "God the Father created the Son" is never given in scripture", again, I would take the statement, "Jehovah made me [Jesus] as the beginning of his way", as a synonymous statement when compared to "God the Father created the Son", likewise with the statement "the Amen, [who is] the beginning of the creation of God". I can only take your lack of answer so far as a positive that these statements, if correct according to my reasoning, affirm this.

                        ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                        Whilst I appreciate you are under no obligation to reply, it would be nice to hear back from you. From what I can tell, you are unable to fully explain your way around my reasoning and it is for this reason why you have not replied back to most of my points, as I’ve seen you active on the forum and other threads. I really suggest you consider what the bible actually teaches. One of the most important things we have to be sure of is that our biblical theology is internally CONSISTENT with what it teaches as truth according to biblical text.

                        For example, as we have discussed, one of the main “trinitarian proofs” of Jesus is God is the fact ‘there is only one God’. They’ll use this biblical truth but then allow people's ignorance of the scriptures to convince them that Jesus is part of the ‘one God’. How, by showing scriptures that has Jesus being called God. What most people don’t know, or accept, is that OTHERS are called God (Elohim, thoes) who are clearly NOT the ‘one God’. Since this is the case, we cannot simply assume Jesus is part of the ‘one God’ simply because he is called God, since, if we did then what stops us calling others who are called God, who are not the ‘one God’, the ‘one God’ themselves too. Our reasoning and theology must be consistent.

                        The same consistency must be applied to other passages and statements, Trinitarians will rightly say “YHWH shares his glory with no one”, but then they’ll deduce and claim, “Jesus is the one God YHWH as he shares glory despite YHWH stating he does not share glory, therefore Jesus MUST be YHWH himself”, but then refuse apply the same consistent idea towards angels and followers of Christ who share Gods glory as clearly stated by the bible. Our reasoning and theology must be consistent.

                        You’ve given no reason in relation to Rev 3:14, which after being scrutinized, gives me any other reason to believe that Jesus is not the “beginning of the creation of God”, as the verse reads.

                        You’ve haven’t shown me anywhere where the Greek word “arche” means beginner, despite you assuming this meaning in Rev 3:14.

                        You’ve given me no reason that when Prov 8:22 says “YHWH made me at the beginning of his way”, that this was not in relation to Jesus. All you can say it that is “Ambiguous”, whilst ignoring the overwhelming evidence, you don’t even attempt to speak about the evidence I brought to the table in relation to it, why? I can only assume its because you reject the rendering ONLY because it does not fit your biblical worldview despite all the evidence to the contrary. Simply replying, “Ambiguous”, is a fool’s answer imo.

                        You’ve given me no explanation how Jesus is the part of the group of creation according to Col 1:15, as you have admitted, but not a created being himself despite him being ‘PART’ of creation since he’s the firstborn.

                        You’ve given me no answer how Jesus is the Father according to Isaiah 9:6, yet is a separate person from the Father according to the trinity doctrine.

                        You haven’t clearly articulated what person of the trinity creation is ‘from’ according to 1 Cor 8:6 and Hebrews 1:1,2, despite you clearly understanding and stating it is through Jesus in the texts.

                        You’ve nowhere told me if God and the Angels were part of the “all things” since “nothing was left not subjected when subjecting all things under man” in Hebrews 2:8. This question was posed to you as you denied Jesus could be part of creation by the wording of John 1:3. Our reasoning and theology must be consistent.

                        You’ve nowhere explained how “God gave his blood” by dying on the cross, yet it was only Jesus humanity that died. Our reasoning and theology must be consistent.

                        You have not answered if it's possible that an eternal God can have an origin.

                        There are very few points I have been unable to answer, none that I have purposely ignored, whereas there are numerous points that you, are unable to answer as the biblical texts I’ve been showing do not align with your theology, as far as I can tell.

                        I understand the trinitarian doctrine, I’ve probably heard all the reasons as to why people choose to accept it, but as I have demonstrated to a small degree, lots of what the trinity teaches is based on fallacious arguments that are NOT consistent. I promise you, that for every text that you believe supports the trinity, or Jesus identity as the one God, can be explained with a more logical, scriptural, and consistent argument than the trinitarian one. The fact you fail to try to even answer questions that are easy to answer in principle, but hard to answer in nature, should be red flags that your understanding of the scriptures are false and not consistent.
                        Last edited by NWL; October 7, 2020, 01:24 AM.
                        If you cant beat them join them

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by NWL View Post


                          I understand the trinitarian doctrine, I’ve probably heard all the reasons as to why people choose to accept it, but as I have demonstrated to a small degree, lots of what the trinity teaches is based on fallacious arguments that are NOT consistent. I promise you, that for every text that you believe supports the trinity, or Jesus identity as the one God, can be explained with a more logical, scriptural, and consistent argument than the trinitarian one. The fact you fail to try to even answer questions that are easy to answer in principle, but hard to answer in nature, should be red flags that your understanding of the scriptures are false and not consistent.
                          Not from what I've read of you so far. You don't understand, for instance, that "arian" is part of the doctrine. It isn't that we don't believe 'part' of what you do, it is just that we believe you've (Unitarians/Arians) become simplistic and careless and have not studied the matter out very well. I mention this in a moment: Literally the VAST majority of really good Greek and Hebrew (and English grammarians for that matter to boot) are, in fact, Trinitarians. It is you guys that never seem to get to the part where you ask why 'brilliant scholars with WAY more education than I, are mostly Trinitarian). You simply AND simplistically, frankly, don't ask. That is YOUR (Unitarian/Arians) problem.

                          Originally posted by NWL View Post
                          By your response here, you've simply 'asserted' I am incorrect, used an ad hominem, and then made another assertion that unitarian cannot be correct because you say they aren't based on the reading of John 1 and 20. I could make a similar statement, "You Lon are wrong, Trinitarians aren't good at reasoning and understanding scripture.
                          LOL, you are a ding-a-ling (in no mean or arrogant tenor, just that you really are NOT using good reasoning skills with these incredibly shallow assessments). Of the thousands of scholars, less than 1% are Arian/Unitarian. You are given to overstatements and special pleading over and over and over. It is delusional. You don't seem open, at all, to the fact that you aren't correct. As I've stated, I know languages which is something very few Unitarians I've ever met have on their accomplishment sheets. I'm going to challenge you on both of these scriptures just below. I don't care how good you think you are at the languages, there is none that are going to do better than I on these. They are EXACTLY as clear as I'm going to give them and I'd argue with a PhD Greek over these. There is no other translation than what I give:


                          Originally posted by NWL View Post
                          I, a unitarian, cannot read Rev 3, Prov 8, John 6, Col 1, John 17, and become a trinitarian SIMPLY for this: God's Word wouldn't allow it".
                          Incorrect, you are being thin. Remember (try) that "Trinit-arian" means "Arian" to some degree, therefore your 'couldn't' simply isn't true. I WHOLLY recognize the Lord Jesus Christ is not the Father. Rather, I'm saying that I recognize FULLY, that John 1:1, 2, 3, 14, 19; 20:28 says Jesus is, in fact, God. There is only one God.

                          So here is really, truly the problem: Scripture says it, YOU don't want to believe it. John 1:1? Clear as a bell. "with God" ... "WAS God." Sorry, fact. You nor any other poor student can do a thing to change this. You just cannot.


                          Do you see how weak a statement this is, what does it prove, nothing! It certainly does nothing in negating anything you've ever said or proving anything I've said, yet you thought it a worthy reply to one of my questions.
                          EVERYTHING, unless you are indoctrinated or blind. It is all this VERY simple: John 20:28 Thomas said TO Jesus, "You are my Lord and my God."


                          Let me ask you a question: if this is 'literally' what scripture says, WHY? wouldn't you be open to just being whatever God says, clearly, you should be AND should believe?????

                          It is REALLY this simple. Answer the question: If God has made it this clear, whether you get it, understand how, or anything else, but that you know, beyond doubt that the Word was 'with' and 'was' God, that Thomas literally calls Jesus "Lord and God of me" why WOULDN'T you believe it OTHER than a poor theology construct and hangup????

                          Please answer the question. You don't have to answer it to me. You really don't. You HAVE to answer it to God. The LAST thing I want either of us to do is come between one another and God. Simply meet God on HIS terms and tell Him why you will or won't believe exactly what He says. End of our discussion, no? There is nothing left to discuss, truly. Tell God why you will or will not believe Him and what He says. Its this simple without being personally stubborn or willful. I know what scripture says in clarity. There is no 'and, if, or but' to these scriptures. None at all. I KNOW what I'm talking about.
                          My New Years Resolution: 1 Peter 3:15
                          Omniscient without man's qualification. John 1:3 "Nothing"
                          Colossians 1:17 "Nothing" John 15:5 "Nothing"
                          Mighty, ALL mighty (omnipotent). Revelation 1:8
                          No possible limitation Isaiah 40:25 Joshua 24:15
                          Infinite (Omnipresent) Psalm 145:3 Hebrews 4:13

                          ? Yep

                          Now to Him who is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think... Amen. -Ephesians 3:20 & 21

                          ... when I became an adult, I set aside childish ways. Titus 3:10 Ephesians 4:29-32; 5:11

                          Separation of church and State is not atheism "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Lon View Post

                            Not from what I've read of you so far. You don't understand, for instance, that "arian" is part of the doctrine. It isn't that we don't believe 'part' of what you do, it is just that we believe you've (Unitarians/Arians) become simplistic and careless and have not studied the matter out very well. I mention this in a moment: Literally the VAST majority of really good Greek and Hebrew (and English grammarians for that matter to boot) are, in fact, Trinitarians. It is you guys that never seem to get to the part where you ask why 'brilliant scholars with WAY more education than I, are mostly Trinitarian). You simply AND simplistically, frankly, don't ask. That is YOUR (Unitarian/Arians) problem.
                            The reason why the vast majority of scholars, or really good scholars, are Trinitarians is for the same reason most scientists today who are really good in their individual academics fields do not claim there is a God. That reason being, any claim that goes against the mainstream has massive impacts in regards to their credibility. Any scientist today who comes out as religious gets shut down extremely quickly, gets funding removed, have their credibility and reputation destroyed and get mocked at. The scholarly community is no different when it comes to people who are unitarians. There have been numerous unitarian scholars, that have been mocked, lost credibility, been labeled as heretics, lost their scholarly position and even been killed -in some periods- all because they've come out as unitarians.

                            So your appeal to the authority of most scholars accepting the trinity is hardly compelling any more than it is compelling that the best scientists today who deny the existence of God is a valid reason for accepting Gods inexistence.

                            LOL, you are a ding-a-ling (in no mean or arrogant tenor, just that you really are NOT using good reasoning skills with these incredibly shallow assessments). Of the thousands of scholars, less than 1% are Arian/Unitarian. You are given to overstatements and special pleading over and over and over. It is delusional. You don't seem open, at all, to the fact that you aren't correct. As I've stated, I know languages which is something very few Unitarians I've ever met have on their accomplishment sheets. I'm going to challenge you on both of these scriptures just below. I don't care how good you think you are at the languages, there is none that are going to do better than I on these. They are EXACTLY as clear as I'm going to give them and I'd argue with a PhD Greek over these. There is no other translation than what I give:
                            Hypocrite! It is not me who special pleads constantly rather it is YOU who does. Remember I have a payload of unanswered questions and assertions made by you by which your reasoning relies on special pleading and nothing else:

                            It is YOU who has stated the Greek word 'arche' should mean beginner in Rev 3:14 despite it NEVER being used in that period, DESPITE John ALWAYS using the word to mean 'beginning', as it means in English today, and despite the numerous translations that plainly have it translated as 'beginning'. Your argument regarding this verse is a prime example of special pleading.

                            It is YOU who states Prov 8:22 should not mean 'create/made/produce' despite showing ZERO reasons why, despite numerous scholars, translations, early church fathers and the LXX all stating the word is "create" and is in reference to Jesus. It is your special plead that this evidence is false despite offering no evidence or argument to counter it.

                            It is YOU who stated the word 'elohim' in Exo 7:1 should be translated 'representative' despite ZERO scholars translating it this way. As you said "There is no other translation than what [you] give", no single scholar agrees with you in relation to your translation here YET to want me to believe you out of them. Your argument in relation to this verse is again, a special plead, contrary to the evidence.

                            Need I go on? Even if I asked you to produce an example of me special pleading on my part, you would not be able to because I am not foolish enough to make the mistake in my reasoning. Again, your claim that I have used special pleading and am delusional is nothing more than an assertion, like most of your reasoning.

                            I WHOLLY recognize the Lord Jesus Christ is not the Father. Rather, I'm saying that I recognize FULLY, that John 1:1, 2, 3, 14, 19; 20:28 says Jesus is, in fact, God. There is only one God.

                            So here is really, truly the problem: Scripture says it, YOU don't want to believe it. John 1:1? Clear as a bell. "with God" ... "WAS God." Sorry, fact. You nor any other poor student can do a thing to change this. You just cannot.
                            You stated above "I WHOLLY recognize the Lord Jesus Christ is not the Father", then why does Isaiah 9:6 call Jesus the Father, the question remains unanswered, which is not surprising at all.

                            You, out of all people, should know that Jesus is not identified as God according to John 1:1, John 1:1c is NOT definitive in its rendering, this fact is readily accepted in the scholarly community today, rather, it is qualitative. The rendering "and the Word was God" is a definite translation and NOT a qualitative one. A qualitative rendering would be something like "the word was divine", "the word was godlike", "the word was a god", "what God was the word was", "the word has the same nature as God", or other variation.

                            1)“The significance of theon being definite in Clause B, then, is to identify the One spoken of there as a specific person-God the Father. If then, theos in Clause C were to be ‘definite’ in the same way that theon is in Clause B, it would then be saying that the Word was God the Father. Such a statement would contradict Clause B and imply some sort of modalistic view of God which of course Trinitarians oppose.”...“the point that is being made here is that FOR THEOS TO BE DEFINITE IN THIS CONTEXT-AFTER JUST USING THE DEFINITE TON THEON TO REFER SPECIFICALLY TO THE PERSON OF THE FATHER- WOULD BE MODALISTICS. Therefore, those who have argued that in John 1:1 theos is definite were in error….AS SURPRISING AS IT MAY SEEM, ARGUING THAT THEOS IS DEFINITE IN THIS CONTEXT ACTUALLY IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE TRINITARIAN DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE FATHER AND THE SON
                            . - Rob Bowman, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Jesus Christ, & the Gospel of John, 1989.
                            ​​​​​
                            2) "This second theos could also be translated 'divine' as the construction indicates "a qualitative sense for theos"...The point being made is that the Logos is of the same uncreated nature or essence as God the Father" - Eastern / Greek Orthodox Bible, New Testament, 2008, p231,

                            3) “[It] is clear that in the translation "the Word was God", the term God is being used to denote his nature or essence, and not his person...The [traditional] rendering cannot stand without explanation.” - Harris, Murray J., Jesus as God: The New Testament Use of Theos in Reference to Jesus, 1992, p. 69

                            4) “The predicate (God) stands emphatically first, as in 4:24. ‘It is necessarily without the article (theós not ho theós) inasmuch asit describes the nature of the Word and does not identify His Person - B. F. Westcott as quoted by C. F. D. Moule An Idiom-Book of New Testament Greek. Cambridge: University Press. p. 116.

                            Again, modern-day scholarship expresses that Jesus is not God according to John 1:1, rather he has the same nature as 'the God' mentioned in John 1:1, that 'God' mentioned is the Father. I accept that Jesus has the same nature as the Father, I don't believe any unitraian would have an issue with stating that, any more than they or I have an issue with stating that you or I have the same nature as our human Fathers. Having the same nature as someone however doesn't imply we are that person themselves, if it did, then John 1:1c would be teaching modalism, hence the reason why modern scholarship rejects the definite translation as seen above.

                            So when you say, "WAS God." Sorry, fact. You nor any other poor student can do a thing to change this. You just cannot.", you are fact in disagreement with your own scholarly community who now accept the qualitative rendering. Even scholars like Rob Bowman and James White, who are apologists and often speak and debate unitarians, readily admit Jesus is NOT God according to John 1:1c but rather, has the same nature as 'the God' mentioned, namely the Father, which unitarians do not deny. It is your own trinitarian brethren who have changed it. Moreover, you seem not to know many scholars have translated and published John 1:1c in bibles and other litrature different to how it is commonly translated (all Trinitarian translators beolow):

                            “and the Word was a divine being” - La Bible du Centenaire, L’Evangile selon Jean, by Maurice Goguel, 1928.
                            “and the Word was divine” - The Bible—An American Translation, by J. M. P. Smith and E. J. Goodspeed, 1935.
                            "and he was the same as God" – Good News Bible, 1976, by the American Bible Society
                            "and what God was, the Word was" – New English Bible NEB
                            "the Logos [Word] was divine" – A New Translation of the Bible, by James Moffatt
                            "and the word was a divine being” – The New Testament, by Jon Madsen 2017
                            "and the Word was a god" – The New Testament in Greek and English, 1822, by A. Kneeland
                            “and a god was the word” - The Emphatic Diaglott, interlinear reading, by Benjamin Wilson, 1864
                            “and of a divine kind was the Word” - Das Neue Testament, by Ludwig Thimme, 1946.
                            “and the Word was a God” - The New Testament, by James L. Tomanek, 1958.
                            “and a god (or, of a divine kind) was the Word” - Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Siegfried Schulz, 1975.
                            “and godlike kind was the Logos” - Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Johannes Schneider, 1979.

                            Again, you out of all people should know to say "John 1:1? Clear as a bell. "with God" ... "WAS God." Sorry, fact. You nor any other poor student can do a thing to change this", is to ignore how translation works and therefore is foolish. The Greek does not say "the Word was God" (the literal and word for word translation reads "a god was the word"), rather its "καὶ Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος", the Greek can be translated in many different ways according to grammar and context, as seen above. So to say that John 1:1c reads "was God" and "cannot be changed" is to ignore how translations works as the original was written in Greek.


                            EVERYTHING, unless you are indoctrinated or blind. It is all this VERY simple: John 20:28 Thomas said TO Jesus, "You are my Lord and my God."

                            Let me ask you a question: if this is 'literally' what scripture says, WHY? wouldn't you be open to just being whatever God says, clearly, you should be AND should believe?????

                            It is REALLY this simple. Answer the question: If God has made it this clear, whether you get it, understand how, or anything else, but that you know, beyond doubt that the Word was 'with' and 'was' God, that Thomas literally calls Jesus "Lord and God of me" why WOULDN'T you believe it OTHER than a poor theology construct and hangup????
                            You said to me above "It is all this VERY simple: John 20:28 Thomas said TO Jesus, "You are my Lord and my God." Let me ask you a question: if this is 'literally' what scripture says, WHY? wouldn't you be open to just being whatever God says, clearly, you should be AND should believe?"

                            The reason why I do not accept what you propose is as I've already explained, we cannot have two truths that are both true but both contradict each other. The scriptures are clear, the is only 'one God' in the fullest and most unique sense of the word, that person is ONLY ever stated as being the Father, "there is actually to us one God, the Father". In 1 Cor 8:6 Jesus is LEFT OUT in Paul's category of who God was, ONLY the father is mentioned and thus, based on his words and others texts (John 17:3), ONLY the Father is the 'one God' as clearly expressed. You, of course, bring up John 20:28 where Jesus is called "God" by Thomas, this seems to contradict the fact the Father is the 'one God'. This is where texts that call other beings God/Elohim/theos come into play. Are other beings in the bible called God/Elohim? Yes! Therefore when other beings are called theos/elohim does it necessitate or imply they themselves are the 'one God'? No! Based on these two questions as well as acknowledging the Father alone is categorized as being the 'one God', logic dictates that Jesus is not the 'one God' but is called God in a similar fashion to how other beings are called God.

                            Psalms 45:1,6 refers to an Israelite King as God (elohim OT, thoes LXX), "I will recite a lovely poem about the king...Your throne, O God, endures forever and ever. You rule with a scepter of justice". When the writer calls this King 'God' he, of course, isn't trying to say he is YHWH, but rather, the term god is being applied with the secondary and lesser sense of the word. Now guess what, the writer of Hebrews applies this verse to Christ in Hebrews 1:8! The writer could have picked 'any' verse in the entire OT that refers to YHWH as God, but instead, he picked a verse in which 'theos' is used with a secondary and lesser application and applied it to Christ, one must ask why this was done. It's obvious to me that this was done because Jesus isn't the 'one God' but is a secondary lesser god compared to the Father and therefore only a text such as Psalms 45:6 could be applied. Jesus does the same thing in John 10:33-36 when the Jews accuse him of making himself god. Jesus uses a reference of other beings being called gods in the secondary lesser sense AS HIS OWN DEFENSE of the charge of blasphemy put against him. Why would Jesus use a text that calls other beings gods who are NOT the 'one God' in his own defense? Jesus reasoning makes little sense unless he was claiming he could be called god in the same sense they were called gods.

                            Jesus is a God. The same way "Moses was God to Pharoah", Jesus is God to Thomas and God to me, this is because Jesus is Gods most perfect representative and represents God so much that he can be called his very image. Since Jesus is also the person through whom we worship the Father, he acts as God to us, despite not being the 'one God'. Many peoples throughout history have bowed down to images made of gold, silver, wood, and stone, people have even tried to worship YHWH by these means which he of course despises as they can never represent him. Jesus though, DOES perfectly represent YHWH the Father, not his flesh, but his being, therefore Jesus is the image of God that we worship God through. Jesus passes all this worship and glory to the Father and keeps none for himself, "so that in the name of Jesus every knee should bend—of those in heaven and those on earth and those under the ground— 11 and every tongue should openly acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord TO THE GLORY OF GOD THE FATHER." (Phil 2:10-11).

                            To see Jesus is to see God the Father, to worship Jesus is to worship God the Father. Jesus is in no way shape or form the Father or the one God, he is simply the person whom the one God, the Father, has placed as the image of himself for all to worship him through (see John 12:44-45, John 14:6, Phil 2:9).

                            You've brought nothing to the table that shows my reasoning to be incorrect, nor have you shown anything that deals with the contradiction that only the Father is identified as the 'one God' and yet Jesus is also the 'one God', according to you, at the same time.

                            There is nothing left to discuss, truly. Tell God why you will or will not believe Him and what He says. Its this simple without being personally stubborn or willful. I know what scripture says in clarity. There is no 'and, if, or but' to these scriptures. None at all. I KNOW what I'm talking about.
                            You of course have to say this is the end of the discussion as you cannot answer and deal with all my points . There are many points and questions you have chosen to outright ignore. I'm fine with you running, you'll just be another trinitarian on the list that would have demonstrated to myself and others that my current (JW) unitarian position is solid as rock bed. Just for the purpose of the record, here are the questions and points you can't answer:

                            -You’ve given no reason in relation to Rev 3:14, which after being scrutinized, gives me any other reason to believe that Jesus is not the “beginning of the creation of God”, as the verse reads.

                            -You’ve haven’t shown me anywhere where the Greek word “arche” means beginner, despite you assuming this meaning in Rev 3:14.

                            -You’ve given me no reason that when Prov 8:22 says “YHWH made me at the beginning of his way”, that this was not in relation to Jesus. All you can say it that is “Ambiguous”, whilst ignoring the overwhelming evidence, you don’t even attempt to speak about the evidence I brought to the table in relation to it, why? I can only assume its because you reject the rendering ONLY because it does not fit your biblical worldview despite all the evidence to the contrary. Simply replying, “Ambiguous”, is a fool’s answer imo.

                            -You’ve given me no explanation how Jesus is the part of the group of creation according to Col 1:15, as you have admitted, but not a created being himself despite him being ‘PART’ of creation since he’s the firstborn.

                            -You’ve given me no answer how Jesus is the Father according to Isaiah 9:6, yet is a separate person from the Father according to the trinity doctrine.

                            -You haven’t clearly articulated what person of the trinity creation is ‘from’ according to 1 Cor 8:6 and Hebrews 1:1,2, despite you clearly understanding and stating it is through Jesus in the texts.

                            -You’ve nowhere told me if God and the Angels were part of the “all things” since “nothing was left not subjected when subjecting all things under man” in Hebrews 2:8. This question was posed to you as you denied Jesus could be part of creation by the wording of John 1:3. Our reasoning and theology must be consistent.

                            -You’ve nowhere explained how “God gave his blood” by dying on the cross, yet it was only Jesus humanity that died. Our reasoning and theology must be consistent.

                            -You have not answered if it's possible that an eternal God can have an origin.

                            If you choose to run from this discussion, fine, if you choose to carry on, even better, I look forward to it. So far it is clear whose reasoning is more consistent and makes more sense.

                            ...end...
                            Last edited by NWL; October 13, 2020, 08:10 AM.
                            If you cant beat them join them

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by NWL View Post

                              The reason why the vast majority of scholars, or really good scholars, are Trinitarians is for the same reason most scientists today who are really good in their individual academics fields do not claim there is a God. That reason being, any claim that goes against the mainstream has massive impacts in regards to their credibility. Any scientist today who comes out as religious gets shut down extremely quickly, gets funding removed, have their credibility and reputation destroyed and get mocked at. The scholarly community is no different when it comes to people who are unitarians. There have been numerous unitarian scholars, that have been mocked, lost credibility, been labeled as heretics, lost their scholarly position and even been killed -in some periods- all because they've come out as unitarians.
                              Such is an ignorant statement that seeks a theory for an answer. You simply and clearly "DO NOT KNOW" and you make up this garbage simply because of stubbornness and arrogance.

                              Why, NWL, did you say it? I can pretty well guess. Can you? Why did you say somthing here that YOU KNOW you had to make a guess of an answer for? I'm pretty sure I know, but can YOU be honest enough to see at this point? YOU made something up. It has EVERY appearance "so that you don't have to face any kind of truth other than what you've already made up in your head.' That's not honesty, NWL.

                              So your appeal to the authority of most scholars accepting the trinity is hardly compelling any more than it is compelling that the best scientists today who deny the existence of God is a valid reason for accepting Gods inexistence.
                              Incorrect, it is INCREDIBLY compelling and very unlike your poor comparison that fell very flat. It simply wasn't/isn't true: you made it up. You KNOW you did. Why? I'm fairly sure I know why and it has little to do with looking at things honestly. Instead it is 'excusing' behavior.



                              Hypocrite! It is not me who special pleads constantly rather it is YOU who does. Remember I have a payload of unanswered questions and assertions made by you by which your reasoning relies on special pleading and nothing else:
                              Er, no. 1% is the definition of special. It is only one out of 100 (or really 1000 and more). Hypocrite? Your arrogance, pride, and ignorance (willfully no less) is showing. Why? Why do you WANT to be the .1%? What other than pride is in it for you? Why wouldn't you want to read scriptures and simply believe what God says without equivocating, special pleading, and missing the forest? I'm not that guy. I don't WANT to be against the body of Christ. I'm very reserved with any point I disagree with the majority on. I WANT to be right and being in a minority on anything, causes me to pray a lot. You? Seems to make arrogant, willful, and prideful. Is that fruit of the Spirit?
                              Try and revisit your 'hypocrite' accusation. There are always 3 fingers pointing back.

                              It is YOU who has stated the Greek word 'arche' should mean beginner in Rev 3:14 despite it NEVER being used in that period, DESPITE John ALWAYS using the word to mean 'beginning', as it means in English today, and despite the numerous translations that plainly have it translated as 'beginning'. Your argument regarding this verse is a prime example of special pleading.
                              Incorrect (which is why I don't esteem your academic prowess highly). It was Jamieson Fausset and Brown. Three well-respected Trinitarian scholars. Does it make it absolutely sure? No, but at the very least, you stand among your elders and betters against their assertion. These 3 are not alone. Read a few commentaries, most agree it is/means 'beginner' against YOUR blind (not knowing Greek other than through text helps) assertion.
                              It is YOU who states Prov 8:22 should not mean 'create/made/produce' despite showing ZERO reasons why, despite numerous scholars, translations, early church fathers and the LXX all stating the word is "create" and is in reference to Jesus. It is your special plead that this evidence is false despite offering no evidence or argument to counter it.
                              Prove the point. I know of no Jew that believes Proverbs 8:22 is about the Lord Jesus Christ. Why do YOU think it does???
                              Proverbs 1:1 The proverbs of Solomon the son of David, king of Israel. Proverbs 4:1 Sons, hear the instruction of a father, and listen in order to know understanding.

                              Show me otherwise. How CLEAR is such an extrapolation? Is it without question the only possibility? (no, obviously, UNLESS there is a theology construct that one is so married to, that they CANNOT see otherwise - I don't have such inordinate constructs from my own head, that I'd pose against the instruction of God. Show me and I'd leave a triune position. Until such a time, triune is the only logical option where I simply must humble myself under the instruction of God and not draw MY own conclusions. I want God to be God and I'll change when scripture, in clarity, demands I must else I will stumble over it and I'm not that arrogant. God can be God and I can and will be the servant of where those scriptures cast me. It really is as simple as that.
                              It is YOU who stated the word 'elohim' in Exo 7:1 should be translated 'representative' despite ZERO scholars translating it this way. As you said "There is no other translation than what [you] give", no single scholar agrees with you in relation to your translation here YET to want me to believe you out of them. Your argument in relation to this verse is again, a special plead, contrary to the evidence.
                              Incorrect. I read it. Obviously you don't read the same commentaries but YOU already said that Moses was His representative and not representation so you are making a mountain out of mole-hill AND already argued WITH me over the point. Try and keep up. You are making up junk now just to posture and be arrogant. Stop? Just a strong suggestion.

                              Need I go on?
                              Er, with inane posturing? No. Stop. INSTEAD listen to God's word and BE CHANGED by it instead of being ignorant, willful, and/or stubborn.

                              Even if I asked you to produce an example of me special pleading on my part, you would not be able to
                              LOL. Special pleading is when you are finding 'exceptions' and trying to make them as if they are true or when you take 1000 to one and try to make up a story as to why most are not Arian/Unitarian. There IS a reason and YOU are choosing to explain such away. That is the DEFINITION of special pleading, and yes, it is EXACTLY what you did and yes, I can explain why every time I've used the accusation, it is true.

                              because I am not foolish enough to make the mistake in my reasoning.
                              I so wish (plead) this to be true. You are making reasoning mistakes.


                              Again, your claim that I have used special pleading and am delusional is nothing more than an assertion, like most of your reasoning.
                              This doesn't even make sense. It is posturing/emoting with little weight. Special pleading, is when the majority is stacked against you, and you assert against ALL that YOURS is the correct stance. That IS special pleading with no weight to the appeal at all.



                              You stated above "I WHOLLY recognize the Lord Jesus Christ is not the Father", then why does Isaiah 9:6 call Jesus the Father, the question remains unanswered, which is not surprising at all.
                              Without posturing, I'm open to the correct. Explain yourself and the scripture, please. What do you believe it means? That Jesus is the 'everlasting Father?' Thanks, as a trinitarian, ahead of time for the answer.

                              You, out of all people, should know that Jesus is not identified as God according to John 1:1, John 1:1c is NOT definitive in its rendering, this fact is readily accepted in the scholarly community today, rather, it is qualitative. The rendering "and the Word was God" is a definite translation and NOT a qualitative one. A qualitative rendering would be something like "the word was divine", "the word was godlike", "the word was a god", "what God was the word was", "the word has the same nature as God", or other variation.
                              I "of all people" DO know what it means. It is as clear as I wrote it.

                              1)“The significance of theon being definite in Clause B, then, is to identify the One spoken of there as a specific person-God the Father. If then, theos in Clause C were to be ‘definite’ in the same way that theon is in Clause B, it would then be saying that the Word was God the Father. Such a statement would contradict Clause B and imply some sort of modalistic view of God which of course Trinitarians oppose.”...“the point that is being made here is that FOR THEOS TO BE DEFINITE IN THIS CONTEXT-AFTER JUST USING THE DEFINITE TON THEON TO REFER SPECIFICALLY TO THE PERSON OF THE FATHER- WOULD BE MODALISTICS. Therefore, those who have argued that in John 1:1 theos is definite were in error….AS SURPRISING AS IT MAY SEEM, ARGUING THAT THEOS IS DEFINITE IN THIS CONTEXT ACTUALLY IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE TRINITARIAN DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE FATHER AND THE SON
                              . - Rob Bowman, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Jesus Christ, & the Gospel of John, 1989.
                              A fancy dance. The verse LITERALLY says "an ho Theon" AND "pros ton Theon." There is no way it CAN be explained any other way. It literally says, word for word, in Greek AND in English "Was God" AND 'was with God." There is NO explaining away such clarity. NONE. It CANNOT be done.
                              ​​​​​
                              2) "This second theos could also be translated 'divine' as the construction indicates "a qualitative sense for theos"...The point being made is that the Logos is of the same uncreated nature or essence as God the Father" - Eastern / Greek Orthodox Bible, New Testament, 2008, p231,

                              3) “[It] is clear that in the translation "the Word was God", the term God is being used to denote his nature or essence, and not his person...The [traditional] rendering cannot stand without explanation.” - Harris, Murray J., Jesus as God: The New Testament Use of Theos in Reference to Jesus, 1992, p. 69

                              4) “The predicate (God) stands emphatically first, as in 4:24. ‘It is necessarily without the article (theós not ho theós) inasmuch asit describes the nature of the Word and does not identify His Person - B. F. Westcott as quoted by C. F. D. Moule An Idiom-Book of New Testament Greek. Cambridge: University Press. p. 116.
                              What IS clear is 1) "In the beginning, 'was the Word." Sorry, it is this simple. I'll ague ANY contender. It is this clear. 2) Kai "AND" the Word was " ton theon." Simply 'divine?' Greek is really clear with articles and they are virtually identified the same as "the" in English.

                              Where do Arians/Unitarians get mixed up?

                              The SECOND use of Word has no article "the" article. What does it mean? Simple: "And (the) God was the Word." OR "And God was the Word," LITERALLY. Verse 2 says "This SAME was with THE GOD."

                              Greek has a better word for 'divinity' or 'divine.' Just as -ly is used in English to differentiate between God and 'godly' so too in Greek and THAT word is NOT used.
                              While there may be a few scholars today that make these discussions less than stellar and clear, it IS this clear. Don't be a JW dupe.



                              Again, modern-day scholarship expresses that Jesus is not God according to John 1:1, rather he has the same nature as 'the God' mentioned in John 1:1, that 'God' mentioned is the Father. I accept that Jesus has the same nature as the Father, I don't believe any unitraian would have an issue with stating that, any more than they or I have an issue with stating that you or I have the same nature as our human Fathers. Having the same nature as someone however doesn't imply we are that person themselves, if it did, then John 1:1c would be teaching modalism, hence the reason why modern scholarship rejects the definite translation as seen above.
                              Incorrect. While some of them do muddy the waters with unclear discussion, it really is as clear as I've given. The rest is NO reason to be duped by a JW. They really don't know and simply desperately, latch on to something that has ANY semblance going in their favor even though those who write these are all Trinitarians. You'd THINK that a JW would WANT to know the truth, not just jump on to anything, anyone, desperately trying to hold on to a doctrine INSTEAD of simply understanding Greek and scripture. It simply, clearly, and literally says (word for word now, I'm not giving anything but what it actually DOES say): "In (the)beginning, was the Word, and the Word was with (the) God, and God was the Word." It is LITERALLY this clear and word for word.

                              So when you say, "WAS God." Sorry, fact. You nor any other poor student can do a thing to change this. You just cannot.", you are fact in disagreement with your own scholarly community who now accept the qualitative rendering.
                              Well, no, you put a couple of JW quotes in there, nor do they disagree. On top of that, I don't care. I CAN read Greek and I KNOW what it says. I'd simply have to argue the point with that professor that disagreed with me because I really do know what it says and I wrote it above.


                              Even scholars like Rob Bowman and James White, who are apologists and often speak and debate unitarians, readily admit Jesus is NOT God according to John 1:1c but rather, has the same nature as 'the God' mentioned, namely the Father, which unitarians do not deny. It is your own trinitarian brethren who have changed it. Moreover, you seem not to know many scholars have translated and published John 1:1c in bibles and other litrature different to how it is commonly translated (all Trinitarian translators beolow):
                              Apologists aren't necessarily Greek scholars. All I can tell you is what it DOES say in Greek. I cannot argue with every Greek student, but I can argue with about any Greek scholar if need be. It is as clear as I've stated.

                              “and the Word was a divine being” - La Bible du Centenaire, L’Evangile selon Jean, by Maurice Goguel, 1928.
                              Hmmm. You are saying a "LATIN" Bible says "divine" in English???? Doesn't make sense.


                              “and the Word was divine” - The Bible—An American Translation, by J. M. P. Smith and E. J. Goodspeed, 1935.
                              Poor translation. As I said, there IS a good Greek word for "divine" and it was NOT used in John 1:1.

                              "and he was the same as God" – Good News Bible, 1976, by the American Bible Society
                              1) Not a translation 2) it doesn't agree with you anyway.


                              "and what God was, the Word was" – New English Bible NEB
                              Same as above

                              "the Logos [Word] was divine" – A New Translation of the Bible, by James Moffatt
                              Again, same as above. A bit of help: θεῖοs is an 'adjective' (as is divine in most cases). John 1:1 is θεοs a N-O-U-N.
                              That's WHY I'd argue with a scholar about this. It really is as clear as this, regardless of confusion (purposeful, inept, or otherwise).
                              "and the word was a divine being” – The New Testament, by Jon Madsen 2017
                              Same as above, generally the works done by only one person are NOT translations.

                              “and a god (or, of a divine kind) was the Word” - Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Siegfried Schulz, 1975.
                              “and the Word was a God” - The New Testament, by James L. Tomanek, 1958.
                              "and the Word was a god" – The New Testament in Greek and English, 1822, by A. Kneeland
                              Horrible and I'll tell you why: There is no 'indefinite' article in the passage. It means, literally, that an indefinite article is most of the time: "out of place."
                              It also messes with the word order that should be literally "God was the Word." "A god was the Word" is poor translation, as I'm hopeful even you can see here.


                              “and a god was the word” - The Emphatic Diaglott, interlinear reading, by Benjamin Wilson, 1864
                              As with immediately above, there is NO indefinite article given in the Greek thus UNLESS for a REALLY REALLY good reason, should not be randomly thrown in, in the English.
                              “and of a divine kind was the Word” - Das Neue Testament, by Ludwig Thimme, 1946.
                              Uhmmm, German. Someone REtranslated something from Greek, THEN German, into English. This isn't great scholarship.



                              “and godlike kind was the Logos” - Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Johannes Schneider, 1979.
                              Again, a TRANSLATION from a foreign translation. Such is counter-intuitive for scholasticism and isn't of much academic virtue (simply is a confusion not at all helping the pertinent).

                              Again, you out of all people should know to say "John 1:1? Clear as a bell. "with God" ... "WAS God." Sorry, fact. You nor any other poor student can do a thing to change this", is to ignore how translation works and therefore is foolish. The Greek does not say "the Word was God" (the literal and word for word translation reads "a god was the word"), rather its "καὶ Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος", the Greek can be translated in many different ways according to grammar and context, as seen above. So to say that John 1:1c reads "was God" and "cannot be changed" is to ignore how translations works as the original was written in Greek.
                              No it cannot! Translations and transliterations are two different things. The NIV, for instance, does not propose to be a translation, but a transliteration (trying to convey a meaning as best as any particular scholars can do at the time of writing).




                              You said to me above "It is all this VERY simple: John 20:28 Thomas said TO Jesus, "You are my Lord and my God." Let me ask you a question: if this is 'literally' what scripture says, WHY? wouldn't you be open to just being whatever God says, clearly, you should be AND should believe?"

                              The reason why I do not accept what you propose is as I've already explained, we cannot have two truths that are both true but both contradict each other. The scriptures are clear, the is only 'one God' in the fullest and most unique sense of the word
                              Really appreciate this, no few Arians/Unitarians are polytheists, believing in many gods, literally. 👆

                              that person is ONLY ever stated as being the Father, "there is actually to us one God, the Father".
                              Is this true? You told me Isaiah 9:6 said something differently. Whatever is true, this "I" want to believe. I don't care about posturing so much. I just want God to mold me, instead of me trying to mold Him.


                              In 1 Cor 8:6 Jesus is LEFT OUT in Paul's category of who God was, ONLY the father is mentioned and thus, based on his words and others texts (John 17:3), ONLY the Father is the 'one God' as clearly expressed.
                              Agree to the first part, but isn't the end of your sentence a deduction? A 'conclusion' you drew? I do have to question conclusions (even mine). If scripture doesn't say it implicitly, I've learned to step back from the precipice lest it is 'me' and not necessarily God's theology. We all need to work on this: Just what scripture says and not taking 'logical' leaps.


                              You, of course, bring up John 20:28 where Jesus is called "God" by Thomas, this seems to contradict the fact the Father is the 'one God'.
                              Agree, it is 'why' scripturally, I have to be somewhere between Arian/Unitarian and Modalists in a zone called "trinitarian" simply because I read them both as you've rightly also read them here.


                              This is where texts that call other beings God/Elohim/theos come into play.
                              Isn't such a 'preconceived' notion though? Aren't we 'logicking" at that point? It isn't that I don't want to be logical, but I want to be careful that I don't close God into a box upon 'MY' conception of Him. In this instance, how do I 'know' elohim comes into play? Doesn't it have to necessarily be a supposition? A theory?


                              Are other beings in the bible called God/Elohim? Yes! Therefore when other beings are called theos/elohim does it necessitate or imply they themselves are the 'one God'? No! Based on these two questions as well as acknowledging the Father alone is categorized as being the 'one God', logic dictates that Jesus is not the 'one God' but is called God in a similar fashion to how other beings are called God.
                              For me, too simplistic. Thomas fell down at His feet and said this so it doesn't make sense to me OTHER than that Unitarians are partially right AND Modalists are partially right, and somehow, without being presumptuous, I've got to believe these scriptures without writing over them 'what I believe' lest these words and thoughts of mine, become scripture. I cannot have a bible written by Lon. I DO, however, want to thank you for this part of the conversation. It does, genuinely, appear at this point, that you are looking at scriptures with me, with integrity and honesty and I appreciate it, when you do this in posts.

                              Psalms 45:1,6 refers to an Israelite King as God (elohim OT, thoes LXX), "I will recite a lovely poem about the king...Your throne, O God, endures forever and ever. You rule with a scepter of justice". When the writer calls this King 'God' he, of course, isn't trying to say he is YHWH, but rather, the term god is being applied with the secondary and lesser sense of the word. Now guess what, the writer of Hebrews applies this verse to Christ in Hebrews 1:8! The writer could have picked 'any' verse in the entire OT that refers to YHWH as God, but instead, he picked a verse in which 'theos' is used with a secondary and lesser application and applied it to Christ, one must ask why this was done. It's obvious to me that this was done because Jesus isn't the 'one God' but is a secondary lesser god compared to the Father and therefore only a text such as Psalms 45:6 could be applied. Jesus does the same thing in John 10:33-36 when the Jews accuse him of making himself god. Jesus uses a reference of other beings being called gods in the secondary lesser sense AS HIS OWN DEFENSE of the charge of blasphemy put against him. Why would Jesus use a text that calls other beings gods who are NOT the 'one God' in his own defense? Jesus reasoning makes little sense unless he was claiming he could be called god in the same sense they were called gods.
                              Without going too far in depth, you do realize a good many people disagree with this take on scripture, yes? Its important, if only to keep us both humble lest our own thoughts trump God's words. It is ever the work of a scholar, humble servant, and lover of God, to be molded by scripture instead of wanting to mold them ourselves. For me, that would be/is a tragedy: that I'd in any way get in God's way with what I think rather than what it actually says.

                              Jesus is a God.
                              Because you've read this over and over, I have to forgive it, but realize again that such is liberty taken with translations. Greek never says this.

                              The same way "Moses was God to Pharoah"
                              A perception. A supposition. You are making a conclusion that I don't, at this time, believe scripture supports.


                              Jesus is God to Thomas and God to me, this is because Jesus is Gods most perfect representative and represents God so much that he can be called his very image.
                              I, of course, don't go this far with you BUT I do believe you can be considered very close to Trinitarian with such a sentiment. You are the very first (other than converts to Triune thought), that has ever said Jesus is God to you. I believe we are not as far apart upon such a statement, though we may continue to disagree on a lot, this draws us pretty close and I appreciate the sentiments. In the beginning of this post and another you posted in, I'd seen us departing with a lot of stark problematics. The end of this post, however, draws us closer on God's truths and that is encouraging. I want men and women drawn to God and when I see some semblance of agreement upon portions of our faith and trust in Christ, I'm encouraged. In Him - Lon


                              My New Years Resolution: 1 Peter 3:15
                              Omniscient without man's qualification. John 1:3 "Nothing"
                              Colossians 1:17 "Nothing" John 15:5 "Nothing"
                              Mighty, ALL mighty (omnipotent). Revelation 1:8
                              No possible limitation Isaiah 40:25 Joshua 24:15
                              Infinite (Omnipresent) Psalm 145:3 Hebrews 4:13

                              ? Yep

                              Now to Him who is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think... Amen. -Ephesians 3:20 & 21

                              ... when I became an adult, I set aside childish ways. Titus 3:10 Ephesians 4:29-32; 5:11

                              Separation of church and State is not atheism "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Lon View Post
                                Such is an ignorant statement that seeks a theory for an answer. You simply and clearly "DO NOT KNOW" and you make up this garbage simply because of stubbornness and arrogance.
                                You yourself already proven the matter to some small degree, how many backhanded comments have you made about Unitarians, why would you say such comments if you hold unitarians in high regard. Many -if not most- Christians see unitarians as the “conspiracist” theorist of the biblical world, and it has not always been this way but rather far worst, with many people being put to death simply for claiming Unitarianism as I mentioned before.

                                Er, no. 1% is the definition of special. It is only one out of 100 (or really 1000 and more). Hypocrite? Your arrogance, pride, and ignorance (willfully no less) is showing. Why? Why do you WANT to be the .1%? What other than pride is in it for you? Why wouldn't you want to read scriptures and simply believe what God says without equivocating, special pleading, and missing the forest? I'm not that guy. I don't WANT to be against the body of Christ. I'm very reserved with any point I disagree with the majority on. I WANT to be right and being in a minority on anything, causes me to pray a lot. You? Seems to make arrogant, willful, and prideful. Is that fruit of the Spirit? Try and revisit your 'hypocrite' accusation. There are always 3 fingers pointing back.
                                1% is the definition of special pleading??? Where are you pulling this stuff from? Special pleading is when someone tries to push their idea as an exception to a general or universal principle or rule. There is no need for any numerical value when gauging what is to be deemed special pleading or not.

                                Incorrect (which is why I don't esteem your academic prowess highly). It was Jamieson Fausset and Brown. Three well-respected Trinitarian scholars. Does it make it absolutely sure? No, but at the very least, you stand among your elders and betters against their assertion. These 3 are not alone. Read a few commentaries, most agree it is/means 'beginner' against YOUR blind (not knowing Greek other than through text helps) assertion.
                                Yes, you showed Jamieson Fausset and Brown commentary regarding the word, BUT I negated their claim and asked you a question regarding it which to this day you fail to address, thus, their point, which is also your point, was moot. I clearly recognized that you attempted to evidence your claim in my previous replies when I said, “You’ve given no reason in relation to Rev 3:14, 'WHICH AFTER BEING SCRUTINIZED', gives me any other reason to believe that Jesus is not the “beginning of the creation of God”, my claim that you were special pleading in this matter was due to your lack of reply to my rebuttal and answer to my question. You still clearly believe “arche” in rev 3:14 should mean beginner, and to date you’ve provided NO EVIDENCE that suggests it should be understood this way, apart from the already negated Jamieson Fausset and Brown commentary. Unless you bring anything else to the table the idea that you believe ‘arche’ means beginner here is special pleading.

                                I know of no Jew that believes Proverbs 8:22 is about the Lord Jesus Christ
                                Well of course a Jew wouldn’t see Prov 8:22 as referring to Jesus, since Jews reject that Jesus was the Messiah. Neither would they see Isaiah 9:6 as speaking about Jesus or any other prophetic text that relates to Jesus for that matter, if they did, they would no longer be Jews but Christians.

                                Prove the point. I know of no Jew that believes Proverbs 8:22 is about the Lord Jesus Christ. Why do YOU think it does???
                                Proverbs 1:1 The proverbsof Solomon the son of David, king of Israel. Proverbs 4:1 Sons, hear the instruction of a father, and listen in order to know understanding.
                                In Proverbs 8 verse four onwards it has wisdom speaking in the first person, this is the only time we find such a thing occurring in the bible. Wisdom, when being personified in the chapter has attributes and actions applied to it that make no sense if it is indeed speaking about God’s personal wisdom. For example, verse 30 states, “Then I [wisdom] was beside him [Jehovah] as a master worker. I was the one he was especially fond of day by day; I rejoiced before him all the time”. How can wisdom be “beside” God, how can YHWH be “fond” of wisdom, how can wisdom “rejoice”, these things only make sense if wisdom if referring to a person, and not an attribute. Moreover, if the wisdom that is being spoken of is in regards God's attribute of wisdom, then logically it means God was without wisdom since it was created/made/produced as stated in v22. God is eternal and so are his attributes, including internal wisdom, therefore the wisdom being spoken of cannot be in relation to his own internal wisdom and must refer to something else.

                                Jesus is clearly mentioned as being the “wisdom of God” (1 Cor 1:24) in scripture, Jesus himself identifies himself as wisdom in his teachings, “The Son of man did come eating and drinking, but people say, ‘Look! A man who is a glutton and is given to drinking wine…All the same, wisdom is proved righteous by its works”. Even what is spoken of in Proverbs 8 parallels Jesus, for example, Jesus is the one whom the Father made all things through (Hebrews 1:1,2, 1 Cor 8:6), Jesus helped in creating all things but is not the source of creation, Prov 8:30 and the preceding context states in regards to creation “Then I [wisdom] was beside him [Jehovah] as a master worker”. What is said ties in perfectly that Jesus was beside the Father and the one aiding him in creating, with the Father creating all things through him.

                                As I've mentioned before, many of the early church fathers -even the trinitarian ones- understood Prov 8:22 as referring to Jesus, understood the word qā-nā-nî to mean 'create', with even the Septuagint using the word 'create' in v22. All this being said, tied in with the fact Jesus is identified as wisdom in the NT along with the contextual parallels when reading the chapters (Prov 8v30 compare Hebrews 1:1,2, 1 Cor 8:6), it should be clear Jesus is the one being spoken of as wisdom. The only reason you and other Trinitarians deny the overwhelming evidence here is because it contradicts the doctrine of the trinity.

                                How is it possible that YHWH produced/made/possessed/created wisdom if YHWH as the eternal God has always internally had wisdom? Did YHWH have wisdom what is outlined in Prov 8:22?

                                Incorrect. I read it. Obviously you don't read the same commentaries but YOU already said that Moses was His representative and not representation so you are making a mountain out of mole-hill AND already argued WITH me over the point. Try and keep up. You are making up junk now just to posture and be arrogant. Stop? Just a strong suggestion.
                                Sigh...this is the issue when people refuse to answer questions. It was you that admitted that Moses was so-called god by God, have you forgotten already. In fact, I tried to highlight your contradiction and questioned you on it and you refused to answer, as usual. With one breath you say, "Moses was so-called god by God", and with the next you seem to say "Moses wasn't called god he was called a representative". Remember, it is my position that Moses was called Elohim IN THE SENSE of being a representative. The words "in the sense of" are what you should be focusing on here. Me saying that I believe Moses was a representative by being called Elohim, does not negate the fact he was called Elohim, try and stay focused and remember this.

                                LOL. Special pleading is when you are finding 'exceptions' and trying to make them as if they are true or when you take 1000 to one and try to make up a story as to why most are not Arian/Unitarian. There IS a reason and YOU are choosing to explain such away. That is the DEFINITION of special pleading, and yes, it is EXACTLY what you did and yes, I can explain why every time I've used the accusation, it is true.
                                Then please do so, show me an example where I made a special plea.

                                Originally posted by NWL
                                You stated above "I WHOLLY recognize the Lord Jesus Christ is not the Father", then why does Isaiah 9:6 call Jesus the Father, the question remains unanswered, which is not surprising at all.
                                Originally posted by Lon
                                Without posturing, I'm open to the correct. Explain yourself and the scripture, please. What do you believe it means? That Jesus is the 'everlasting Father?' Thanks, as a trinitarian, ahead of time for the answer.
                                Am I to take from your above response that you cannot make sense of how is called the Father in Isaiah 9:6 despite the trinity doctrine saying Jesus is a separate person from the Father? Only after you admit this is the case, or give some other explanation to your request, will I tell you my understanding of it. I am not here to be disagreeable to you or other Trinitarians, I'm here to try and speak and deduce the truth, but that also means that you must be humble enough to admit when you cannot explain something, as you have done at times, but only when it is convenient for you.

                                A fancy dance. The verse LITERALLY says "an ho Theon" AND "pros ton Theon." There is no way it CAN be explained any other way. It literally says, word for word, in Greek AND in English "Was God" AND 'was with God." There is NO explaining away such clarity. NONE. It CANNOT be done.
                                ​​​​​

                                Remember, we're talking about 'translation' here, It is undeniable that the literal "translation" of John 1:1c is "and the word was a thoes", you are disagreeing with big leaguers here:

                                "If translation were a matter of substituting words, a possible translation of [John 1:1c] would be, "The Word was a god". As a word-for-word translation it cannot be faulted " - C. H. Dodd, Technical Papers for the Bible Translator, 1977

                                "In fact the KIT [Appendix 2A, p.1139] explanation [why they have rendered John 1:1c as the Word was "a god"] is perfectly correct according to the best scholarship done on this subject." – Dr. Jason BeDuhn

                                "Accordingly, from the point of view of grammar alone, [theós en ho lógos] could be rendered "the Word was a god" - Murray J. Harris, p. 60, Jesus as God, 1992

                                "a god was the Word" - (based on grammar alone) W. E. Vine, An Expository Dictionary of the New Testament, p. 490

                                What IS clear is 1) "In the beginning, 'was the Word." Sorry, it is this simple. I'll ague ANY contender. It is this clear. 2) Kai "AND" the Word was " ton theon." Simply 'divine?' [IMG]file:///C:/Users/KODNWL/AppData/Local/Temp/msohtmlclip1/01/clip_image001.gif[/IMG] SHAPE \* MERGEFORMAT ​ SHAPE \* MERGEFORMAT SHAPE \* MERGEFORMAT ​​ Greek is really clear with articles and they are virtually identified the same as "the" in English.

                                The SECOND use of Word has no article "the" article. What does it mean? Simple: "And (the) God was the Word." OR "And God was the Word," LITERALLY. Verse 2 says "This SAME was with THE GOD."
                                Lon, if God was the word then who was he with? Remember, you state the verse states "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with THE GOD, and THE God was the word", the Word cannot both be with 'ho theos' and be God too since that would imply that he was either the Father, namely, the being he was with, or, he was with himself. This is exactly what Rob Bowman, the person whose response you said was a "fancy dance", highlighted; he said "The significance of theon being definite in Clause B, then, is to identify the One spoken of there as a specific person-God the Father. If then, theos in Clause C were to be ‘definite’ in the same way that theon is in Clause B, it would then be saying that the Word was God the Father". If the thoes in 1:1c is definite then Jesus is being identified as the Father!

                                The anarthrous predicate noun (thoes) before the verb in John 1:1c points to quality and class, it cannot be referring to identity. Hence the reason many scholars have stated the "word was divine", as what is being expressed by the language is qualitative and referring to the word having the same nature as THE God and not being identified as THE God mentioned. So you can try and claim Jesus was THE God mentioned in John 1:1 all day long, it simply means you're a modalist at heart.

                                Greek has a better word for 'divinity' or 'divine.' Just as -ly is used in English to differentiate between God and 'godly' so too in Greek and THAT word is NOT used.
                                While there may be a few scholars today that make these discussions less than stellar and clear, it IS this clear. Don't be a JW dupe.
                                This is why some translations render it "a god" rather than divine as they understand the term as applying Jesus to what type of being he is, namely a divine one, much like the angels are divine (1 Kings 22:21) who too also have the nature of God, namely, a spirit nature (see Hebrews 1:7, Hebrews 1:7).

                                (Pslams 82:1) "..God presides in the DIVINE assembly; He renders judgment among the gods.."

                                (1 Kings 22:21) "..Then a spirit came forward and stood before Jehovah and said, ‘I will fool him.’ Jehovah asked him, ‘How will you do it?.."

                                (John 4:24) "..God is a Spirit.."

                                Incorrect. While some of them do muddy the waters with unclear discussion, it really is as clear as I've given. The rest is NO reason to be duped by a JW. They really don't know and simply desperately, latch on to something that has ANY semblance going in their favor even though those who write these are all Trinitarians. You'd THINK that a JW would WANT to know the truth, not just jump on to anything, anyone, desperately trying to hold on to a doctrine INSTEAD of simply understanding Greek and scripture. It simply, clearly, and literally says (word for word now, I'm not giving anything but what it actually DOES say): "In (the)beginning, was the Word, and the Word was with (the) God, and God was the Word." It is LITERALLY this clear and word for word.
                                Trinitarians scholars are honest enough and come out and speak out about the traditional rendering of John 1:1c and you simply put it down and say "They really don't know", oh what, and YOU do? These people, who have become established in their field, no doubt to their above-average prowess would put themselves out there simply "because"??? If the translation is so clear in John 1:1 then why is there so much disagreement with it even with people who are on the same side? What you say and what is actually evident are two different things.

                                Again, if the translation is definite in John 1:1c then Jesus is either the trinity or the Father; Jesus cannot be with 'the' God and be 'the' God, John was identifying who the word was with in the beginning, he was with 'The God', namely the Father, if John's language in John 1:1c was intended to be definite then John was stating Jesus was God when he stated "and God was the Word".

                                Well, no, you put a couple of JW quotes in there, nor do they disagree. On top of that, I don't care. I CAN read Greek and I KNOW what it says. I'd simply have to argue the point with that professor that disagreed with me because I really do know what it says and I wrote it above.
                                When you say "JW quotes", do you mean quotes made by Trinitarians? Lol.

                                You say "I CAN read Greek and I KNOW what it says. I'd simply have to argue the point with that professor that disagreed with me because I really do know what it says and I wrote it above", and no doubt those trinitarian scholars would say the same thing about anyone who disagrees with them. The unique thing about them if that they're speaking out against the grain in their own community, it earns them ZERO brownie points and only disgruntlement from others who favour the traditional rendering, I doubt any trinitarian would put themselves out their like that unless they were very sure what they were saying had some substance.

                                Apologists aren't necessarily Greek scholars. All I can tell you is what it DOES say in Greek. I cannot argue with every Greek student, but I can argue with about any Greek scholar if need be. It is as clear as I've stated.
                                I clearly stated when I said it, they weren't only apologist but scholars.

                                Hmmm. You are saying a "LATIN" Bible says "divine" in English???? Doesn't make sense.
                                The rendering was translated into English, I thought that went without saying.

                                Poor translation. As I said, there IS a good Greek word for "divine" and it was NOT used in John 1:1.
                                You can’t see the inconsistency in your reasoning. There are better words for representative other than Elohim in Exo 7:1, yet you’re happy to understand Elohim to mean representative there. There are also better words for ‘ruler’ in 2 Cor 4:4 when Satan is called “the god”, you apply the understanding ruler despite this, likewise with Ps 8:5 where you again apply the term representative despite there being better words that were not used. So, this idea that “divine” is a poor rendering when you yourself substitute other words despite better words being available and NOT being used in other scripture shows you are being selective with this rule that you apply to John 1:1c usage of divine. Moreover, it was ‘you’ that stated in regards to the meaning of ‘elohim’, “In this case, it means 'god' but it also means 'godly' 'of god' or several other things pertaining to God”, so you’re fully aware Elohim, or the Greek equivalent theos, can mean ‘godly’, and this is the exact sense many trinitarian scholars insist John 1:1c must mean, that Jesus was godly, namely, divine.

                                A “poor translation” you say, and yet you understand the verse that implies Jesus is the very being he was with. Translating isn't about word for word, at times, other words are chosen in order to express what the writer was believed to have meant. Take Ps 8:5 for example, the verse uses the word 'Elohim', many translations render the word "angel", yet, the word Elohim is never used for angel or messenger so why did they use it, it was used because that's what the translator believes the writer is trying to express by the term. Likewise, yes, there are better words that could have been used if the writer wanted to specifically say "divine", I doubt any translator is trying to say 'divine' means 'theos' by their usage, rather they're simply trying to express what they believe John meant, namely that Jesus had a godly nature. All the qualitative translations say the same thing in essence:

                                and of a divine kind was the Word” - Das Neue Testament, by Ludwig Thimme, 1946.
                                “and a god (or, of a divine kind) was the Word” - Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Siegfried Schulz, 1975.
                                “and godlike kind was the Logos” - Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Johannes Schneider, 1979.
                                "and he was the same as God" – Good News Bible, 1976, by the American Bible Society


                                Again, same as above. A bit of help: θεῖοs is an 'adjective' (as is divine in most cases). John 1:1 is θεοs a N-O-U-N.
                                That's WHY I'd argue with a scholar about this. It really is as clear as this, regardless of confusion (purposeful, inept, or otherwise).
                                Again, no scholar is trying to say θεῖοs is in use here, they're simply classifying Jesus in a specific category of beings according to the language. John did not use a definite article, and since a singular anarthrous predicate noun before a verb can point to a quality about someone, the grammar in John 1:1c allows for such a thought to be translated. What makes no sense is that if the noun in John 1:1 is definite, as you claim, then contradicts John 1:1b, a point that I clearly stated and you have not addressed.

                                Same as above, generally the works done by only one person are NOT translations.
                                Yet here you are telling your translations of the text trumps everyone else's, lol.

                                Horrible and I'll tell you why: There is no 'indefinite' article in the passage. It means, literally, that an indefinite article is most of the time: "out of place."
                                It also messes with the word order that should be literally "God was the Word." "A god was the Word" is poor translation, as I'm hopeful even you can see here.
                                You said above "There is no 'indefinite' article in the passage", Huh? When does Greek ever use an indefinite article for you to use the lack of one as evidence that it's a poor translation??? Are you sure you have a Phd in Greek? It goes without saying the passage does not have an indefinite article, nor do countless anarthrous predicate nouns that proceed verbs in other scriptures, yet nearly all translations insert the indefinite article "a" when translating in the respective passages.

                                As with immediately above, there is NO indefinite article given in the Greek thus UNLESS for a REALLY REALLY good reason, should not be randomly thrown in, in the English.
                                As with the immediate above, Greek NEVER uses an indefinite article, so why even pretend it's a point against such a translation. You're either being deceitful and hoping I'm ignorant, or you don't know Greek as much as you say you do, in either case, you're being naughty.

                                Uhmmm, German. Someone REtranslated something from Greek, THEN German, into English. This isn't great scholarship.

                                Again, a TRANSLATION from a foreign translation. Such is counter-intuitive for scholasticism and isn't of much academic virtue (simply is a confusion not at all helping the pertinent).
                                This is a foolish deduction, do all the non-English speakers in the world discount all English translations and scholarly work simply because it's not their native language, nope! How you thought this would be a worthy reply I don't know.

                                No it cannot! Translations and transliterations are two different things. The NIV, for instance, does not propose to be a translation, but a transliteration (trying to convey a meaning as best as any particular scholars can do at the time of writing).
                                What did I say that made you assume I was trying to express they were the same thing??? I wasn't even speaking about transliterations; I was talking about the basic act of translation and nothing more. I stick by what I said, a literal translation of John 1:1c can be "and the word was a god".


                                Really appreciate this, no few Arians/Unitarians are polytheists, believing in many gods, literally. 👆
                                No unitarian are polytheist, you simply do not understand the bible use of certain words along with their primary and secondary meanings. Remember, you stated “There is only one God. Scripture calls all other gods 'so-called-gods’”, I then asked you, “how are they [Moses] ‘so-called’, you answered “because he [Moses] was 'so called' by God”. What needs to be recognised is you deny Moses was called god, rather you say he was called a representative (I claim he was called god BECAUSE he was a representative and ‘not’ that the word “elohim” means representative) in Exo 7:1. Yet 1 Cor 8:5 uses the term “so-called gods”, which you earlier applied as an example of God in relation to Moses. You conflate two ideas that are both contradictory.
                                I think you need to do some explaining, God so-calls others beings gods, as per the language in 1 Cor 8:5 (according to you), so when the scripture states “For even though there are so-called gods”, is Moses one of these “so-called gods”?

                                Is this true? You told me Isaiah 9:6 said something differently. Whatever is true, this "I" want to believe. I don't care about posturing so much. I just want God to mold me, instead of me trying to mold Him.
                                As I've said many times, there is one God in the unique and fullest sense of the word and only he holds this position, apart from him exist other beings that are called gods in the secondary sense, a fact you deny despite it being so clear. Angels are called Elohim, as is a human King, as is Moses, as is Satan in 2 Cor 4:4 (ho thoes). Jesus once said to the Jews, "You are doing the works of your father. They said to him: “We were not born from immorality; we have one Father, God" (John 8:41), the Jews claimed they had ‘one Father’, namely God, yet only a few moments before, in v38 they said “Our father is Abraham". Did the Jews think Abraham was their Father by their comments in John 8:41, no! They used the same term "Father" but in two very different unique ways. Likewise, there is only ‘one God’ of the bible, this does not mean others can't be referred to as gods in different senses, as you yourself have admitted according to 1 Cor 8:5!

                                Agree to the first part, but isn't the end of your sentence a deduction? A 'conclusion' you drew? I do have to question conclusions (even mine). If scripture doesn't say it implicitly, I've learned to step back from the precipice lest it is 'me' and not necessarily God's theology. We all need to work on this: Just what scripture says and not taking 'logical' leaps.
                                I would say it was Paul's deduction as it was him who stated "there is one God, the Father". Is the Father the ONLY person who is categorized as the 'one God' in 1 Cor 8:6?

                                I mean, John 17:1,3 is just as clear, "Father...the only true God".

                                Agree, it is 'why' scripturally, I have to be somewhere between Arian/Unitarian and Modalists in a zone called "trinitarian" simply because I read them both as you've rightly also read them here.
                                I used the words "this SEEMS to contradict", for a reason. You and I see the term "G-god" differently, you see the application of it to Jesus here as a claim he is the almighty, I do not any more than I see Moses being called God in Exo 7:1 as proof he is almighty God.

                                Isn't such a 'preconceived' notion though? Aren't we 'logicking" at that point? It isn't that I don't want to be logical, but I want to be careful that I don't close God into a box upon 'MY' conception of Him. In this instance, how do I 'know' elohim comes into play? Doesn't it have to necessarily be a supposition? A theory?
                                No, it's called interpreting scripture with scripture. This is probably why you can't make sense of Isaiah 9:6, why you can't make sense of others sharing God's glory despite him not sharing glory among other things.

                                It comes into play because scripture cannot contradict scripture, therefore we study other scriptures to try and come to a consistent explanation, Exo 7:1 along with the other texts I’ve mention explains the apparent application of ‘God’ to Jesus.

                                For me, too simplistic. Thomas fell down at His feet and said this so it doesn't make sense to me OTHER than that Unitarians are partially right AND Modalists are partially right, and somehow, without being presumptuous, I've got to believe these scriptures without writing over them 'what I believe' lest these words and thoughts of mine, become scripture. I cannot have a bible written by Lon. I DO, however, want to thank you for this part of the conversation. It does, genuinely, appear at this point, that you are looking at scriptures with me, with integrity and honesty and I appreciate it, when you do this in posts.
                                I wish you only did the same with me, since at present I have a mountain of questions and points you've purposely ignored, I pray you to obtain the same integrity and honesty I so you can treat me the same way I’m apparently treating you. I should let you know nothing I've said to you in our discussion thus far has been anything I haven’t already said to previous discussions I’ve had with others.

                                Without going too far in depth, you do realize a good many people disagree with this take on scripture, yes? Its important, if only to keep us both humble lest our own thoughts trump God's words. It is ever the work of a scholar, humble servant, and lover of God, to be molded by scripture instead of wanting to mold them ourselves. For me, that would be/is a tragedy: that I'd in any way get in God's way with what I think rather than what it actually says.
                                “too far in depth”?? You didn’t go in-depth in the slightest let alone too in-depth! All you did is make a fallacious appeal to the masses. If you think my interpretation is incorrect then give reasons why. The fact remains, an Israelite king is called God in Psalms 45:6 and the passage is applied to Jesus in Hebrews 1:8, which is significant in relation to identifying what type of G-god Jesus is. Also, Jesus does use an application of others beings that are gods in his own defense to the Jews claim he was making himself thoes, this is also significant in relation to identifying what type of G-god Jesus is.
                                In regards to the above, what exactly is in error, or are you not able to articulate a suitable response like you haven’t been able to with all my other questions.

                                Because you've read this over and over, I have to forgive it, but realize again that such is liberty taken with translations. Greek never says this.
                                Of course the Greek doesn’t say it, Greek lacks the grammar to be able to make such a statement like it lacks the grammar for many sentences found in English translations, SO WHAT. This is exactly what biblical translation -for the most part- is about, namely, determining what the writer did mean. Just because Greek lacks the definite article does not mean the writer did not understand Jesus to be a god. The Greek also never says that there are three persons who are God, you wouldn’t have an issue with stating such a thing. Again, your writings are rife with inconsistencies.

                                A perception. A supposition. You are making a conclusion that I don't, at this time, believe scripture supports.
                                Lol, this is hardly a supposition, nor am I making a conclusion scripture doesn’t support. How do I know this, because it’s the scripture making the claim NOT me! It’s the scripture that states Moses is “Elohim/God to Pharaoh”, I’m simply highlighting what it states. You’ve failed to explain where Elohim is ever used to mean 'representative' other than expressing there are commentaries where a scholar will say Moses was God IN THE SENSE he was a representative, I know of no scholar or commentary who states Elohim in Exo 7:1 literally means representative, I have read writing whereby scholars say Moses was called G-god because he was Gods representative, which is different compared to what you say.

                                I, of course, don't go this far with you BUT I do believe you can be considered very close to Trinitarian with such a sentiment. You are the very first (other than converts to Triune thought), that has ever said Jesus is God to you. I believe we are not as far apart upon such a statement, though we may continue to disagree on a lot, this draws us pretty close and I appreciate the sentiments. In the beginning of this post and another you posted in, I'd seen us departing with a lot of stark problematics. The end of this post, however, draws us closer on God's truths and that is encouraging. I want men and women drawn to God and when I see some semblance of agreement upon portions of our faith and trust in Christ, I'm encouraged. In Him – Lon
                                He is God to/of me, but he is not my God, my God is the God of Jesus, namely the Father. Satan is also God of me, in the sense that he is ‘ho theos’ of this world, this hardly makes Satan ‘my’ God though. I am consistent to the text, you are not, hence your confusion in relation to what I say. Again, my aim is not to be disagreeable with you, but it seems you make too many assumptions both based on the text of the bible and my written text to you.
                                Last edited by NWL; October 17, 2020, 04:18 AM.
                                If you cant beat them join them

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X