Jesus is God !

[TrevorL]

Greetings again Lonster,

Yet He had glory 'with His Father' before the earth was formed (Colossians 1:15-20 'by Him' incidentally). Does your narrative account for all of scripture revelation? If not, it isn't going to be accurate, just a postulated idea that scripture can show wrong.

We could discuss many Scriptures, but I most probably have a different understanding of what you are suggesting and Colossians 1:15-20. I do not consider that these alter my perspective on the promise to David. I consider that I have a reasonable overall perspective and on the subject of “glory” the following are interesting:
Psalm 8:4–6 (KJV): 4 What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him? 5 For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honour. 6 Thou madest him to have dominion over the works of thy hands; thou hast put all things under his feet:

John 12:27–28 (KJV): 27 Now is my soul troubled; and what shall I say? Father, save me from this hour: but for this cause came I unto this hour. 28 Father, glorify thy name. Then came there a voice from heaven, saying, I have both glorified it, and will glorify it again.

Most of whom? The ones who 'conflict?' They don't, if you follow this.

The following from that wiki article is sufficient for me to reject that concept.

“In Kierkegaard's Philosophical Fragments, the dual nature of Christ is explored as a paradox, i.e. as "the ultimate paradox", because God, understood as a perfectly good, perfectly wise, perfectly powerful being, fully became a human, in the Christian understanding of the term: burdened by sin, limited in goodness, knowledge, and understanding. This paradox can only be resolved, Kierkegaard believed, by a leap of faith away from one's understanding and reason towards belief in God; thus the paradox of the hypostatic union was crucial to an abiding faith in the Christian God.
As the precise nature of this union is held to defy finite human comprehension, the hypostatic union is also referred to by the alternative term "mystical union".”

Trevor, you need to 1) reread what I wrote and 2) not be so defensive you make false accusation simply, and only, to barricade Unitarian thought. You literally 'made up a story' about me making up a story. ASK any of your professors to read what I wrote. What Bible seminary are you attending? Which of 'your Hebrew' teachers are you talking about? I need to call your school and talk with your professors directly.

I have reread your explanation, and the impression is that you are saying that there are two meanings, “I will be” and “I am”. I only accept “I will be” as the correct translation of “Ehyeh” in Exodus 3:14.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[Lonster]

Greetings again Lonster,


We could discuss many Scriptures, but I most probably have a different understanding of what you are suggesting and Colossians 1:15-20. I do not consider that these alter my perspective on the promise to David. I consider that I have a reasonable overall perspective and on the subject of “glory” the following are interesting:
Psalm 8:4–6 (KJV): 4 What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him? 5 For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honour. 6 Thou madest him to have dominion over the works of thy hands; thou hast put all things under his feet:

John 12:27–28 (KJV): 27 Now is my soul troubled; and what shall I say? Father, save me from this hour: but for this cause came I unto this hour. 28 Father, glorify thy name. Then came there a voice from heaven, saying, I have both glorified it, and will glorify it again.

These parts of discussion leave me believing you've a ways to go in your learning and are probably fairly young in age. My question was whether your 'theology' does any damage to the rest of the Bible. It was asking if you acknowledge the Lord Jesus was with God the Father before any of creation. Some Unitarians believe so, others believe no, that there was not a very long time (let alone forever) because they believe Jesus is created, and most Unitarians believe created physically, as 'part' of Creation being the 'first born' as they say it. It is truly naive and incomplete (and impossible) theology. Anyone able to see that Jesus wasn't part of 'creation' as a 'creation' but was creator, realizes this by necessity. Unitarians that don't grasp this have Jesus being 'firstborn' as part of creation, then 'born' yet again at incarnation. They never fully realize how awkward their own theology belief is, they have the Lord Jesus Christ being 'created' two different times, awkwardly and with no scriptural support. I was asking where you stood on the matter and you didn't answer the question. "Does your theology stance, purposefully, or inadvertently, do damage to any other scripture?" was the question.

The following from that wiki article is sufficient for me to reject that concept.

No, it would be sufficient to reject Kierkegaard (where I share reservation) but you are rejecting the whole article? Kierkegaard was a very little portion of that link which I've given for your education. Wiki's intent was not to favor any particular take, but share a bit of historical context including a few points where that the author of the wiki article may or may not agree. Pertinent to you, should have been the historical teaching of the Hypostatic union. The tenor of the Wiki piece was to give a history, including proponents and disagreements, not fodder for a full dismissal of all of it altogether. Its like rejecting an encyclopedia because it contains a story of any particular president you don't like. Such is an immaturity.

have reread your explanation, and the impression is that you are saying that there are two meanings, “I will be” and “I am”. I only accept “I will be” as the correct translation of “Ehyeh” in Exodus 3:14.

Both are evidenced and given. Your teachers cannot disagree (I'm very sure they do not). It leaves you very much alone, and rejecting TO build YOUR construct. That isn't wise or good theology. In your persistence, you are going to quickly become unteachable, where the only thing left is the judgement. I want my theology to be "His" theology. Any arrogant anybody can make up a theology that fits them. I don't want that for me. I certainly don't want that for you. The 'loner' approach to 'I only accept' or 'pick and choose like in a deli' theology is not acceptable theology to God (nor Christendom either).

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again Lonster,

they believe Jesus is created, and most Unitarians believe created physically, as 'part' of Creation being the 'first born' as they say it. It is truly naive and incomplete (and impossible) theology.

I do not endorse this view. My understanding is that Jesus did not exist before he was conceived and born. Normally when two parents have a child, we do not speak of the child being created. With Jesus he was conceived by the Holy Spirit and thus the One God, God the Father is the father, while Mary is the mother Matthew 1:20-21, Luke 1:34-35, John 1:14. Jesus was not “created” as such, but conceived and born, but the whole process of God being involved in his conception and birth, and his moral development and his resurrection makes Jesus the Firstborn of the New Creation Psalm 8.

you are rejecting the whole article

Yes, I am rejecting the whole concept that Jesus had two natures, and I am not willing to go against reason to accept such an impossibility.

Both are evidenced and given.

I do not accept that “Ehyeh” in Exodus 3:14 has both meanings despite your many words. I accept “I will be”.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[Lon]

Regarding Matt. 19:17, this verse appears in no extant Greek manuscript predating the compilation of orthodox Christian scripture in the mid-to-late 4th century CE.

There are a good many of those from fragments. There is no 'forensic' but rather deduction when trying to piece together differences from manuscript.

At that time, the Greek version of this verse (spec., ΤΙΜΕΕΡΩΤΑΣΠΕΡΙΤΟΥΑΓΑΘΟΥΕΙΣΕΣΤΙΝΟΑΓΑΘΟΣ, "Why do you ask me about what is good? One exists that is good") was replaced by the wording in the parallel accounts seen in Mark 10:18 and Luke 18:19 ("Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone."; see Metzger, TCGNT 2nd ed, 39). The wording seen in the KJV is a form of that parallel wording.

Again, such points to deduction on the part of any scholar which is not forensic. It is 'an educated guess.' Frankly, we don't know why there are differences, just that their are. If this were a legal matter in a court case, there would be no way a Judge could rule in favor.

There is no reference in this verse, either direct or implied, that Jesus is God. Rather, Jesus was:

Whereas none of your above is debatable, this certainly is. MOST scholars, men and women of God who have been through languages and contextual grammar disagree, and say it is a clear indication (because IT IS). It means, with all my academics behind me with all the degrees etc. that you are incorrect. It IS seen as EITHER direct by some and implied and odd when in the first breath you are attempting to show it isn't biblical but an addition. Its become a convolution of thought. What is the point of all this, then?

1. expressing in couched terms (to avoid being killed by his opponents) that the word "God" means love and goodness (1 John 4:8; Matt. 11:15),

Link, please.

1. and
2. contrasting his understanding of the nature of God with the tribal and cruel spirit God, YHVH (Jehovah), revered by the Jews both then and now.

Link please. I know of no commentary that says either nor does the context suggest either. It is a violence to rip meaning from a text and contrive a meaning and far removed, drawn assumptions bordering on bizarre. There is NO way to directly derive either from the text and you literally had to jump the bible to other books to make such a case.

 

[Lon]

I am using the term nature/ essence ("ousia") in the same way that the Fathers of the Church used it. Perhaps you mean something else.

Essence. He's using it correctly (good to see you Pneuma). How do you use it?

The nature of God is not "in" us.

Colossians 1:27

Our souls are impermanent by nature; only by God's grace are they immortal,

Man separated from God is certainly broken thus the need and reason for Christ, but if originally immortal, and there is every reason to think so since 'death impermanence was the curse, then while it is true that grace is of necessity, it wasn't the sole means of immortality of humans. In discussing the nature of God and man in these threads, there is a need for being exacting in these. It is the nature of this thread to show, in clarity, biblical necessities without doing damage to those texts.

because God is the only one immortal by nature.

I believe this needs a postulation for inspection before pronouncement. Iow, it needs to be a question, not a statement, that way the rest of the forum could weigh in without challenging your conclusions, but instead help. Immortality is defined 'the ability to live forever' thus God can and has made beings that are/were immortal.

 

[Lon]

Greetings again Lonster,

I do not endorse this view. My understanding is that Jesus did not exist before he was conceived and born. Normally when two parents have a child, we do not speak of the child being created. With Jesus he was conceived by the Holy Spirit and thus the One God, God the Father is the father, while Mary is the mother Matthew 1:20-21, Luke 1:34-35, John 1:14. Jesus was not “created” as such, but conceived and born, but the whole process of God being involved in his conception and birth, and his moral development and his resurrection makes Jesus the Firstborn of the New Creation Psalm 8.

Sigh, I know you believe it. It isn't true, but I know what you believe.

Yes, I am rejecting the whole concept that Jesus had two natures, and I am not willing to go against reason to accept such an impossibility.

Understood. You've a long lonely road ahead of you as you Maverick through your theology...

I do not accept that “Ehyeh” in Exodus 3:14 has both meanings despite your many words. I accept “I will be”.

Kind regards
Trevor

Sadly, I realize that too. There is very little to talk about with you. You make up your own mind with very few tools to do so. Suggestion: Get the tools, then learn from master wood carvers before thinking you are as capable. Theology is the same.

 

[Right Divider]

I do not endorse this view. My understanding is that Jesus did not exist before he was conceived and born.

Joh 17:5 KJV And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.

You need to correct your incorrect understanding.

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again Lon (Lonster) and Right Divider,

There is very little to talk about with you. You make up your own mind with very few tools to do so. Suggestion: Get the tools, then learn from master wood carvers before thinking you are as capable. Theology is the same.

I agree we have covered our differences, but I have not seen much evidence of your superior scholarship, but you have been verbose and other features. I also mentioned your name (Lonster - have you had a shave? Or a change of heart?) in the JW thread.

Joh 17:5 KJV And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was. You need to correct your incorrect understanding.

My only explanation at the moment (and I am reasonably happy with this) is that the glory was in prospect, in that when God started on the Creation of this earth, hence “before the world was”, he had in mind that Jesus would be born, that he would suffer and die and be crowned with glory and honour. Even the following speaks in the past tense, as if it had already occurred, but it is the prophetic past, in that it was sure to be accomplished.
Psalm 8:4-6 (KJV): 4 What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him? 5 For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honour. 6 Thou madest him to have dominion over the works of thy hands; thou hast put all things under his feet:

John 12:27-28 (KJV): 27 Now is my soul troubled; and what shall I say? Father, save me from this hour: but for this cause came I unto this hour. 28 Father, glorify thy name. Then came there a voice from heaven, saying, I have both glorified it, and will glorify it again.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[Lon]

Greetings again Lon (Lonster) and Right Divider,

I agree we have covered our differences, but I have not seen much evidence of your superior scholarship,

Er, what would I use? Fancy Greek? Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ Λόγος, καὶ ὁ Λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν Θεόν, καὶ Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος. (actually just common Koine Greek). A lot of intellectual term like Hypostatic Union or Antidisestablishmentarianism? Perhaps a copy of my diplomas? Maybe I'm just not working hard enough. How about we both take an IQ test and an online Theology test and see how we both conversely do? What are you looking for? Is there even a need? How about I just post what the Bible says and perhaps explain from any of these backgrounds I have that may help, and show you why any particular is important? I'll leave 'superior' to your evaluation. You've a right to choose your own professor (though a good many colleges don't allow that and place you, even if you prefer another :Z ). At least here, you are free to choose your own and I'm not slighted in the least.

but you have been verbose and other features.

:chuckle: Sorry, that was funny on a couple of levels. I am remiss and it does give you grounds to question my academic prowess, but I've a little ADHD, thus 'squirrel' and this tickled my funny bone.

I also mentioned your name (Lonster - have you had a shave? Or a change of heart?) in the JW thread.

I need a bit more to go on. Without a lot to go on: 1) I've had a few issues on TOL with my login but it seems okay for now. 2) I do have changes of heart. I want to be pleasing both to God and man, so look for ways, creatively or by eating crow, to engage another concerning love for the Savior and His words. In the JW thread? Yes, I trimmed a bit there too. Initially I wanted you to address your own 'snarky.' I can call it out as poor behavior or try subtly to bring out the better parts. Sometimes we need a thump, sometimes we need a gracious word. Wisdom is discerning which is needed at the right moment.

My only explanation at the moment (and I am reasonably happy with this) is that the glory was in prospect, in that when God started on the Creation of this earth, hence “before the world was”, he had in mind that Jesus would be born, that he would suffer and die and be crowned with glory and honour. Even the following speaks in the past tense, as if it had already occurred, but it is the prophetic past, in that it was sure to be accomplished.
Psalm 8:4-6 (KJV): 4 What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him? 5 For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honour. 6 Thou madest him to have dominion over the works of thy hands; thou hast put all things under his feet:

John 12:27-28 (KJV): 27 Now is my soul troubled; and what shall I say? Father, save me from this hour: but for this cause came I unto this hour. 28 Father, glorify thy name. Then came there a voice from heaven, saying, I have both glorified it, and will glorify it again.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again Lon,

Er, what would I use? Fancy Greek? ... A lot of intellectual term like Hypostatic Union ... Perhaps a copy of my diplomas? ... How about we both take an IQ test and an online Theology test and see how we both conversely do? What are you looking for? Is there even a need? How about I just post what the Bible says and perhaps explain from any of these backgrounds I have that may help, ... I'll leave 'superior' to your evaluation. You've a right to choose your own professor (though a good many colleges don't allow that and place you, even if you prefer another :Z ). At least here, you are free to choose your own and I'm not slighted in the least.

I was reacting to some of your comments such as:

You make up your own mind with very few tools to do so. Suggestion: Get the tools, then learn from master wood carvers before thinking you are as capable. Theology is the same.

Both are evidenced and given. Your teachers cannot disagree (I'm very sure they do not). It leaves you very much alone, and rejecting TO build YOUR construct. That isn't wise or good theology. In your persistence, you are going to quickly become unteachable, where the only thing left is the judgement.

I consider most of this was more bluff, than reality.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[Lon]

Greetings again Lon,

I was reacting to some of your comments such as:


I consider most of this was more bluff, than reality.

Kind regards
Trevor

I'm not sure I'll ever quite 'get you,' Trevor. You are a bit of an enigma.

 

[Nanja]

Adoration and Worship to Him !

Adoration and Worship to Him !

We know that Jesus is God from the Adoration and Worship He receives from the Angels and the Redeemed along with His Father, so to say Jn 5:23

That all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him.

Which if Christ the Son was not God, would contradict Isa 42:8

I am the Lord: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise to graven images.

That word Glory kabowd:

the honour due to me See Isa 48:11 !

Now we read in Rev 1:5-6

5 And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood,

6 And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him [Christ] be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.

It should be understood that Vs 6 refers to Christ, and it is ascribed to Him Glory forever ! But what about Isa 42:8;48:11 ?

How can Christ be ascribed Glory and Dominion for ever and ever if He is not God as well as the Father is God ?

Notice Dan 7:14

14 And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed.

This describes Jesus Christ, However the same Glory and Dominion is ascribed to the God of All Grace 1 Pet 5:10-11

10 But the God of all grace, who hath called us unto his eternal glory by Christ Jesus, after that ye have suffered a while, make you perfect, stablish, strengthen, settle you.

11 To him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.

Now cp Rev 1:6 Glory and Dominion for ever and ever with that Glory and Dominion for ever and ever here in 1 Pet 5:11

11 To him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.

Here its to the God of all Grace in Rev 1:6 its to Christ ! This proves that Christ is also the God of all Grace equally with the Father or we have serious Idolatry issues !

Again equal Adoration and Worship to both the Father and the Son Rev 5:11-14

11 And I beheld, and I heard the voice of many angels round about the throne and the beasts and the elders: and the number of them was ten thousand times ten thousand, and thousands of thousands;

12 Saying with a loud voice, Worthy is the Lamb that was slain to receive power, and riches, and wisdom, and strength, and honour, and glory, and blessing.

13 And every creature which is in heaven, and on the earth, and under the earth, and such as are in the sea, and all that are in them, heard I saying, Blessing, and honour, and glory, and power, be unto him that sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb for ever and ever.

14 And the four beasts said, Amen. And the four and twenty elders fell down and worshipped him that liveth for ever and ever.

For if the Son who is the Lamb was not the exact equal to the Father, we have here the highest act of Idolatry that can be found in scripture; and also noting the single pronoun Him used in Vs 14, that is indicative of Both the Father and the Lamb being One God !

Remember Jesus had stated once before Jn 10:30

30 I and my Father are one.

Amen to the Truth, Brother !

 

[NWL]

Do you understand the incredible damage you do to scriptures, in the eyes of Trinitarians?

I can say the same thing in regard to Trinitarians.

Do you realize how offensive trampling, or seeming at the very least, to trample scripture is to one who holds scriptures as the accurate and grammatically true, conveyance of God to man?

I can say the same thing in regard to Trinitarians.

One Unitarian told me John 20:28 was Thomas saying "Oh my G--!" That's blasphemy, taking the Lord's name in vain. A good many of you literally believe that Thomas uttered God's name in vain which is 1) absurd because "Oh my G!" is a modern usage of taking His name in vain (invoking His name for a common thus profaned ordinary usage) and 2) that it is accusing Thomas of a grievous sin, all so a Unitarian can deny the absolutely clarity of John 20:28.

I don't have that understanding. A number of unitarians do not share in all the same beliefs as me the same way a number of Trinitarians do not share in all the same beliefs as you. Perhaps you should complain to the one who made such a comment, if you haven't already, rather than complaining to me.

That's incredible to me. Can a Unitarian NOT see that is exactly what they are doing (denial or not, that is exactly, grammatically, structurally, the essence of the argument)? Who would want to hold to a man-held idea, SO STRONGLY, they are willing to malign God very God to do so? How does that even make any kind of holy righteous sense, in a Unitarian's mind?

You literally believe in a doctrine that was not taught by Jesus or the apostles, everything I believe the scriptures literally state.

 

[JudgeRightly]

You literally believe in a doctrine that was not taught by Jesus or the apostles, everything I believe the scriptures literally state.

Except for the fact that the triune God is, in fact, taught in and throughout scripture, and even by Jesus Himself. Just because you can't see it there doesn't mean it's not there, and just because you can't understand it doesn't make it false.

 

[Trump Gurl]

Do you understand the incredible damage you do to scriptures, in the eyes of Trinitarians?

I can say the same thing in regard to Trinitarians.

I don't think so since Trinitarians gave you the scriptures. Do you understand that the New Testament was canonized decades after the Council of Nicea which authoritatively declared that Jesus was fully God and fully Man?

 

[NWL]

Except for the fact that the triune God is, in fact, taught in and throughout scripture, and even by Jesus Himself. Just because you can't see it there doesn't mean it's not there, and just because you can't understand it doesn't make it false.

I'd be more than happy to hear where you believe scripture teaches the trinity, please just take into account what teach actually means.

Please show us where Jesus or anyone else 'taught' the trinity JR, if you will?

 

[NWL]

I don't think so since Trinitarians gave you the scriptures. Do you understand that the New Testament was canonized decades after the Council of Nicea which authoritatively declared that Jesus was fully God and fully Man?

No, trinitarians did not give anyone the scriptures, the people who wrote the scriptures gave us the scriptures.

Just because people who belonged to the church collected the writings and books of people and compiled them all together does not mean the writings are from them.

If I got the quaran, the bible, the book of mormon and other alleged holy books and complied them all together and called it the the "complete bible" and printed it, I'd have no write to claim the writings are from me, as all I've done is complied the writings of others. Likewise, trinitarians did not write the NT, they merely compiled the writings of others into a single document.

 

[Lon]

My previous...question: ... if there are others who are called G-god who are not the 'one God' and who the originator of creation is.

1 Corinthians 8:5 We know that an idol is nothing at all in the world, and that there is no God but one. 5For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as there are many so-called gods and lords), 6yet for us there is but one God, 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 and through whom we exist.

To me, this part of the discussion seems clear. Isaiah says there is not God but Himself as well. It has to be seen, without our reasoning, what is meant, because I do agree with you "ye are gods" is said, but it doesn't literally mean we create worlds, are perfect, are without beginning or end. Thus there is a huge huge set of differences, especially when scripture itself says we wither today and are gone tomorrow and 'what is man, that You are mindful of him?'

You've previously stated Jesus is the originator of creation as scripture states "all things" (panta) have been created through him. Because of the language used you no doubt conclude he cannot be part of creation as "all things" were created through him, he therefore cannot be part of creation with contradicting verse ("All things came into existence through him, and apart from him not even one thing came into existences" John 1:3).

Yes, you are correct. I do believe that.

My question is this, in Hebrews 2:8 it states God subjected "all things" under man and "left nothing that is not subject to him

", since God and the Angels would no doubt be included in the "all things",

How come? Isn't it 'all things' the 'work of His hands' only? Hebrews 2:7 How do you see 'under his feet'? as figurative or literal?

according to your own reasoning, does this mean God and the Angels subject to Man,

Why? If it is only 'all things that are the physical works of His hands' wouldn't it only be Earth as he was placed caretaker of the Garden?

or is the "all things" and God "leaving nothing NOT subject to Man" not inclusive of God himself and the Angels?

Yes, if 'all' is understood as all of a something. This may be too crude analogy but it may suffice: "I've used all the sugar in my home."

Two points, there is much more than sugar in my cupboards and all the sugar in my home isn't all the sugar in the world. Then, if you pressed me, I suppose you could catch me on a technicality if I have chocolate chips or ice cream yet, but it'd depend on the context. If you asked, to borrow a cup, you'd certainly not want a cup of chocolate chips. All, always means 'everything of a specific or broad something.' Hopefully, scripture itself tells us the breadth or narrowness of its use of all. Thankfully, both of your passages do so. John 1:3 says "and without Him, not one thing was made, that was made." That's really clear. In your Hebrews example, there is a narrower scope "works of His hands."

 

[Lon]

I can say the same thing in regard to Trinitarians.

One set of scriptures at a time. I appreciate you believe that, but you have to (please) try and remember we are 'partially' arian in our name. It means we don't quite trample as bad as Unitarians do, us. You already believe Jesus is God in some qualified sort. It is the "Jesus is not God" that it troubling, thus you offend more than you are offended. Further, this is talking about some very specific doctrines that precisely tie Thomas into outright blasphemy ONLY to save Arian/Unitarian theology. I'm glad it isn't you, but it is still awful and part of 'your' crowd, not mine.

So let me address, in this specific scripture, if you can 'possibly' be offended when I say 'Thomas said literally to Jesus: you are the Lord of me and God of me,' word for word. How could you possibly be offended by me telling you only and no more, than what scripture actually, word for word, says? :idunno:

I can say the same thing in regard to Trinitarians.

Yet it isn't an invitation to response "well he hit me first." This conversation isn't supposed to work that way. It is asking about specific instances and asking if you follow the offense or not. Further, I don't believe it honest because the offense is incomparable. You certainly cannot be offended by what scripture 'actually' says verse when someone makes up that Thomas is blasphemying God. You can't possibly think that puts us on equal troublesome terms. It is like the difference between me reading to you scripture if you ask me not to, and me hearing foul language I've no desire to ever hear. The difference is that stark. Why would you WANT to compare at that point? Why not simply do as you did below and say "Their dirty mouths and blasphemous words offend me too!" Why not just say that?

I don't have that understanding. A number of unitarians do not share in all the same beliefs as me the same way a number of Trinitarians do not share in all the same beliefs as you. Perhaps you should complain to the one who made such a comment, if you haven't already, rather than complaining to me.

Fair enough. On paper (computer) it looks as if you share my grievance? That isn't a poor thing. Would you then 'complain' with me to other Unitarians/Arians if given the opportunity? It isn't all just complaining, some of this is 'explaining' why something things are rough in conversation.

You literally believe in a doctrine that was not taught by Jesus or the apostles, everything I believe the scriptures literally state.

You'd have to show it. Above YOU agree with me, that Thomas saying "Oh my G--!" is blasphemy and offensive. You'll have to work hard to ever show me saying anything that wicked about an apostle or the Lord Jesus Christ. It means, I believe, your grievance isn't in the same category of problem. Which 'doctrine' are you talking about? That Jesus is God? That He "and the Father are one?" How could you NOT believe that scripture. How could that possibly NOT be something He didn't teach? He literally taught it. How about John 1:1? How could you "Not" believe it? I'm just not seeing this statement above 1) anywhere near the same and 2) not at the moment substantiated.

 

[NWL]

1 Corinthians 8:5 We know that an idol is nothing at all in the world, and that there is no God but one. 5For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as there are many so-called gods and lords), 6yet for us there is but one God, 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 and through whom we exist.

To me, this part of the discussion seems clear. Isaiah says there is not God but Himself as well. It has to be seen, without our reasoning, what is meant, because I do agree with you "ye are gods" is said, but it doesn't literally mean we create worlds, are perfect, are without beginning or end. Thus there is a huge huge set of differences, especially when scripture itself says we wither today and are gone tomorrow and 'what is man, that You are mindful of him?'


Yes, you are correct. I do believe that.


How come? Isn't it 'all things' the 'work of His hands' only? Hebrews 2:7 How do you see 'under his feet'? as figurative or literal?

Why? If it is only 'all things that are the physical works of His hands' wouldn't it only be Earth as he was placed caretaker of the Garden?

Yes, if 'all' is understood as all of a something. This may be too crude analogy but it may suffice: "I've used all the sugar in my home."

Two points, there is much more than sugar in my cupboards and all the sugar in my home isn't all the sugar in the world. Then, if you pressed me, I suppose you could catch me on a technicality if I have chocolate chips or ice cream yet, but it'd depend on the context. If you asked, to borrow a cup, you'd certainly not want a cup of chocolate chips. All, always means 'everything of a specific or broad something.' Hopefully, scripture itself tells us the breadth or narrowness of its use of all. Thankfully, both of your passages do so. John 1:3 says "and without Him, not one thing was made, that was made." That's really clear. In your Hebrews example, there is a narrower scope "works of His hands."

Are not the Angels the work of God's hands? I think you would agree they are. The verse makes no mention of only physical creation being mentioned and rather seems to include the invisible creation by mentioning that man was created lower than Angels. Also, I'm not suggesting whether the verse does or doesn't imply the Angels and God were subject to Man, I'm asking YOU if the "all things" is inclusive of God and the angels. So the question still stands and technically remain unanswered from what I can see; you've asked me questions relating to my question and given an illustration but nowhere do I see you expressing whether or not you you understand the "all things" to be including God or the Angels in the statement or excluding them.

Does the "all things" in Hebrews 2:8 include God and the angels or are you suggesting the they are not included in the "all things" based on the preceding context?