Trinity – t8's proof text #3

[NickHassan]

Hi Is 1.18,
If it is unclear then you should not teach as fact from it.
Certainly Christ is not named there so you should not do so and he is never shown elsewhere to have a throne in heaven at that time in any other verse.
Besides you would surely defend there being only one deity anyway would you not?

[Is 1:18]

Quote (Nick Hassan @ June 04 2007,10:58)

Hi Is 1.18, If it is unclear then you should not teach as fact from it. Certainly Christ is not named there so you should not do so and he is never shown elsewhere to have a throne in heaven at that time in any other verse.

Incorrect. It IS clear. Christ is named a the subject in the passage. Let me use an example to show what I mean by “nearest antecedent”.

Mary has a new bike. She rides it every day”

It's patently obvious that the pronoun “she”, in the second sentence, refers to the subject – Mary. Mary is the nearest antecedent to the pronoun. It's basic grammar. And the exact same principle applies in the John 12 passage.

Nick, I asked you a question in my last post. Can you please answer it?

[NickHassan]

Hi Is 1.18,
Then show us support scriptures to attempt to prove your point.
Rev 4.
Dan 7

[Is 1:18]

I've done that in my first two debate posts, and in dozens of others.

https://heavennet.net/cgi-bin….;t=1278

https://heavennet.net/cgi-bin….;t=1311

Can you answer my question please?

[NickHassan]

Hi Is 1.18,
If you want my opinion then it refers to God.

Jn 12
” 38That the saying of Esaias the prophet might be fulfilled, which he spake, Lord, who hath believed our report? and to whom hath the arm of the Lord been revealed?

39Therefore they could not believe, because that Esaias said again,

40He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart; that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them.

41These things said Esaias, when he saw his glory, and spake of him. “

You demand that the HIS belongs to Christ?
Isaiah never said he saw Jesus's Glory.]
The Lord in the OT is God, not the son of God..

Is 6[ylt]
1In the year of the death of king Uzziah — I see the Lord, sitting on a throne, high and lifted up, and His train is filling the temple.

2Seraphs are standing above it: six wings hath each one; with two [each] covereth its face, and with two [each] covereth its feet, and with two [each] flieth.

3And this one hath called unto that, and hath said: `Holy, Holy, Holy, [is] Jehovah of Hosts, The fulness of all the earth [is] His glory.'

4And the posts of the thresholds are moved by the voice of him who is calling, and the house is full of smoke.

5And I say, `Wo to me, for I have been silent, For a man — unclean of lips [am] I, And in midst of a people unclean of lips I am dwelling, Because the King, Jehovah of Hosts, have my eyes seen.'

[Is 1:18]

assumptions, assumptions, assumptions…..

The difference between my assumtion and yours, though, is that mine is supported by the grammar and context of the text itself, where you have imported yours INTO the text. This is not sound exegesis. We should let scripture speak for itself, not attempt to force it to say something it doesn't want to.

Conform to scripture.

[NickHassan]

Hi Is 1.18,
So
Why was Isaiah frightened?
Who did Isaiah think he saw?
What did he see?

He was not in heaven where God is, so he did not truly see God. Given that God is invisible he could not see God but he throught he did. Rather he saw a vision of God. There would be no reason for him to fear if he had seen a son of God, albeit The Son of God, so he would not have needed to be anxious.

Surely he was commisioned by God in a vision, not by the Son of God.

“6And flee unto me doth one of the seraphs, and in his hand a burning coal, (with tongs he hath taken [it] from off the altar,)

7and he striketh against my mouth, and saith: `Lo, this hath stricken against thy lips, And turned aside is thine iniquity, And thy sin is covered.'

8And I hear the voice of the Lord, saying: `Whom do I send? and who doth go for Us?' And I say, `Here [am] I, send me.'

9And He saith, `Go, and thou hast said to this people, Hear ye — to hear, and ye do not understand, And see ye — to see, and ye do not know.

10Declare fat the heart of this people, And its ears declare heavy, And its eyes declare dazzled, Lest it see with its eyes, And with its ears hear, and its heart consider, And it hath turned back, and hath health.'

11And I say, `Till when, O Lord?' And He saith, `Surely till cities have been wasted without inhabitant, And houses without man, And the ground be wasted — a desolation,

12And Jehovah hath put man far off, And great [is] the forsaken part in the heart of the land.

13And yet in it a tenth, and it hath turned, And hath been for a burning, As a teil-tree, and as an oak, that in falling, Have substance in them, The holy seed [is] its substance!' “

[Is 1:18]

I don't know what point you are trying to make here is. Are you saying that because it was a vision of YHWH, it therefore wasn't really YHWH's glory that Isaiah saw??

These things Isaiah said because he saw His glory, and he spoke of Him (John 12:41)

Whether it was in a vision or not is irrelavent. The person in the vision is still YHWH in Isaiah's opinion, and the preincarnate Yeshua's in John's. Therefore they are one and the same.

[NickHassan]

Hi Is 1.18,
Where is Christ specified in John?
Can Christ be his God?

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote (Nick Hassan @ June 04 2007,08:13)

Quote (Cult Buster @ June 04 2007,02:02) Nick Quote So where is anyone identified as Jesus seen in the OT? Or are you assuming this is so? Is that wise? Nick. Do yourself a favor and read your Bible. Dan 7:13  I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him. Dan 3:25  He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God. Hi CB, Yes that is Christ in Dan 7 with GOD in heaven. It is Christ being given a kingdom. So that kingdom is given after his mission was complete so it is prophetic. The verse about the being seen in the fire is uniquely translated as THE SON OF GOD in the kjv and this does not stand up to manuscript scrutiny.

NH

Yes of course, when it dosnt fit your theology then the manuscripts are to be questioned.

Just like John 1:1, and Matt 28:19. Right?

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote (942767 @ June 04 2007,02:25)

Quote (Cult Buster @ June 04 2007,02:02) Nick Quote So where is anyone identified as Jesus seen in the OT? Or are you assuming this is so? Is that wise? Nick. Do yourself a favor and read your Bible. Dan 7:13  I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him. Dan 3:25  He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God. Hi CB: Thanks CB for answering Nick on this and so I won't have to reply because this is scripture, but as you can see, these visions are prophetic. God Bless

94

Not quite.

Dan 3:25
He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God.

This was not a vision!

Also since no man has seen God and yet scriptures say Jesus has, how do you explain this?

He must have pre-existed his coming in the flesh to have seen God before he was a man.

[NickHassan]

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 04 2007,18:26)

Quote (Nick Hassan @ June 04 2007,08:13) Quote (Cult Buster @ June 04 2007,02:02) Nick Quote So where is anyone identified as Jesus seen in the OT? Or are you assuming this is so? Is that wise? Nick. Do yourself a favor and read your Bible. Dan 7:13  I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him. Dan 3:25  He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God. Hi CB, Yes that is Christ in Dan 7 with GOD in heaven. It is Christ being given a kingdom. So that kingdom is given after his mission was complete so it is prophetic. The verse about the being seen in the fire is uniquely translated as THE SON OF GOD in the kjv and this does not stand up to manuscript scrutiny. NH Yes of course, when it dosnt fit your theology then the manuscripts are to be questioned. Just like John 1:1, and Matt 28:19. Right?

Hi W,
The bible is translated from manuscripts.
Would you like to research this one?

[Is 1:18]

Quote (Nick Hassan @ June 04 2007,17:42)

Hi Is 1.18, Where is Christ specified in John?

This has been answered. Do you have anything to bring to this discussion besides the overtly circular argument that Isaiah saw the Father because YHWH is One person, the Father? Precisely which verse (or part thereof) in the John 12:34-41 narrative supports your view that Isaiah saw a vision of the Father?

[Proclaimer]

To Is.

Quote (Is 1:18 @ June 05 2007,03:49)

So….you thought I wouldn't exploit a gapping hole in your argument, because you anticipated I would do it? Get real t8.

Yes I knew that you would take that path because it appeared to be the only way to keep your doctrine as believable as possible while opposing the scriptures that say that no one has seen God. You had no choice my friend.

Of course you did what I hoped you would do and admitted that God is the Father. That was your conclusion and if it took this for you to admit then it was worth it.

This is what we have taught all along is it not? And is it not true that this is why you oppose us? Yet here you are yourself, saying that the ONLY GOD is the Father.

The Father is the ONE TRUE GOD.

John 17:3
Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, AND Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.

1 Timothy 1:17
Now to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory for ever and ever.
Amen.

Notice that the ONLY GOD is invisible and you admitted that it was the Father who is invisible.

John 1:18
No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

John 6:46
No one has seen the Father except the one who is from God; only he has seen the Father.

See, the Father is the one true God.

Hallelujah.

I will say it again in case the point is missed.

The ONLY GOD is invisible and you admitted that it was the Father who is invisible. So the Father is the ONLY GOD and the only TRUE GOD.

Am I being real enough for you now? I am happy to supply more reality checks in the form of scripture if you feel that I am not real enough.

[Proclaimer]

To Is.

Quote (Is 1:18 @ June 02 2007,17:28)

1. It’s true that the Father has never been seen but another, also named YHWH, has.

Above is what you said.

Now look at 1 Timothy 1:17
Now to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory for ever and ever.
Amen.

You now have no choice but to admit that the Father is the ONLY GOD, or argue that Timothy made a mistake when he wrote this, or that the translators translated this text incorrectly.

Which one is it?

[Is 1:18]

In the NT, the Greek word “theos” is usually used to denote the Father, and sometimes used to denote the Son (in a context that implies deity). When both the Father and Son are in view in a text the designation “kurios” is usually used in reference to the Son. But “kurios” is not necessarily a lesser appelative than “theos”, especially the way it is frequently used of the Son (e.g. Acts 2:21, Rom 10:13 cf. Joel 2:32). So, it's nieve to postulate that because “theos” is used to identify the Father in one verse the Son cannot logically be God. You need to be a little more sophisticated in your thinking t8…..

[Is 1:18]

Quote (t8 @ June 04 2007,19:43)

To Is. Quote (Is 1:18 @ June 02 2007,17:28) 1. It’s true that the Father has never been seen but another, also named YHWH, has. Above is what you said. Now look at 1 Timothy 1:17 Now to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory for ever and ever. Amen. You now have no choice but to admit that the Father is the ONLY GOD, or argue that Timothy made a mistake when he wrote this, or that the translators translated this text incorrectly. Which one is it?

Here's the parallel passage to 1 Tim 1:17:

1 Timothy 6:15-16
15which He will bring about at the proper time–He who is the blessed and only Sovereign, the King of kings and Lord of lords, 16who alone possesses immortality and dwells in unapproachable light, whom no man has seen or can see To Him be honor and eternal dominion! Amen.

Question: Who is the King of kings and Lord of lords?

(Clue: read Revelation 17:14, 19:16)

[Proclaimer]

In other words 1 Timothy 1:17 is not correct.

Is that because Timothy didn't know what he was talking about, or is this a translation issue to your mind?

[Is 1:18]

He he….Timothy didn't pen that epistle, Paul wrote it to him.

I have no problem with 1 Tim 1:17. Why should I?

[Proclaimer]

Good one. Yes Paul.

The problem is that the ONLY GOD is invisible according to him.

But you seem to disagree.

[Author]

Posts