God will not give His glory to another, or will He?

[Jerry Shugart]

There are several examples that can be interpreted as Jesus claiming to be God, but there are no examples where Jesus actually made that claim.

What about what He said here?:

"And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last" (Rev.22:12).​

Unless you want to argue that there are two who are the Alpha and Omega and the beginning and the end then it becomes obvious that the Lord Jesus is God:

"I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely. He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son" (Rev.21:6-7).​

 

[Rosenritter]

You believe that Jesus is merely a title or a role, and not a personality the way Trinitarians do, so I can drop it for this conversation.

The "titles and roles" argument is not worth torturing the words of scripture to believe, when we have many examples that show that these are different divine beings and not merely different titles and roles.

I think you are demonstrating that you do not understand the meaning of "role."

I know nothing of "Biblical Unitarianism".

It would be "Unitarianism" that attempts to acknowledge the bible as the source of doctrine, specifically distancing itself from concepts such as "Unitarian Universalism" that makes clear breaks from bible integrity.

Why would I want to believe that God lied about it?

John 3:17 17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.​

Do you read this verse as saying "God put on the title of 'Son of God' in order to come into the world to save the world Himself"?

Yes. God sent his Son into the world that the world might be saved through his Son, that they might look upon "me whom they have pierced" and if he be lifted up, he might draw all men to him.

1 John 4:14 14 And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world.​

Do you read this verse as saying "God put off the title of 'the Father' in order to use the title of 'the Son', then God told everyone that the title of 'the Father' sent the title of 'the Son' to be the Savior of the world."?

No, I see God within both roles of Father and Son simultaneously. The Father is God as he is in heaven above, invisible, untouchable and out of reach. The Son is sent into the world and is neither invisible, untouchable, nor out of reach.

If God did it Himself, there would be no purpose in Him claiming to be both His own Son and His own Father, and no purpose in dying on the cross.I can't believe in your form of Modalistic Monarchianism that makes Jesus dying on the cross into God merely play-acting for no reason at all.

You don't see a reason for the death on the cross? Jesus said that it was to draw all men to him. You see absolutely no value in God demonstrating his love towards us that he is willing to shed his own blood? I could batter you with scripture here, but I think you may know it well enough to anticipate the passages.

Or are you suggesting that God must leave heaven if he will also walk on earth?

 

[genuineoriginal]

That argument doesn't go anywhere. It's merely an allegation of "not fair" that doesn't lead to anything constructive.

I am not crying about something not being fair.
I am being honest about the effects on the translators from their belief in the Trinity doctrine that began 300 years after the death of Jesus and was set up as the only proof that someone's beliefs were "Christian"

 

[genuineoriginal]

What about what He said here?:

"And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last" (Rev.22:12).​

Unless you want to argue that there are two who are the Alpha and Omega and the beginning and the end then it becomes obvious that the Lord Jesus is God:

"I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely. He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son" (Rev.21:6-7).​

Read this verse:

Matthew 3:17 17 And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.​

People that believe Jesus is both God the Father and the Son of God read it differently than other people.

It does not actually say "This is ME"

 

[genuineoriginal]

I think you are demonstrating that you do not understand the meaning of "role."

If you have changed the meaning of the word to support your theology, then no, I don't understand why anyone would do that to the word "role".
Can you explain how having multiple roles means God has to talk to himself as if he has multiple-personality disorder?

I see God within both roles of Father and Son simultaneously. The Father is God as he is in heaven above, invisible, untouchable and out of reach. The Son is sent into the world and is neither invisible, untouchable, nor out of reach.

That describes two different beings, not one.

You don't see a reason for the death on the cross?

The Bible states the purposes for the death on the cross.
If it is God Himself dying on the cross, then the purposes that the Bible states are rendered null and void, therefore there are left no purpose for Jesus to die on the cross.
If it is God Himself dying on the cross, then God is merely play acting and nothing about the death of Jesus on the cross has any effect on our salvation.

You see absolutely no value in God demonstrating his love towards us that he is willing to shed his own blood?

God shedding His own blood would do nothing to demonstrate His love for us.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Read this verse:It does not actually say "This is ME"

Here the His words again:

"And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last" (Rev.22:12).​

John certainly believed those words were the words of the Lord Jesus:

"He which testifieth these things saith, Surely I come quickly. Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus" (Rev.22:20).​

So unless you want to argue that there are two who claim to be the Alpha and Omega and the beginning and the end then you must believe that the Lord Jesus is God:

"I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely. He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son" (Rev.21:6-7).​

 

[genuineoriginal]

unless you want to argue that there are two who claim to be the Alpha and Omega and the beginning and the end then you must believe that the Lord Jesus is God

Romans 8:3 3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:​

If your argument is that God did not send His own Son, then you are arguing that we can't believe anything written in the New Testament, since God sending His Son is the central theme of the Gospel.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

If your argument is that God did not send His own Son, then you are arguing that we can't believe anything written in the New Testament, since God sending His Son is the central theme of the Gospel.

So you do believe that the Lord Jesus is not God even though He said the following about Himself?

"And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last" (Rev.22:12).​

Paul certainly believed that He is God because He says this about His future appearance:

"waiting for our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ" (Titus 2:13).​

 

[Rosenritter]

I am not crying about something not being fair.
I am being honest about the effects on the translators from their belief in the Trinity doctrine that began 300 years after the death of Jesus and was set up as the only proof that someone's beliefs were "Christian"

It's an allegation that presumes that God is unable to preserve his word, and besides this, you are using that as a contrived excuse to discount all scriptural arguments regardless of whether any alleged bias could have possibly have touched that deep. Do you think a Trinitarian bias wrote the Old Testament that "they shall look upon me whom they have pierced?" Do you allege that Trinitarian bias wrote the genealogy of man since Adam?

 

[Rosenritter]

Read this verse:

Matthew 3:17 17 And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.​

People that believe Jesus is both God the Father and the Son of God read it differently than other people.

It does not actually say "This is ME"

You do realize that (like you have done with me) you did nothing to answer his question? You evaded.

 

[Rosenritter]

If you have changed the meaning of the word to support your theology, then no, I don't understand why anyone would do that to the word "role". Can you explain how having multiple roles means God has to talk to himself as if he has multiple-personality disorder?

"Multiple personality disorder" would require multiple personalities. I have never seen a different personality in in God above, Christ on earth, the Lamb that was Slain, our High Priest, the Lion of Judah, so on and so forth. One personality, one consistent character.

If you would be willing to amend your question (more accurately) to as why the scripture speaks regarding different roles, it is because He who created all things was both in the role of God Above and the Messiah, the Lamb and our High Priest. It's a bit much to ask someone to grasp that the Judge and the Mediator and the Sacrifice are all the same. One role is presented at a time.

.... we even use similar models today with computer security, when we have an Administrative account and a User Account with standard rights. If this is your home computer, the same person uses both accounts, yet they are required to "talk" to each other and go through proper security channels.

If you meant by your question as to why Jesus prayed, he endured all trials and temptations as we, so that we might understand why he could mediate between God and man. He has no need to endure anything extra to be able to mediate between God... because God is already his true form... the special circumstance went into proving that he could mediate for man. Before his ascension to return to the glory with which he had before the world began, as Jesus he set aside his full power and glory. Jesus was separated from his presence in heaven above, thus prayer.

That describes two different beings, not one.

No more than Mediator and Sacrifice describe two different beings. Surely you do not deny that Jesus is both?

The Bible states the purposes for the death on the cross.
If it is God Himself dying on the cross, then the purposes that the Bible states are rendered null and void, therefore there are left no purpose for Jesus to die on the cross. If it is God Himself dying on the cross, then God is merely play acting and nothing about the death of Jesus on the cross has any effect on our salvation.

John 12:32-33 KJV
(32) And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.
(33) This he said, signifying what death he should die.

1 John 3:16-17 KJV
(16) Hereby perceive we the love of God, because he laid down his life for us: and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren.
(17) But whoso hath this world's good, and seeth his brother have need, and shutteth up his bowels of compassion from him, how dwelleth the love of God in him?

There was no play acting. If you cannot comprehend the meaning of God laying down his life for us, then you are lacking full impact of the gospel message. God is drawing all men unto himself. If you cannot understand how God can literally lay down his life, that is only a gap in your own understanding... which can yet be bridged.

God shedding His own blood would do nothing to demonstrate His love for us.

John states quite clearly that this is how God makes his love manifest towards us.

 

[genuineoriginal]

So you do believe that the Lord Jesus is not God even though He said the following about Himself?

"And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last" (Rev.22:12).​

If your understanding of what that verse implies is in contradiction with what this verse plainly states, are you willing to reject this verse?

John 5:30 30 [JESUS]I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me.[/JESUS]​

Paul certainly believed that He is God because He says this about His future appearance:

"waiting for our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ" (Titus 2:13).​

Paul is saying we are waiting for the appearing of the Savior Jesus Christ with the glory of our great God.
Just like Jesus said would happen.

Mark 13:26 26 [JESUS]And then shall they see the Son of man coming in the clouds with great power and glory.[/JESUS]​

 

[genuineoriginal]

It's an allegation that presumes that God is unable to preserve his word

It is disgusting that Christians presume that God is unable to do something when He clearly is unwilling to do it.

and besides this, you are using that as a contrived excuse to discount all scriptural arguments regardless of whether any alleged bias could have possibly have touched that deep.

It is a valid argument against proof texts that are used to promote an extra-Biblical doctrine.
If the extra-Biblical doctrine is different from what was believed by the first century Christians, then the proof texts used to support that change in belief must be examined with extra care to find out if there were any changes made.

Do you think a Trinitarian bias wrote the Old Testament that "they shall look upon me whom they have pierced?"

When John translated the verse, it said "look upon him" and not "look upon me".

John 19:37 37 And again another scripture saith, They shall look on him whom they pierced.​

Do you allege that Trinitarian bias wrote the genealogy of man since Adam?

Do you understand the difference between a Trinitarian bias influencing the translators to choose words for their translation that support the Trinitarian beliefs and the actual words in the original language that was used by the original writer?

 

[genuineoriginal]

the scripture speaks regarding different roles

If you are trying to claim that the scriptures speaks about different roles, you have to support that statement with scripture.
I have not seen the scripture speak about different roles, so at this point I am assuming you got that idea from somewhere other than scriptures.

He who created all things was both in the role of God Above and the Messiah, the Lamb and our High Priest. It's a bit much to ask someone to grasp that the Judge and the Mediator and the Sacrifice are all the same. One role is presented at a time.

You seem to be confused.
I am guessing it is because you are trying to impose your ideas (that God and Jesus are two roles for the same being) onto scripture instead of accepting that the scriptures speak of Jesus and God as if they are two different beings.

There was no play acting.

There is play acting if one being is playing two different roles to talk to Himself.

No more than Mediator and Sacrifice describe two different beings. Surely you do not deny that Jesus is both?

Did the Mediator send the Sacrifice? NO.
Did the Mediator state that the Sacrifice was greater than the Mediator? NO.
Did the Mediator tell the Sacrifice that the Mediator would do the will of the sacrifice and not the will of the Mediator? NO.

1 John 3:16-17 KJV
(16) Hereby perceive we the love of God, because he laid down his life for us: and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren.
(17) But whoso hath this world's good, and seeth his brother have need, and shutteth up his bowels of compassion from him, how dwelleth the love of God in him?

John states quite clearly that this is how God makes his love manifest towards us.

You do realize that the phrase "love of God" always refers to a man's love for God and not God's love for man (whenever it is not followed by another phrase such as "toward us")?
John said, "Hereby we perceive the love Jesus has for God, because Jesus laid down His life for us."

If you cannot comprehend the meaning of God laying down his life for us, then you are lacking full impact of the gospel message. God is drawing all men unto himself. If you cannot understand how God can literally lay down his life, that is only a gap in your own understanding... which can yet be bridged.

Unfortunately for your argument, the scriptures never say that God lay down His life for us, the scripture says that God sent His only begotten Son, Jesus, and that the Son of God lay down His life for us.

 

[Rosenritter]

It is disgusting that Christians presume that God is unable to do something when He clearly is unwilling to do it.

Matthew 5:18 KJV
(18) For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

Matthew 24:35 KJV
(35) Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.

Seems like God is willing to preserve his words... unless you're willing to allege that those words (above) are forgeries inserted by Trinitarian translators and not representative of God's will? Or is it only "not-God" that is willing to preserve "not-God's" words?

 

[Rosenritter]

It is a valid argument against proof texts that are used to promote an extra-Biblical doctrine.
If the extra-Biblical doctrine is different from what was believed by the first century Christians, then the proof texts used to support that change in belief must be examined with extra care to find out if there were any changes made.

When John translated the verse, it said "look upon him" and not "look upon me".

Sorry, failed argument. Not only do you lack any document of any sort to support that allegation, but even a comparison of John's other quote concerning the broken bones indicates that John is applying the text, and making slight adjustment for grammatical usage. Or does your argument also shift that the translators corrupted John on this quote as well?

Psalms 34:20 KJV
(20) He keepeth all his bones: not one of them is broken.

John 19:36 KJV
(36) For these things were done, that the scripture should be fulfilled, A bone of him shall not be broken.

The fact is that John attributed the passage in Zechariah as relating to Jesus which answers your theory that the "first century Christians did not perceive Jesus as God." You cannot get more first-century Christian than John and Paul. John clearly understood Jesus as God.

Zechariah 12:10 KJV(10) And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn.

John 19:37 KJV
(37) And again another scripture saith, They shall look on him whom they pierced.

Even if you claim the gospel of John was corrupted, what of Revelation here? Or do you just suggest that the writer John was corrupted?

Revelation 1:7-8 KJV
(7) Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen.
(8) I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.

That conspiracy theory does not hold up under scrutiny. It reminds me of the Jehovah's Witness argument to justify why they placed "JEHOVAH" left and right in the New Testament. When pressed I was shown the translation foreword, which admitted that "Jehovah" appeared in no known New Testament manuscript, but that they placed it there because "we all know it should have been there because no Christian would have written the New Testament without it!" At this point I throw up my hands and ask them, "Seriously?"

Essentially you are doing the same thing. Each and every place that attests to the identity of Jesus as Lord and God you are willing to strike out under the rationalization that it "must have been corrupted.... " by someone or somehow or someplace. With that foundation, I don't know why you think you can trust anything in the scripture at all, because that same argument could be used for anything, it needs no evidence.

 

[Rosenritter]

If you are trying to claim that the scriptures speaks about different roles, you have to support that statement with scripture. I have not seen the scripture speak about different roles, so at this point I am assuming you got that idea from somewhere other than scriptures.

What is wrong with your memory?

Hebrews 9:11 KJV
(11) But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building;

Christ (the Messiah) is one role, high priest in another. Two roles, one person.

Isaiah 44:6 KJV
(6) Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.

God is the King of Israel. God is also the redeemer of Israel. One person, two roles.

You cannot honestly say you have not seen different roles presented in scripture. There's no point in proceeding upon any point when you conveniently forget the most basic items which we already had agreement.

 

[genuineoriginal]

Matthew 5:18 KJV
(18) For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

Matthew 24:35 KJV
(35) Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.

Seems like God is willing to preserve his words...

Seems like you like to read into scripture what it doesn't actually say.

God has never promised to protect the translations of His words to guard them against changes.
Simply comparing the translations we currently have prove that man can change the words of God.

Which translation is preserving the words of God?
The one that says "His ways are always grievous" or the one that says "His ways are always prospering"?

Psalm 10:4-5 KJV 4 The wicked, through the pride of his countenance, will not seek after God: God is not in all his thoughts. 5 His ways are always grievous; thy judgments are far above out of his sight: as for all his enemies, he puffeth at them.​

Psalm 10:4-5 NKJV 4 The wicked in his proud countenance does not seek God; God is in none of his thoughts. 5 His ways are always prospering; Your judgments are far above, out of his sight;​

 

[Jerry Shugart]

If your understanding of what that verse implies is in contradiction with what this verse plainly states, are you willing to reject this verse?

John 5:30 30 [JESUS]I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me.[/JESUS]​

Have you never read the following about the Lord Jesus?:

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

The Lord Jesus was made flesh and served the Father by doing the will of the Father.

Now it is your time to answer my question. Is it just God who is the Alpha and the Omega and the beginning and the end?

 

[genuineoriginal]

Sorry, failed argument. Not only do you lack any document of any sort to support that allegation, but even a comparison of John's other quote concerning the broken bones indicates that John is applying the text, and making slight adjustment for grammatical usage. Or does your argument also shift that the translators corrupted John on this quote as well?

Psalms 34:20 KJV
(20) He keepeth all his bones: not one of them is broken.

John 19:36 KJV
(36) For these things were done, that the scripture should be fulfilled, A bone of him shall not be broken.

"All his bones", "a bone of him", both say the same thing.
"Look upon him", "look upon me", both say different things.

That conspiracy theory does not hold up under scrutiny.

It is not a conspiracy theory, it is reality.
Bible translators write what they understand the verses to say.
No translator can translate the Bible without altering verses to read closer to the doctrines they believe than to doctrines they don't believe.

Each and every place that attests to the identity of Jesus as Lord and God you are willing to strike out under the rationalization that it "must have been corrupted.... " by someone or somehow or someplace. With that foundation, I don't know why you think you can trust anything in the scripture at all, because that same argument could be used for anything, it needs no evidence.

There has to be evidence in order for this argument to work.

When there are differences between the Textus Receptus (TR), the Majority Text (MT) and the Novum Testamentum Graece (CT), which one(s) of them has it right?

1 John 5:7-8 TR: For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness on earth: the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three agree as one. MT/CT: For there are three that bear witness: the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three agree as one.​

Do we believe the older manuscripts or the newer ones that appear to have been altered?
Do we believe according to the way the Christians did in the first three centuries (Subordinationism) or according to the way Christians did after much debate (Trinitarianism)?