- This topic has 4,515 replies, 99 voices, and was last updated 4 years, 7 months ago by
.
- Posts
Quote (Lightenup @ July 24 2013,00:02) Quote (terraricca @ July 22 2013,19:45) Quote (Lightenup @ July 23 2013,05:07) Pierre,
Do you agree that sometimes the Father is called Lord and at other places called God/god in the Bible?
Do you agree that sometimes the Son is called Lord and at other places called God/god in the Bible?
kathiyes but that does not make you a strait flush
What it undeniably says is Jesus is OUR God and Savior.You need to know when to fold 'em Pierre.
kathiI have answered your question ;but so far you have not shown scriptures were it says that God almighty the father of the son Jesus Christ is the same ,
the fact that Christ is called mighty or almighty(GOD) does not mean that he his God the father ,of which he his the son, the same with the tittle “LORD”
Quote You need to know when to fold 'em Pierre. I am always folding for the truth of God scriptures.not for men's opinion
Quote (4Thomas @ July 23 2013,18:33) So if we could just pray for each other at the moment and continue this debate in a few weeks that would be good. In Christ and only wanting the best for you [from how I understand things]
Amen, my friend.I'm in no hurry.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 23 2013,17:09) Quote (Lightenup @ July 23 2013,11:59) Mike,
Peter calls them both our God. Face it.
And yes, one of them is someone other than the other one.
I disagree. When you get the time, we'll go through every word Peter wrote in scripture, and see if he thought Jesus was “God”, okay?Let me know. (I'd like to do the same with ALL of the NT writers.)
Kathi,First up:
Matthew 16:16
Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”According to the above verse:
1. Peter believes Jesus is “God”.
2. Peter believes Jesus is the “Son” and “Anointed One” OF God.
Which one is correct, Kathi?
Mike,
Both are correct. Jesus is the only Begotten God and He is the Son of God, His Begetter. They are one…a compound unity.Quote (terraricca @ July 23 2013,22:23) Quote (Lightenup @ July 24 2013,00:02) Quote (terraricca @ July 22 2013,19:45) Quote (Lightenup @ July 23 2013,05:07) Pierre,
Do you agree that sometimes the Father is called Lord and at other places called God/god in the Bible?
Do you agree that sometimes the Son is called Lord and at other places called God/god in the Bible?
kathiyes but that does not make you a strait flush
What it undeniably says is Jesus is OUR God and Savior.You need to know when to fold 'em Pierre.
kathiI have answered your question ;but so far you have not shown scriptures were it says that God almighty the father of the son Jesus Christ is the same ,
the fact that Christ is called mighty or almighty(GOD) does not mean that he his God the father ,of which he his the son, the same with the tittle “LORD”
Quote You need to know when to fold 'em Pierre. I am always folding for the truth of God scriptures.not for men's opinion
Pierre,
you said:Quote I have answered your question ;but so far you have not shown scriptures were it says that God almighty the father of the son Jesus Christ is the same , I never said they were the same, I say there are two who are called our God yet they are one…a compound unity.
Quote the fact that Christ is called mighty or almighty(GOD) does not mean that he his God the father ,of which he his the son, the same with the tittle “LORD” Agreed, and I never said it did. Together they form the Godhead…a compound unity.
Quote I am always folding for the truth of God scriptures.not for men's opinion That is your opinion.
Kathy,
You do realize that Godhead is an archaic term whose original definition was equivalent to what more modern translations use?
Quote (Lightenup @ July 21 2013,23:10) Mike,
you said:Quote So yes, Jesus is the savior that my God Jehovah SENT into the world. But no, he is not my God. Only the Father holds that position for me. Can you admit that Peter calls the Son 'our God and Savior, Jesus Christ' in this verse:
2 Peter 1:1 From Simeon Peter, a slave and apostle of Jesus Christ, to those who through the righteousness of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ, have been granted a faith just as precious as ours.
Right on Kathi!This is not the only place Jesus is referred to as our God.
The NET Bible
The NET Bible is a completely new translation of the Bible with 60,932 translators’ notes! It was completed by more than 25 scholars – experts in the original biblical languages – who worked directly from the best currently available Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts. Turn the pages and see the breadth of the translators’ notes, documenting their decisions and choices as they worked. The translators’ notes make the original languages far more accessible, allowing you to look over the translator’s shoulder at the very process of translation. This level of documentation is a first for a Bible translation, making transparent the textual basis and the rationale for key renderings (including major interpretive options and alternative translations). This unparalleled level of detail helps connect people to the Bible in the original languages in a way never before possible without years of study of Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. It unlocks the riches of the Bible’s truth from entirely new perspectives.
From Simeon Peter, a slave and apostle of Jesus Christ, to those who through the righteousness of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ, have been granted a faith just as precious as ours. 2 Peter 1:1
This is what more than 25 scholars says about it….
5tn The terms “God and Savior” both refer to the same person, Jesus Christ. This is one of the clearest statements in the NT concerning the deity of Christ. The construction in Greek is known as the Granville Sharp rule, named after the English philanthropist-linguist who first clearly articulated the rule in 1798. Sharp pointed out that in the construction article-noun-καί-noun (where καί [kai] = “and”), when two nouns are singular, personal, and common (i.e., not proper names), they always had the same referent. Illustrations such as “the friend and brother,” “the God and Father,” etc. abound in the NT to prove Sharp’s point. In fact, the construction occurs elsewhere in 2 Peter, strongly suggesting that the author’s idiom was the same as the rest of the NT authors’ (cf., e.g., 1:11 [“the Lord and Savior”], 2:20 [“the Lord and Savior”]). The only issue is whether terms such as “God” and “Savior” could be considered common nouns as opposed to proper names. Sharp and others who followed (such as T. F. Middleton in his masterful The Doctrine of the Greek Article) demonstrated that a proper name in Greek was one that could not be pluralized. Since both “God” (θεός, qeos) and “savior” (σωτήρ, swthr) were occasionally found in the plural, they did not constitute proper names, and hence, do fit Sharp’s rule. Although there have been 200 years of attempts to dislodge Sharp’s rule, all attempts have been futile. Sharp’s rule stands vindicated after all the dust has settled. For more information on the application of Sharp’s rule to 2 Pet 1:1, see ExSyn 272, 276-77, 290. See also Titus 2:13 and Jude 4. Source
Blessings!
WJ
kathi
Quote I never said they were the same, I say there are two who are called our God yet they are one…a compound unity. there is no compounded unity ,the son was created and so at one time God was alone ,
Quote (Lightenup @ July 29 2013,21:29) Mike,
Both are correct.Jesus is the only Begotten God and He is the Son of God, His Begetter. They are one…a compound unity.
Both? And you gathered that information from Matthew 16:16?
Matthew 16:16
Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”Are you sure, Kathi? Peter seems to know very clearly that Jesus is the Messiah and Son OF the living God.
And who do you suppose Peter means by the words “the living God” anyway?
Also, my question included the words, “According to the above verse”. Where in that verse can I read anything about all this other stuff you posted (the stuff I bolded in your quote)?
If it is not in the particular scripture we are currently discussing, please save your personal opinions until you are able to support them with a scripture we are discussing, okay?
So far, we have one scripture where Peter is clear about Jesus being someone OTHER THAN the one he calls “the living God”. And we have one scripture where it can be translated as “our great God and Savior Jesus Christ”, or as “our great God and our Savior Jesus Christ”.
So the score is 1.5 for me and .5 for you.
Your turn. List your next scriptural words of Peter where he clearly identifies Jesus as “the Most High God”.
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ July 30 2013,05:15) This is one of the clearest statements in the NT concerning the deity of Christ.
I love the NET Bible and all the NETNotes! These 25 TRINITARIAN scholars are usually on their game, and actually REFUTE about 97% of the generally accepted “trinity proof texts”.However, they do occasionally let their Trinitarian bias override their good, scholarly efforts.
I wonder if they would say the words above about Satan in 2 Cor 4:4? Is that verse “one of the clearest statements in the NT concerning the deity of Satan”?
Keith, just like Colwell's rule permits a translation of “the logos was THE god” in John 1:1, but doesn't demand it, Sharpe's rule also merely permits a translation of “our great god and savior Jesus Christ”. His rule does not demand that it be translated as such. The Greek words could just as faithfully be translated as “our great god and our savior, Jesus Christ”.
In my WORST case scenario, Peter DID call Jesus “our great god and savior”. So what? God foretold through Isaiah many years ago that His servant Jesus Christ would be called “mighty god”, right? So even translated the way you like it, Peter's words are still no more than a fulfillment of a previous prophecy from the Most High God, right?
And as you have reluctantly admitted to me on this site, being called “god” does NOT necessarily identify one as the MOST HIGH God, Jehovah.
So all things considered, no matter which way we translate those Greek words, the verse still says nothing about Jesus being our Most High God, Jehovah………. does it?
Mike
Even if your estimate of 97% was correct which I think not, nevertheless I think that only proves that they had no bias but simply went with the “facts” which you close you eyes to and claim bias. To bad that the so called 3% doesn't agree with you.
Tell you what, why don't you show me once where they have a scripture that REFUTES the Trinitarian view!
WJ
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Aug. 01 2013,20:13) Mike Even if your estimate of 97% was correct which I think not, nevertheless I think that only proves that they had no bias but simply went with the “facts” which you close you eyes to and claim bias. To bad that the so called 3% doesn't agree with you.
Tell you what, why don't you show me once where they have a scripture that REFUTES the Trinitarian view!
WJ
WJ,Those that believe Jesus is Jehovah never go with the facts as they believe Jesus cannot be tempted by evil and that Jehovah was tempted even as we are but without sin.
Any so called facts after excepting those untruths is merely plausible deniability of the actual facts.
Trinitarianism is a new religion that arose after Jesus ushered in the new covenant of the religion of Abraham and the children of Israel.
I don't see Mike's teaching as going with the facts either but it appears to be better based on logical reasoning.
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Aug. 01 2013,20:13) Mike Even if your estimate of 97% was correct which I think not, nevertheless I think that only proves that they had no bias but simply went with the “facts” which you close you eyes to and claim bias. To bad that the so called 3% doesn't agree with you.
Tell you what, why don't you show me once where they have a scripture that REFUTES the Trinitarian view!
WJ
wjI PERSONLY find my self in better position with the 97% right
than yours with 3% of so seems right ;this I say because with the others having 97 % it should teach you something in my opinion ,it is like the 3% holding the knives by the blade ,I would not feel secure ,but I am not every body right
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Aug. 01 2013,08:13) Tell you what, why don't you show me once where they have a scripture that REFUTES the Trinitarian view!
Does this mean you cannot refute any of the points I made in my post, and so want to divert the topic away from 2 Peter 1:1, and towards NETNotes?Okay, I'll give you a couple. Click on and read note 47 in Genesis 1:26. These 25 Trinitarian scholars logically understand the statement, “Let us make man in our image”, as God talking to His divine counsel of angels. About it being a plural Godhead proof text, they say, Many Christian theologians interpret it as an early hint of plurality within the Godhead, but this view imposes later Trinitarian concepts on the ancient text.
They also point out that this means God's spirit sons share His divine image – which makes perfect sense to me.
In Isaiah 9:6, click on and read notes 17, 18, and 19.
But in the meantime, don't you agree that 2 Peter 1:2 clarifies 1:1 for us? Doesn't the fact that Peter clearly displays in verse 2 that he knows the difference between “God” and “Jesus our Lord” carry a little weight when deciding which way to translate verse 1?
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 01 2013,20:40) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Aug. 01 2013,08:13) Tell you what, why don't you show me once where they have a scripture that REFUTES the Trinitarian view!
Does this mean you cannot refute any of the points I made in my post, and so want to divert the topic away from 2 Peter 1:1, and towards NETNotes?Okay, I'll give you a couple. Click on and read note 47 in Genesis 1:26. These 25 Trinitarian scholars logically understand the statement, “Let us make man in our image”, as God talking to His divine counsel of angels. About it being a plural Godhead proof text, they say, Many Christian theologians interpret it as an early hint of plurality within the Godhead, but this view imposes later Trinitarian concepts on the ancient text.
They also point out that this means God's spirit sons share His divine image – which makes perfect sense to me.
In Isaiah 9:6, click on and read notes 17, 18, and 19.
But in the meantime, don't you agree that 2 Peter 1:2 clarifies 1:1 for us? Doesn't the fact that Peter clearly displays in verse 2 that he knows the difference between “God” and “Jesus our Lord” carry a little weight when deciding which way to translate verse 1?
MikeFirst of all the Net notes on Genesis are not denying the Trinitarian view, in fact they say nothing definite about the verse except that…In its ancient Israelite context the plural is most naturally understood as referring to God and his heavenly court (see 1 Kgs 22:19-22; Job 1:6-12; 2:1-6; Isa 6:1-8).
Look at the bold.
They are simply giving the view of the ancient Israelites, the same ones that didn't know Jesus when he came and told them that “Moses wrote about him”.
As far as Isaiah 9:6 they say…
“When the king’s enemies oppose him on the battlefield, they are, as it were, fighting against God himself. The other option is to regard this title as a reference to God, confronting Isaiah’s readers with the divinity of this promised “child.” The use of this same title that clearly refers to God in a later passage (Isa 10:21) supports this interpretation. Other passages depict Yahweh as the great God and great warrior (Deut 10:17; Jer. 32:18). Although this connection of a child who is born with deity is unparalleled in any earlier biblical texts, Isaiah’s use of this title to make this connection represents Isaiah’s attempt (at God’s behest) to advance Israel in their understanding of the ideal Davidic king for whom they long.
Notice the Bold…
That the reference is to “God confronting Isaiah’s readers with the divinity of this promised “child”. and is SUPPORTED in Isaiah 10:21, then they go onto say that the verse is about the coming Davidic King who is Jesus!”
Try again!
Once again they only show their honesty. So if you think they are honest about what could be ambiguous, then why won't you believe them when they give clear unambiguous, honest and scholarly exegesis?
Could it be that you are not interested in the truth but only what lines up with your doctrine?
WJ
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
