Why is the Lamb silent?

[xcav8tor]

Hi All, :smile:

After discussing the deity of Christ with Jehovah's Witnesses many years ago, I found myself reading the following passage in Revelation when a question suddenly occurred to me that I had never thought of before.

Rev. 5: 11 Then I looked and heard the voice of many angels, numbering thousands upon thousands, and ten thousand times ten thousand. They encircled the throne and the living creatures and the elders. 12 In a loud voice they sang: "Worthy is the Lamb, who was slain, to receive power and wealth and wisdom and strength and honor and glory and praise!" 13 Then I heard every creature in heaven and on earth and under the earth and on the sea, and all that is in them, singing: "To him who sits on the throne and to the Lamb be praise and honor and glory and power, for ever and ever!" 14 The four living creatures said, "Amen," and the elders fell down and worshiped.

The question that came to me was, “WHY IS THE LAMB SILENT?”

From the perspective of Jehovah's Witnesses, Jesus is only a created being, and as such IS NOT entitled to be worshiped in the FULL sense of the word but John here describes a scene in heaven where EVERY creature in heaven, earth and sea has gathered to offer worship JOINTLY to “Him who sits on the throne (obviously God the Father) AND to the Lamb (Jesus Christ).” What is here given to Jehovah the Father is surely TRUE worship in the HIGHEST sense of the word, and we find the EXACT SAME worship being offered to Christ at the same time - by all of creation.

And what is Jesus doing?

If Jesus is only a creature, He should be directing the crowds to ONLY worship God, and rebuking them for their error (just as the angels do in Rev. 19:10 and Rev. 22:9). Jesus Himself confirms that ONLY GOD should be worshiped in Luke 4:8, but no word of protest escapes His lips. There is no objection, only acceptance (just as when Thomas called Jesus, "My Lord and My God" - literally in Greek, The Lord of me and The God of me - John 20:28).

Again looking at the text from the Watchtower's POV (with Jesus as the most perfect of all created beings) how could the sinless, loving Son of God, resist joining in the worship of this universal anthem of praise to His Father? Why is He not described as leading the chorus?

Either way you look at it, Christ should not be "just quietly standing by with his hands in his pockets” accepting equal praise with His Creator. This scene is totally incompatible with Watchtower theology, and in my experience they have no answer for it.

CHRIST'S SILENCE HERE IS A MOST ELOQUENT TESTIMONY TO HIS DEITY.

Regards,
xcav8tor

PS - It is also interesting to note that along with jointly receiving worship, God and the Lamb share the SAME throne. Note the use of the "singular" of "throne" in Rev. 22:1, 3

[Sparko]

excellent observation!

[Manwë Súlimo]

xcav8tor, you win the internet.

[LostSheep]

:thumb:

[Manwë Súlimo]

Are they afraid to respond?!

Or are they just doing their impression of the Lamb? :lol:

[faithymom]

It's been pretty quiet here lately.

[IncRus]

Hi All, :smile:

After discussing the deity of Christ with Jehovah's Witnesses many years ago, I found myself reading the following passage in Revelation when a question suddenly occurred to me that I had never thought of before.

Rev. 5: 11 Then I looked and heard the voice of many angels, numbering thousands upon thousands, and ten thousand times ten thousand. They encircled the throne and the living creatures and the elders. 12 In a loud voice they sang: "Worthy is the Lamb, who was slain, to receive power and wealth and wisdom and strength and honor and glory and praise!" 13 Then I heard every creature in heaven and on earth and under the earth and on the sea, and all that is in them, singing: "To him who sits on the throne and to the Lamb be praise and honor and glory and power, for ever and ever!" 14 The four living creatures said, "Amen," and the elders fell down and worshiped.

The question that came to me was, “WHY IS THE LAMB SILENT?”

From the perspective of Jehovah's Witnesses, Jesus is only a created being, and as such IS NOT entitled to be worshiped in the FULL sense of the word but John here describes a scene in heaven where EVERY creature in heaven, earth and sea has gathered to offer worship JOINTLY to “Him who sits on the throne (obviously God the Father) AND to the Lamb (Jesus Christ).” What is here given to Jehovah the Father is surely TRUE worship in the HIGHEST sense of the word, and we find the EXACT SAME worship being offered to Christ at the same time - by all of creation.

And what is Jesus doing?

If Jesus is only a creature, He should be directing the crowds to ONLY worship God, and rebuking them for their error (just as the angels do in Rev. 19:10 and Rev. 22:9). Jesus Himself confirms that ONLY GOD should be worshiped in Luke 4:8, but no word of protest escapes His lips. There is no objection, only acceptance (just as when Thomas called Jesus, "My Lord and My God" - literally in Greek, The Lord of me and The God of me - John 20:28).

Again looking at the text from the Watchtower's POV (with Jesus as the most perfect of all created beings) how could the sinless, loving Son of God, resist joining in the worship of this universal anthem of praise to His Father? Why is He not described as leading the chorus?

Either way you look at it, Christ should not be "just quietly standing by with his hands in his pockets” accepting equal praise with His Creator. This scene is totally incompatible with Watchtower theology, and in my experience they have no answer for it.

CHRIST'S SILENCE HERE IS A MOST ELOQUENT TESTIMONY TO HIS DEITY.

Regards,
xcav8tor

PS - It is also interesting to note that along with jointly receiving worship, God and the Lamb share the SAME throne. Note the use of the "singular" of "throne" in Rev. 22:1, 3

The verse is silent as to whom the four living creatures fell down and worshiped. The fact that Jesus was silent testifies that the four living creatures fell down towards "Him who sat on the thone" ALONE since the four living creatures must ALSO be aware of God's command, as Jesus said is written, thus, "You shall worship the Lord your God and Him only you shall serve" (Matt. 4:10).

To assume that God and the Lamb "share the SAME throne" is absurd because the Bible clearly states that "Him who sat on the throne" is SEPARATE and distinct from the Lamb who stood before Him (Rev. 5:6) or sits at His right hand (Col. 3:1).

[JB]

To assume that God and the Lamb "share the SAME throne" is absurd because the Bible clearly states that "Him who sat on the throne" is SEPARATE and distinct from the Lamb who stood before Him (Rev. 5:6) or sits at His right hand (Col. 3:1).

IncRus, could you do us poor saps a favor and reveal to us the meaning of the Greek phrase ho thronos tou theou kai tou arniou in Revelation 22:3?

[xcav8tor]

Hi IncRus, :smile:


The verse is silent as to whom the four living creatures fell down and worshiped. The fact that Jesus was silent testifies that the four living creatures fell down towards "Him who sat on the thone" ALONE since the four living creatures must ALSO be aware of God's command, as Jesus said is written, thus, "You shall worship the Lord your God and Him only you shall serve" (Matt. 4:10).

Are you saying that the context of verse 13 doesn't clearly indicate who the four living creatures fell down and worshiped? Isn't their "AMEN" an appropriate affirmation of those in the prior sentence who are singing: "TO HIM WHO SITS on the throne AND TO THE LAMB be praise and honor and glory and power, for ever and ever!"? Seems to me there is a direct correlation that can only be overlooked by someone who is predisposed not to see it. Do you actually believe there can be any real doubt that the four living creatures are also worshiping Christ like the rest of creation?

Christ's word in Matthew that, "You shall worship the Lord your God and Him [ YHWH ] only you shall serve" would only exclude Jesus if He was NOT "the Lord your God." IF HE IS - and this is the truth John is here affirming - then Jesus as YHWH the Son who ALONG WITH YHWH the Father IS "the LORD YOUR GOD" is ALSO entitled to be worshiped.

You still haven't explained Christ's silence. If He is a created being - no matter how exalted - He should EITHER be singing along with the rest of creation, OR at least rebuking the crowds who John tells us are offering Him the same worship they are offering to YHWH. If you do not believe Jesus is God, He should be doing ONE OR THE OTHER. Wouldn't you agree? Only His cognizance of His own Deity properly explains His silence.


To assume that God and the Lamb "share the SAME throne" is absurd because the Bible clearly states that "Him who sat on the throne" is SEPARATE and distinct from the Lamb who stood before Him (Rev. 5:6) or sits at His right hand (Col. 3:1).

There is no assumption on my part at all. It is just how the text of Rev. 22:1-3 NIV plainly reads. There is no interpretation necessary. Look it up in whatever Bible you want. You might not like the implications, but it's right there in black and white. It is even repeated for emphasis.

Now IncRus, I'd like to ask you something. Did you pause long enough to actually read the passage and prayerfully ponder the possible merits of what I had said, or was your rejection simply a knee-jerk reaction? Honestly. Which was it?

If the latter, don't you think you owe it to yourself to think it through before hastily dismissing what could be a truth God wants you to understand? The real power of this argument is that it is not a classic "proof-text" for Christ's deity, but something revealed almost incidentally from an innocuous passage. Something that intuitively has that proverbial ring of truth... something that once realized is so obvious, but which otherwise can be easily passed over.

Regards,
xcav8tor

[IncRus]

Hi IncRus, :smile:

The verse is silent as to whom the four living creatures fell down and worshiped. The fact that Jesus was silent testifies that the four living creatures fell down towards "Him who sat on the thone" ALONE since the four living creatures must ALSO be aware of God's command, as Jesus said is written, thus, "You shall worship the Lord your God and Him only you shall serve" (Matt. 4:10).

Are you saying that the context of verse 13 doesn't clearly indicate who the four living Ceatures fell down and worshiped? Isn't their "AMEN" an appropriate affirmation of those in the prior sentence who are singing: "TO HIM WHO SITS on the throne AND TO THE LAMB be praise and honor and glory and power, for ever and ever!"? Seems to me there is a direct correlation that can only be overlooked by someone who is predisposed not to see it. Do you actually believe there can be any real doubt that the four living creatures are also worshiping Christ like the rest of creation?

Come to think of it, I missed the entirety of Rev. 5:14 which clearly teaches that the twenty-four elders fell down and worshiped "Him who lives forever and ever." That's what one gets for relying on what others write without checking what the Bible ACTUALLY says.

Now, "Him who lives forever and ever" is Him who sat on the throne" (Rev. 4:10) who is the "CREATOR of all things" (Rev. 4:11). Apostle Paul identified God the Father as the "CREATOR of all things" (1 Cor. 8:6 TEV). And the Old Testament prophet Nehemiah identifies the Lord God as the CREATOR of heaven and earth and everything that are in them (Neh. 9:6).

The fact that praise and honor are lavished BOTH on Him who sat on the throne and on the Lamb does NOT make Jesus "Him who lives forever and ever" because we know that Jesus was "SLAIN" (Rev. 5:9) and "God raised him from the dead" (Rom. 10:9). The Bible teaches that God ALONE is "IMMORTAL" (1 Tim.. 1:17) who does NOT die and therefore "lives for ever and ever".


Christ's word in Matthew that, "You shall worship the Lord your God and Him [ YHWH ] only you shall serve" would only exclude Jesus if He was NOT "the Lord your God." IF HE IS - and this is the truth John is here affirming - then Jesus as YHWH the Son who ALONG WITH YHWH the Father IS "the LORD YOUR GOD" is ALSO entitled to be worshiped.

Of course, Jesus is NOT my Lord God! Jesus taught that he is a MAN (John 8:40) and the Father (John 17:1) is the ONLY true God (John 17:3).


You still haven't explained Christ's silence. If He is a created being - no matter how exalted - He should EITHER be singing along with the rest of creation, OR at least rebuking the crowds who John tells us are offering Him the same worship they are offering to YHWH. If you do not believe Jesus is God, He should be doing ONE OR THE OTHER. Wouldn't you agree? Only His cognizance of His own Deity properly explains His silence.

As the Bible teaches, the twenty-four elders fell down and worshiped "Him who lives forever and ever" (Rev. 5:14) who is "Him who sat on the throne" (Rev. 4:10-11). Therefore, Jesus did not have to say anything. The Bible also teaches that the living creatures and the twenty-four elders sang praises to BOTH "Him who sat on the throne AND the Lamb" (Rev. 5:13). Therefore, that's what God wants and we CANNOT do anything about it. We CANNOT teach God what He wants to say.



To assume that God and the Lamb "share the SAME throne" is absurd because the Bible clearly states that "Him who sat on the throne" is SEPARATE and distinct from the Lamb who stood before Him (Rev. 5:6) or sits at His right hand (Col. 3:1).

There is no assumption on my part at all. It is just how the text of Rev. 22:1-3 NIV plainly reads. There is no interpretation necessary. Look it up in whatever Bible you want. You might not like the implications, but it's right there in black and white. It is even repeated for emphasis.

That's the problem with picking one verse to support one's pre-conceived belief in complete disregard of other verses. What you arrive at are FALSE conclusions. "The throne of God and of the Lamb" does NOT mean that God and the Lamb SHARE the SAME throne.

We know from the Bible that Jesus is "SITTING at the right hand of God" (Col. 3:1). Therefore, we know that Jesus ALSO has a "throne" at the right hand of God.

However, in Rev. 5, we can discern that there is "one who sat on the throne with a scroll in his right hand" (Rev. 5:1) and the Lamb who "STOOD before Him who sat on the throne" (Rev. 5:6). Therefore, we are certain that "Him who sat on the throne" is ALSO "Him who lives forever and ever" to whom the twenty-four elders fell down to worship (Rev. 5:14) - NOT the Lamb who is at that time STANDING before Him who sat on the throne..


Now IncRus, I'd like to ask you something. Did you pause long enough to actually read the passage and prayerfully ponder the possible merits of what I had said, or was your rejection simply a knee-jerk reaction? Honestly. Which was it?

If the latter, don't you think you owe it to yourself to think it through before hastily dismissing what could be a truth God wants you to understand? The real power of this argument is that it is not a classic "proof-text" for Christ's deity, but something revealed almost incidentally from an innocuous passage. Something that intuitively has that proverbial ring of truth... something that once realized is so obvious, but which otherwise can be easily passed over.

If there's anything I learned from this, it is that I should, from now on, verify from the Bible every quotation that is posted in this forum. Altered Bible verses like this one:
14 The four living creatures said, "Amen," and the elders fell down and worshiped. lead people to FALSE beliefs!

[IncRus]

To assume that God and the Lamb "share the SAME throne" is absurd because the Bible clearly states that "Him who sat on the throne" is SEPARATE and distinct from the Lamb who stood before Him (Rev. 5:6) or sits at His right hand (Col. 3:1).
IncRus, could you do us poor saps a favor and reveal to us the meaning of the Greek phrase ho thronos tou theou kai tou arniou in Revelation 22:3?

I'm sorry I don't speak Greek. However, from what I read in the Bible, Jesus is "SITTING at the right hand of God" (Col. 1:3).

And since God has "raised him from the dead and SEATED him at His right hand in the heavenly places, far ABOVE all principality and power and might and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this age but also in that which is to come, and He put everything under Christ's feet and gave him to be HEAD over all things to the church" (Eph. 1:20-22), common sense dictates that "ho thronos tou theou kai tou arniou" must mean, "the throne of God and the throne of the Lamb."

This fulfills what was prophesied in Psalm 45:6 of the Today's English Version, thus: "The kingdom that God has GIVEN you will last for ever and ever."

How else can the Lamb SIT at the right hand of God WITHOUT his own throne? Would God give Jesus a kingdom WITHOUT a throne? I think NOT, do you?

[xcav8tor]

Hi IncRus, :smile:


Come to think of it, I missed the entirety of Rev. 5:14 which clearly teaches that the twenty-four elders fell down and worshiped "Him who lives forever and ever." That's what one gets for relying on what others write without checking what the Bible ACTUALLY says.

Your last sentence here implies that what I quoted was somehow not what the Bible says, or that I had deliberately abbreviated what the Bible "actually" says. As far as I am aware, there is only one Bible version (the NKJV) which includes "Him who lives forever and ever." You may be referring to another version which I am unaware of.

That I have not been in any way manipulative or irresponsible in my presentation should be apparent by comparing verse 5:14 from the following Bibles:

NET And the four living creatures were saying “Amen,” and the elders threw themselves to the ground and worshiped.

NIV The four living creatures said, "Amen," and the elders fell down and worshiped.

NASB And the four living creatures kept saying, "Amen." And the elders fell down and worshiped.

NRSV And the four living creatures said, "Amen!" And the elders fell down and worshiped.

BBE And the four beasts said, So be it. And the rulers went down on their faces and gave worship.

MSG The Four Animals called out, "Oh, Yes!" The Elders fell to their knees and worshiped.

NLT And the four living beings said, "Amen!" And the twenty–four elders fell down and worshiped God and the Lamb. (This version supports the immediate context of verse 13)

In addition, my Westcott and Hort Greek Text of the New Testament DOES NOT include the phrase "Him who lives forever and ever." I do have a second Greek Interlinear but I cannot check this as it is out on loan at the moment.

I am not certain of the reason that the NKJV and NLT include an additional phrase when the others do not but I would guess that it was not present in the best texts and was suspected to be an addition by a scribe. In any case, there has been no manipulation on my part, neither do I believe there was a conspiracy on the part of the majority of translators to distort God's Word.


Now, "Him who lives forever and ever" is Him who sat on the throne" (Rev. 4:10) who is the "CREATOR of all things" (Rev. 4:11). Apostle Paul identified God the Father as the "CREATOR of all things" (1 Cor. 8:6 TEV). And the Old Testament prophet Nehemiah identifies the Lord God as the CREATOR of heaven and earth and everything that are in them (Neh. 9:6).

Since John 1:1-3 NIV, Col. 1:15-17 NIV, and Heb. 1:1-3 NIV all acknowledge Jesus as the Direct Creator AND SUSTAINER of the universe, then your objection to Christ as co-Creator with the Father and Spirit carries little weight.


The fact that praise and honor are lavished BOTH on Him who sat on the throne and on the Lamb does NOT make Jesus "Him who lives forever and ever" because we know that Jesus was "SLAIN" (Rev. 5:9) and "God raised him from the dead" (Rom. 10:9). The Bible teaches that God ALONE is "IMMORTAL" (1 Tim.. 1:17) who does NOT die and therefore "lives for ever and ever".

If you understood the doctrine of the Incarnation of Christ you would realize that your argument does not apply. Christ's Divine Nature as YHWH the Son has no beginning, and has no end. It is only His perfect human nature that was subject to death, and then raised to immortality. The fact that Christ's human nature was mortal was a necessary prerequisite for His role as our Saviour.

Again, the fact that the worship offered to YHWH the Father is true worship in its HIGHEST FORM, and that this EXACT SAME WORSHIP is offered SIMULTANEOUSLY to Christ, proves that Jesus is YHWH the Son, EQUAL to the YHWH the Father in His Deity. John 5:18 NIV


Of course, Jesus is NOT my Lord God! Jesus taught that he is a MAN (John 8:40) and the Father (John 17:1) is the ONLY true God (John 17:3).

If you understood the doctrine of the Trinity you would realize that this objection has no merit whatsoever. OF COURSE Jesus is A MAN. The point is that Jesus is BOTH fully God and fully Man (Col. 2:9 NIV). Since He is BOTH, you cannot prove He is not God by pointing out His humanity just as one could not disprove His humanity by pointing out His inherent Deity. Likewise, that fact that there is only One True God does NOT exclude Jesus and the Father BOTH being that SAME One True God.

Since YHWH is the ONE TRUE GOD, and the Father is YHWH and the Son is YHWH, then BOTH THE FATHER AND SON are YHWH, the ONE TRUE GOD. IOW:

YHWH = One True God
Father = YHWH
Son = YHWH
Spirit = YHWH
Father, Son & Spirit = One True God = YHWH

It seems obvious that you are not willing to accept this, but you should at least understand what it is you are objecting to and revise your arguments so that they would be relevant.

Btw, a word of warning about your comment, "Of course, Jesus is NOT my Lord God!" The Bible tells us (my emphasis added):

Therefore I tell you that no-one who is speaking by the Spirit of God says, "Jesus be cursed," and no-one can say, "Jesus is Lord," except by the Holy Spirit. 1 Cor. 12:3 NIV

I told you that you would die in your sins; if you do not believe that I am (the one I claim to be), you will indeed die in your sins. John 8:24 NIV

The bracketed words are not in the original Greek and have been added by the translators for clarification, but it is my understanding that Jesus was warning the Jews that if they did not believe that He was the "I AM" of Exo. 3:14, (IOW, that He too was YHWH) that they would die in their sins (This should be apparent by reading the verse without the bracketed addition). If I read this verse correctly, this is the very same predicament you may find yourself in.


As the Bible teaches, the twenty-four elders fell down and worshiped "Him who lives forever and ever" (Rev. 5:14) who is "Him who sat on the throne" (Rev. 4:10-11). Therefore, Jesus did not have to say anything. The Bible also teaches that the living creatures and the twenty-four elders sang praises to BOTH "Him who sat on the throne AND the Lamb" (Rev. 5:13). Therefore, that's what God wants and we CANNOT do anything about it. We CANNOT teach God what He wants to say.

You left out the important part about all of creation JOINTLY WORSHIPING BOTH Father AND Son: "TO HIM WHO SITS on the throne AND TO THE LAMB be praise and honor and glory and power, for ever and ever!" But you are right in saying, "that's what God wants and we CANNOT do anything about it." So you should be worshiping the Lamb too.


That's the problem with picking one verse to support one's pre-conceived belief in complete disregard of other verses. What you arrive at are FALSE conclusions. "The throne of God and of the Lamb" does NOT mean that God and the Lamb SHARE the SAME throne.

Actually it's 2 verses. Verse 1 AND 3. There is no way around it. "Throne" is singular. The ONE throne belongs to BOTH God AND the Lamb. If you accept the Bible as the Word of God, then you have to submit to its truth - whether or not you like what it has to say.


We know from the Bible that Jesus is "SITTING at the right hand of God" (Col. 3:1). Therefore, we know that Jesus ALSO has a "throne" at the right hand of God.

Although "sitting at the right hand" is a Jewish expression indicative of a position of honour and/or authority and not intended to be taken literally, your example still does not prove your point - unless of course you are prepared to show that God's throne is not wide enough to seat two. :wink:


However, in Rev. 5, we can discern that there is "one who sat on the throne with a scroll in his right hand" (Rev. 5:1) and the Lamb who "STOOD before Him who sat on the throne" (Rev. 5:6). Therefore, we are certain that "Him who sat on the throne" is ALSO "Him who lives forever and ever" to whom the twenty-four elders fell down to worship (Rev. 5:14) - NOT the Lamb who is at that time STANDING before Him who sat on the throne..

Again, not sure what version you are appealing to. ALL the Bibles I have talk about the Lamb being IN THE MIDST or MIDDLE or CENTER of the Throne Rev. 5:1 NIV. Even so, regardless of whether Jesus is SEATED or STANDING, whether ON the Throne or IN FRONT of it, John has made it absolutely clear that JESUS IS BEING WORSHIPED BY ALL CREATION:

"Then I heard every creature in heaven and on earth and under the earth and on the sea, and all that is in them, singing: "To him who sits on the throne AND TO THE LAMB be praise and honor and glory and power, for ever and ever!"

Your inability to acknowledge this does not change a thing.


If there's anything I learned from this, it is that I should, from now on, verify from the Bible every quotation that is posted in this forum. Altered Bible verses like this one: lead people to FALSE beliefs!

"Altered Bible verses like this." I'd like to see you attempt to prove that allegation.

:popcorn:

Regards,
xcav8tor

[JB]

I'm sorry I don't speak Greek. However, from what I read in the Bible, Jesus is "SITTING at the right hand of God" (Col. 1:3).

And since God has "raised him from the dead and SEATED him at His right hand in the heavenly places, far ABOVE all principality and power and might and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this age but also in that which is to come, and He put everything under Christ's feet and gave him to be HEAD over all things to the church" (Eph. 1:20-22), common sense dictates that "ho thronos tou theou kai tou arniou" must mean, "the throne of God and the throne of the Lamb."

This fulfills what was prophesied in Psalm 45:6 of the Today's English Version, thus: "The kingdom that God has GIVEN you will last for ever and ever."

How else can the Lamb SIT at the right hand of God WITHOUT his own throne? Would God give Jesus a kingdom WITHOUT a throne? I think NOT, do you?

Thanks, IncRus. :smile:

The problem I have with the interpretation as "the throne of God and the throne of the Lamb", assuming I understand what you mean by it, is that it differs from what John actually wrote. If he had meant that, it would've been elementary for him to write: ho thronos tou theou kai ho thronos tou arniou--literally, "the throne of God and the throne of the Lamb". But instead, he wrote ho thronos tou theou kai tou arniou, connecting one throne--ho thronos, not hoi thronoi--with two possessors--tou theou kai tou arniou, "the God" and "the Lamb". The Greek seems, at least, to point strongly to there being only one throne in view here, yet attributed to both God and the Lamb. I suppose my question is this: if John understood there to be two thrones, one for the Father and one for the Son, why did he write ho thronos tou theou kai tou arniou?

And as for the last paragraph, why would Christ require his own throne, separate from the Father's? Is the kingdom he rules over not the kingdom of God? Could he not rightly rule from his Father's throne, seated on that same throne at the Father's right hand? (I continue, of course, to literalize the image of the Father and the Son seated on an actual common throne; since the Father is incorporeal, this should more properly be understood as imagery, and so to try to force inconsistencies into this picture and that of the Son seated at the right hand of the Father or of the Son standing before the throne, is to overliteralize what was likely meant to be read in a different way.)

[IncRus]

Hi IncRus,
Come to think of it, I missed the entirety of Rev. 5:14which clearly teaches that the twenty-four elders fell down and worshiped "Him who lives forever and ever." That's what one gets for relying on what others write without checking what the Bible ACTUALLY says.

Your last sentence here implies that what I quoted was somehow not what the Bible says, or that I had deliberately abbreviated what the Bible "actually" says. As far as I am aware, there is only one Bible version (the NKJV) which includes "Him who lives forever and ever." You may be referring to another version which I am unaware of.

That I have not been in any way manipulative or irresponsible in my presentation should be apparent by comparing verse 5:14 from the following Bibles:

NET And the four living creatures were saying “Amen,” and the elders threw themselves to the ground and worshiped.

NIV The four living creatures said, "Amen," and the elders fell down and worshiped.

NASB And the four living creatures kept saying, "Amen." And the elders fell down and worshiped.

NRSV And the four living creatures said, "Amen!" And the elders fell down and worshiped.

BBE And the four beasts said, So be it. And the rulers went down on their faces and gave worship.

MSG The Four Animals called out, "Oh, Yes!" The Elders fell to their knees and worshiped.

NLT And the four living beings said, "Amen!" And the twenty–four elders fell down and worshiped God and the Lamb. (This version supports the immediate context of verse 13)

In addition, my Westcott and Hort Greek Text of the New Testament DOES NOT include the phrase "Him who lives forever and ever." I do have a second Greek Interlinear but I cannot check this as it is out on loan at the moment.

I believe this would have been avoided had you referenced the Bible version from which you quoted the verse. At any rate, whether the phrase, "Him who lives for ever and ever" is included or not, I believe I had covered that in my first post.

Jesus said, "as it is written, you shall worship the Lord your God and Him only shall you serve" (Matt. 4:10). Since Jesus did NOT rebuke the twenty-four elders, it is reasonable to assume that the twenty-four elders did NOT fall down before Jesus to worship him (Rev. 5:14). And the NKJV of Rev. 5:14 bears me out.


I am not certain of the reason that the NKJV and NLT include an additional phrase when the others do not but I would guess that it was not present in the best texts and was suspected to be an addition by a scribe. In any case, there has been no manipulation on my part, neither do I believe there was a conspiracy on the part of the majority of translators to distort God's Word.

This is how the King James Version, renders Rev. 5:14: "And the four beasts said, Amen. And the four and twenty elders fell down and worshipped Him that liveth for ever and ever."

Since the King James Version is believed to be the oldest English translation of the Bible, I am more inclined to believe that the "best texts" you presented are manipulations by translators to make it appear that Jesus is ALSO worshipped as God.



Now, "Him who lives forever and ever" is Him who sat on the throne" (Rev. 4:10) who is the "CREATOR of all things" (Rev. 4:11). Apostle Paul identified God the Father as the "CREATOR of all things" (1 Cor. 8:6TEV). And the Old Testament prophet Nehemiah identifies the Lord God as the CREATOR of heaven and earth and everything that are in them (Neh. 9:6).

Since John 1:1-3 NIV, Col. 1:15-17 NIV, and Heb. 1:1-3 NIV all acknowledge Jesus as the Direct Creator AND SUSTAINER of the universe, then your objection to Christ as co-Creator with the Father and Spirit carries little weight.

John 1:1-3, Col. 1:15-17 and Heb. 1:1-3 NIV do NOT acknowledge Jesus as Direct Creator and sustainer of the universe. If this were so, these verses would CONTRADICT other verses which clearly state that God ALONE created the heavens and the earth and everything in them.

Jesus declared the Father (John 17:1) as the ONLY true God (John 17:3) and identified himself as a MAN (John 8:40). Therefore, Jesus' testimony that the Father is the ONLY true God supports the verses that say "God ALONE is the CREATOR (Rev. 4:10; 1 Cor. 8:6 TEV, Neh. 9:6).

Apostles John and Paul would NOT contradict themselves and the prophet Nehemiah, would they? Of course, they would not. Therefore, what apostles John and Paul meant was that "everything was created BECAUSE OF Jesus, and FOR Jesus. Meaning, that nothing would have been created WITHOUT Jesus.



The fact that praise and honor are lavished BOTH on Him who sat on the throne and on the Lamb does NOT make Jesus "Him who lives forever and ever" because we know that Jesus was "SLAIN" (Rev. 5:9) and "God raised him from the dead" (Rom. 10:9). The Bible teaches that God ALONE is "IMMORTAL" (1 Tim.. 1:17) who does NOT die and therefore "lives for ever and ever".

If you understood the doctrine of the Incarnation of Christ you would realize that your argument does not apply. Christ's Divine Nature as YHWH the Son has no beginning, and has no end. It is only His perfect human nature that was subject to death, and then raised to immortality. The fact that Christ's human nature was mortal was a necessary prerequisite for His role as our Saviour.

Your belief on the so-called "incarnation" of Christ is FALSE because it CONTRADICTS what Jesus said about himself. Jesus NEVER taught that he has a "divine nature as YHWH the Son who has no beginning." The TRUTH is, Jesus taught that he is a MAN (John 8:40) who proceeded forth and came from God (John 8:42).

The teaching that "Christ's human nature was mortal was necessary prerequisite for his role as our saviour" is NOT a fact. The TRUTH is, Jesus NEVER taught such doctrine.

The Bible does NOT support the FALSE teaching that "it is only His perfect human nature that was subject to death, and then raised to immortality." The TRUTH is, Jesus and his apostle did NOT teach such thing.


Again, the fact that the worship offered to YHWH the Father is true worship in its HIGHEST FORM, and that this EXACT SAME WORSHIP is offered SIMULTANEOUSLY to Christ, proves that Jesus is YHWH the Son, EQUAL to the YHWH the Father in His Deity. John 5:18 NIV

While the "EXACT SAME WORSHIP" is offered SIMULTANEOUSLY to Christ by a lot of people, this does NOT prove that "Jesus is YHWH the Son, EQUAL to the YHWH the Father in his deity."

The Jews ACCUSED Jesus of "making himself EQUAL to God" (John 5:18). This was a FALSE accusation. Either the Jews FAILED to hear Jesus or did NOT believe Jesus when he said, "the Father is GREATER than I" (John 14:28). Unfortunately for Trinitarians, they believe the Jews more than Jesus, their Lord and Savior.



Of course, Jesus is NOT my Lord God! Jesus taught that he is a MAN (John 8:40) and the Father (John 17:1) is the ONLY true God (John 17:3).

If you understood the doctrine of the Trinity you would realize that this objection has no merit whatsoever. OF COURSE Jesus is A MAN. The point is that Jesus is BOTH fully God and fully Man (Col. 2:9 NIV). Since He is BOTH, you cannot prove He is not God by pointing out His humanity just as one could not disprove His humanity by pointing out His inherent Deity.

The reason the doctrine of Trinity is FALSE is because it does NOT have Biblical support. Col. 2:9 does NOT say that Jesus is BOTH fully God and fully MAN. This is only how Trinitarians INTERPRET the verse. If this were what apostle Paul meant when he wrote Col. 2:9, he would have been CONTRADICTING Jesus who said that he is MAN (John 8:40) and the Father is the ONLY true God (John 17:3).

But of course, apostle Paul did NOT mean this. He meant, "For the full content of divine nature lives in Christ, in his humanity" (Col. 2:9 TEV).


Likewise, that fact that there is only One True God does NOT exclude Jesus and the Father BOTH being that SAME One True God.

This is an ABSURD statement! If it is really a FACT that "there is only one true God," how can Jesus, who is SEPARATE and distinct from the Father, be the SAME only one true God with the Father?" Besides, this CONTRADICTS what Jesus TAUGHT, that the Father (John 17:1) is the ONLY true God (John 17:3). Therefore, any OTHER God is NOT a true God.


Since YHWH is the ONE TRUE GOD, and the Father is YHWH and the Son is YHWH, then BOTH THE FATHER AND SON are YHWH, the ONE TRUE GOD. IOW:

YHWH = One True God
Father = YHWH
Son = YHWH
Spirit = YHWH
Father, Son & Spirit = One True God = YHWH

It seems obvious that you are not willing to accept this, but you should at least understand what it is you are objecting to and revise your arguments so that they would be relevant.

The only argument I have for this is: Why should I believe you when the Bible does NOT say that "the Son is YHWH" and BOTH the Father and the Son are YHWH the one true God?"

On the CONTRARY, Jesus says that the Father is the ONLY true God (John 17:3) and he is a MAN (John 8:40). Jesus is the savior, NOT you, isn't he?


Btw, a word of warning about your comment, "Of course, Jesus is NOT my Lord God!" The Bible tells us (my emphasis added):

Therefore I tell you that no-one who is speaking by the Spirit of God says, "Jesus be cursed," and no-one can say, "Jesus is Lord," except by the Holy Spirit. 1 Cor. 12:3 NIV

I told you that you would die in your sins; if you do not believe that I am (the one I claim to be), you will indeed die in your sins. John 8:24 NIV

The bracketed words are not in the original Greek and have been added by the translators for clarification, but it is my understanding that Jesus was warning the Jews that if they did not believe that He was the "I AM" of Exo. 3:14, (IOW, that He too was YHWH) that they would die in their sins (This should be apparent by reading the verse without the bracketed addition). If I read this verse correctly, this is the very same predicament you may find yourself in.

Again I say, Jesus is NOT my "Lord God." But Jesus is my "ONLY one Lord" (1 Cor. 8:6). God is my Father, NOT my Lord (Eph. 4:6; 1 Cor. 8:6).

Your understanding that "Jesus was warning the Jews that if they did not believe that he was "I AM" of Exo. 3:14 (IOW, that He too ws YHWH" is FALSE.

Jesus NEVER claimed that he is "i AM" of Exo. 3:14 or that "he too is YHWH" as you understand.
The TRUTH is, when Jesus said "i AM," he was referring to his being the Christ and the Son of the living God (Matt. 16:16-17). In John 10:36, he told the Jews that he is the Son of God, NOT God the Son.



As the Bible teaches, the twenty-four elders fell down and worshiped "Him who lives forever and ever" (Rev. 5:14) who is "Him who sat on the throne" (Rev. 4:10-11). Therefore, Jesus did not have to say anything. The Bible also teaches that the living creatures and the twenty-four elders sang praises to BOTH "Him who sat on the throne AND the Lamb" (Rev. 5:13). Therefore, that's what God wants and we CANNOT do anything about it. We CANNOT teach God what He wants to say.

You left out the important part about all of creation JOINTLY WORSHIPING BOTH Father AND Son: "TO HIM WHO SITS on the throne AND TO THE LAMB be praise and honor and glory and power, for ever and ever!"

Rev. 5:13 does NOT say that "all of creation JOINTLY WORSHIPING BOTH Father and son. Praising, honoring and glorifying BOTH the Father and the son is NOT the same as "worshipping Him who lives for ever and ever" as Rev. 5:14 clearly indicates.


But you are right in saying, "that's what God wants and we CANNOT do anything about it." So you should be worshiping the Lamb too.

This was written in reply to your question that if Jesus were only MAN, why was he not among the twenty-four elders. God did NOT say that we should also worship the Lamb.

The TRUTH is, Jesus TAUGHT that the Father seeks true worshipers to worship HIM (the Father) in spirit and in truth (John 4:23-24). Jesus NEVER said anything about worshiping him too.



That's the problem with picking one verse to support one's pre-conceived belief in complete disregard of other verses. What you arrive at are FALSE conclusions. "The throne of God and of the Lamb" does NOT mean that God and the Lamb SHARE the SAME throne.

Actually it's 2 verses. Verse 1 AND 3. There is no way around it. "Throne" is singular. The ONE throne belongs to BOTH God AND the Lamb. If you accept the Bible as the Word of God, then you have to submit to its truth - whether or not you like what it has to say.

Talking about accepting the Bible as the word of God, why can't you accept that the Father is the ONLY true God and Jesus is a MAN as written in John 17:3 and John 8:40? Because if you do, you wouldn't even think that Rev. 22:1-3 has something to do with whether Jesus is God or not.



We know from the Bible that Jesus is "SITTING at the right hand of God" (Col. 3:1). Therefore, we know that Jesus ALSO has a "throne" at the right hand of God.

Although "sitting at the right hand" is a Jewish expression indicative of a position of honour and/or authority and not intended to be taken literally, your example still does not prove your point - unless of course you are prepared to show that God's throne is not wide enough to seat two. :wink:

I assume you are also prepared to show that God is INCAPABLE of giving Jesus a throne after giving him a kingdom, are you?



However, in Rev. 5,we can discern that there is "one who sat on the throne with a scroll in his right hand" (Rev. 5:1) and the Lamb who "STOOD before Him who sat on the throne" (Rev. 5:6). Therefore, we are certain that "Him who sat on the throne" is ALSO "Him who lives forever and ever" to whom the twenty-four elders fell down to worship (Rev. 5:14) - NOT the Lamb who is at that time STANDING before Him who sat on the throne.

Again, not sure what version you are appealing to. ALL the Bibles I have talk about the Lamb being IN THE MIDST or MIDDLE or CENTER of the Throne Rev. 5:1 NIV. Even so, regardless of whether Jesus is SEATED or STANDING, whether ON the Throne or IN FRONT of it, John has made it absolutely clear that JESUS IS BEING WORSHIPED BY ALL CREATION:

"Then I heard every creature in heaven and on earth and under the earth and on the sea, and all that is in them, singing: "To him who sits on the throne AND TO THE LAMB be praise and honor and glory and power, for ever and ever!"

Your inability to acknowledge this does not change a thing.

Rev. 5:13 is not about worship. Rev. 5:14 is and it is only for Him who lives for ever and ever.



If there's anything I learned from this, it is that I should, from now on, verify from the Bible every quotation that is posted in this forum. Altered Bible verses like this one: lead people to FALSE beliefs!

"Altered Bible verses like this." I'd like to see you attempt to prove that allegation.

:popcorn:

The King James Version has the phrase, "Him who lives for ever and ever." Later versions of the verse dropped the phrase to make it loook like BOTH Him who sat on the throne, who lives for ever and ever (Rev. 4:9) and the Lamb are worshiped.

This should be obvious to anyone who is truly seeking the TRUTH.

[IncRus]

Thanks, IncRus. :smile:
I'm sorry I don't speak Greek. However, from what I read in the Bible, Jesus is "SITTING at the right hand of God" (Col. 1:3).

And since God has "raised him from the dead and SEATED him at His right hand in the heavenly places, far ABOVE all principality and power and might and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this age but also in that which is to come, and He put everything under Christ's feet and gave him to be HEAD over all things to the church" (Eph. 1:20-22), common sense dictates that "ho thronos tou theou kai tou arniou" must mean, "the throne of God and the throne of the Lamb."

This fulfills what was prophesied in Psalm 45:6of the Today's English Version, thus: "The kingdom that God has GIVEN you will last for ever and ever."

How else can the Lamb SIT at the right hand of God WITHOUT his own throne? Would God give Jesus a kingdom WITHOUT a throne? I think NOT, do you?

The problem I have with the interpretation as "the throne of God and the throne of the Lamb", assuming I understand what you mean by it, is that it differs from what John actually wrote. If he had meant that, it would've been elementary for him to write: ho thronos tou theou kai ho thronos tou arniou--literally, "the throne of God and the throne of the Lamb". But instead, he wrote ho thronos tou theou kai tou arniou, connecting one throne--ho thronos, not hoi thronoi--with two possessors--tou theou kai tou arniou, "the God" and "the Lamb". The Greek seems, at least, to point strongly to there being only one throne in view here, yet attributed to both God and the Lamb. I suppose my question is this: if John understood there to be two thrones, one for the Father and one for the Son, why did he write ho thronos tou theou kai tou arniou?

Perhaps, even at the time of John, redundancy was not an accepted way of writing. Don't you think that It is more absurd to think that God, with all His omnipotence, grace and mercy, would be so stingy to NOT create one other throne for Jesus?


And as for the last paragraph, why would Christ require his own throne, separate from the Father's? Is the kingdom he rules over not the kingdom of God? Could he not rightly rule from his Father's throne, seated on that same throne at the Father's right hand? (I continue, of course, to literalize the image of the Father and the Son seated on an actual common throne; since the Father is incorporeal, this should more properly be understood as imagery, and so to try to force inconsistencies into this picture and that of the Son seated at the right hand of the Father or of the Son standing before the throne, is to overliteralize what was likely meant to be read in a different way.)

The same question might be asked: why would Christ NOT require a separate throne for him while he rules over the kingdom that God gave him?

I don't believe that these instances where the Lamb is standing before "him who sat on the throne" (Rev. 5:6) and "sitting at the right hand of God" (Col. 3:1; Eph. 1:20) are meant to be read in a different way.

At any rate, God the Father and the son being seated on the same throne does NOT make Jesus the SAME God as the Father because Jesus said he is a MAN (John 8:40) and the Father is the ONLY true God (John 17:3). And "BELIEVEING" Jesus" means HEARING his sayings and DOING them (Matt. 7:24; Luke 6:46; John 8:31).

[xcav8tor]

Hello IncRus, :sigh:

This is becoming an exercise in futility. I have read some of your interactions with Old Shepherd and others which make it clear that no matter what or how much scriptural evidence is brought to your attention, you are unwilling to see it. Nonetheless, I will address your comments - hopefully for the last time.


I believe this would have been avoided had you referenced the Bible version from which you quoted the verse. At any rate, whether the phrase, "Him who lives for ever and ever" is included or not, I believe I had covered that in my first post.

Although I did not identify the NIV version I quoted in my original post (an oversight on my part), the quote was nonetheless accurately and thoroughly copied.


Jesus said, "as it is written, you shall worship the Lord your God and Him only shall you serve" (Matt. 4:10). Since Jesus did NOT rebuke the twenty-four elders, it is reasonable to assume that the twenty-four elders did NOT fall down before Jesus to worship him (Rev. 5:14). And the NKJV of Rev. 5:14 bears me out.

According to Jesus own words you have just quoted, "the Lord your God and Him ONLY shall you serve," yet the Bible commands us to "serve" Jesus Christ: Col. 3:24 KJV, Rom. 14:18 KJV. In the same way that Christ is not forbidding us to serve Him, Christ is not here forbidding us to worship Him.


This is how the King James Version, renders Rev. 5:14: "And the four beasts said, Amen. And the four and twenty elders fell down and worshipped Him that liveth for ever and ever."

Since the King James Version is believed to be the oldest English translation of the Bible, I am more inclined to believe that the "best texts" you presented are manipulations by translators to make it appear that Jesus is ALSO worshipped as God.

How does the exclusion of the last phrase make it "appear that Jesus is ALSO worshipped as God." Actually, no need to answer. The question was rhetorical.

You do not seem to realize that PRAISE and ADULATION ARE an act of WORSHIP.

And all the angels stood round about the throne, and about the elders and the four beasts, and fell before the throne on their faces, and worshipped God, SAYING, AMEN: BLESSING, and GLORY, and WISDOM, and thanksgiving, and HONOUR, and POWER, and might, be UNTO OUR GOD for EVER AND EVER. AMEN. Rev. 7:11-12 KJV

Note the method of worship here is PRAISE and ADULATION. With this in mind, read the following:

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; 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.

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. And the four beasts said, AMEN. And the four and twenty elders fell down and worshipped him that liveth for ever and ever. Rev. 5:11-14 KJV

HONOUR, BLESSING, GLORY, POWER, WISDOM are all given the AMEN of affirmation to BOTH God the Father, AND The Lamb in these chapter 5 verses by the apostle John, just as they were given in worship to the Father in chapter 7 - but of course, this means nothing to you.


John 1:1-3, Col. 1:15-17 and Heb. 1:1-3 NIV do NOT acknowledge Jesus as Direct Creator and sustainer of the universe. If this were so, these verses would CONTRADICT other verses which clearly state that God ALONE created the heavens and the earth and everything in them.

Of course they do. You only insist there is a contradiction because you reject the truth of the Trinity. Since your have already ruled out the possibility of Jesus being the Creator, you cannot accept the clear teaching of these verses so the only conclusion left to you is a faulty one.

As I told you earlier, you should REFRAIN from misrepresenting the doctrine. You must have a mental block about this because you keep making the same mistake even though it has been pointed out to you. Even though you do not accept the Trinity, there is no reason trying to argue that God "ALONE" created when the Trinitarian POV includes ALL 3 PERSONS of the Trinity within the term "GOD."

TRINITARIANS DO BELIEVE that GOD ALONE (Father, Son and Spirit) is the ONE AND ONLY CREATOR.


Jesus declared the Father (John 17:1) as the ONLY true God (John 17:3) and identified himself as a MAN (John 8:40). Therefore, Jesus' testimony that the Father is the ONLY true God supports the verses that say "God ALONE is the CREATOR (Rev. 4:10; 1 Cor. 8:6 TEV, Neh. 9:6).

Apostles John and Paul would NOT contradict themselves and the prophet Nehemiah, would they? Of course, they would not. Therefore, what apostles John and Paul meant was that "everything was created BECAUSE OF Jesus, and FOR Jesus. Meaning, that nothing would have been created WITHOUT Jesus.

You make the same mistake here. Instead of accepting the entire testimony of scripture and realizing that for all the passages to be true, God must be a Triune Being, you focus on certain verses which support the doctrine of your particular cult, and deny the clear teaching of the others on the bogus grounds of an alleged "contradiction."

I have already explained how Jesus being a MAN does not in any way disprove His DEITY, and yet, here you are again, repeating your exact same argument as if you never read it in the first place, or you have selective amnesia (I can't tell which).


Your belief on the so-called "incarnation" of Christ is FALSE because it CONTRADICTS what Jesus said about himself. Jesus NEVER taught that he has a "divine nature as YHWH the Son who has no beginning." The TRUTH is, Jesus taught that he is a MAN (John 8:40) who proceeded forth and came from God (John 8:42).

Whether or not Jesus specifically said what you would require Him to say is beside the point. The NT writers are very clear about His Deity and His role as Creator. Still, it is inaccurate to imply that Jesus did not teach that He was also God:

Jesus claimed to be able to forgive sin, to raise the dead (even Himself John 2:19-22 KJV), to be the judge of all men, to grant eternal life, to do what God does, and to be "One" with the God Father, and to have shared the Father's Glory before the world was created. These are not statements a mere man makes about himself - these are prerogatives and attributes of Deity alone and would be blasphemy if Jesus was not Himself ALSO God. Even the titles Son of God and Son of Man are claims of deity recognized by the Jews of His day. Mat. 26:63-65 KJV That all this evidence is lost on you comes as no surprise.


The teaching that "Christ's human nature was mortal was necessary prerequisite for his role as our saviour" is NOT a fact. The TRUTH is, Jesus NEVER taught such doctrine.

The Bible does NOT support the FALSE teaching that "it is only His perfect human nature that was subject to death, and then raised to immortality." The TRUTH is, Jesus and his apostle did NOT teach such thing.

There's that amnesia kicking in again. Aside from the evidence I presented (and that of others which you have ignored), your denials will not change the unambiguous witness of the Bible to Christ's Deity.


While the "EXACT SAME WORSHIP" is offered SIMULTANEOUSLY to Christ by a lot of people, this does NOT prove that "Jesus is YHWH the Son, EQUAL to the YHWH the Father in his deity."

It does as long as creature worship is forbidden, and I don't see God rescinding this command any time soon.


The Jews ACCUSED Jesus of "making himself EQUAL to God" (John 5:18). This was a FALSE accusation. Either the Jews FAILED to hear Jesus or did NOT believe Jesus when he said, "the Father is GREATER than I" (John 14:28). Unfortunately for Trinitarians, they believe the Jews more than Jesus, their Lord and Savior.

The Jews understood correctly that His claim to be God's Son was to claim God's nature for Himself - something He did on several occasions - and He never disputed their understanding. If anything, He rubbed their noses in it (Mat. 26:63-65, John 10:26-36 KJV). I am sure you have already been told by others the difference between Jesus saying the Father is "greater" in position instead of "better" in nature so I won't belabour the point here.


The reason the doctrine of Trinity is FALSE is because it does NOT have Biblical support. Col. 2:9 does NOT say that Jesus is BOTH fully God and fully MAN. This is only how Trinitarians INTERPRET the verse. If this were what apostle Paul meant when he wrote Col. 2:9, he would have been CONTRADICTING Jesus who said that he is MAN (John 8:40) and the Father is the ONLY true God (John 17:3).

But of course, apostle Paul did NOT mean this. He meant, "For the full content of divine nature lives in Christ, in his humanity" (Col. 2:9 TEV).

Regarding Col. 2:9 NIV (more clear than the KJV), the Greek word for Deity in this passage is theotetos, and if you consult Thayer's Greek English lexicon, page 288, it will show you the difference between theotetos - DEITY, i.e. the state of being God, Godhead, and theiotes - DIVINITY. Thayer says, "Theot, deity differs from Theiot, divinity, as essence differs from quality or attribute." AND FOR THE RECORD, Thayer WAS NOT a Trinitarian. He was, however, an honest scholar.

So the NIV's "DEITY" is the the most faithful translation of the Greek - NOT "divinity" or "divine quality." Of course, you cannot accept this definition as it goes against the teachings of your cult.


This is an ABSURD statement! If it is really a FACT that "there is only one true God," how can Jesus, who is SEPARATE and distinct from the Father, be the SAME only one true God with the Father?" Besides, this CONTRADICTS what Jesus TAUGHT, that the Father (John 17:1) is the ONLY true God (John 17:3). Therefore, any OTHER God is NOT a true God.

As I said earlier, the alleged contradiction exists only in your mind. Once again, your question "how can Jesus, who is SEPARATE and distinct from the Father, be the SAME only one true God with the Father?" only betrays your lack of understanding of the Trinity doctrine. A person who knew what the doctrine claims would not have to ask this. They would also realize that a proper understanding of the Trinity DOES NOT make Jesus an "OTHER God."

Even though it won't get through to you, the simple answer to you question is that Jesus is SEPARATE in PERSON with the Father, but ONE in NATURE.


The only argument I have for this is: Why should I believe you when the Bible does NOT say that "the Son is YHWH" and BOTH the Father and the Son are YHWH the one true God?"

On the CONTRARY, Jesus says that the Father is the ONLY true God (John 17:3) and he is a MAN (John 8:40). Jesus is the savior, NOT you, isn't he?

The Bible DOES teach that Jesus is YHWH by a comparison with OT verses about YHWH which the NT writers attribute to Christ. As this was pointed out to you by others, I will not repeat it here, nor again explain how Jesus is also the One True God.


Again I say, Jesus is NOT my "Lord God." But Jesus is my "ONLY one Lord" (1 Cor. 8:6). God is my Father, NOT my Lord (Eph. 4:6; 1 Cor. 8:6).

So in addition to Jesus not being your Lord God, God the Father is not your Lord either? He is the Lord of Christian believers as any Bible search engine will confirm. You just don't get that The Father and Son ARE BOTH our LORD and our GOD. There are a myriad of Divine Titles shared by BOTH, but again, you can confirm this for yourself.


Your understanding that "Jesus was warning the Jews that if they did not believe that he was "I AM" of Exo. 3:14 (IOW, that He too was YHWH)" is FALSE.

Jesus NEVER claimed that he is "i AM" of Exo. 3:14 or that "he too is YHWH" as you understand.

The TRUTH is, when Jesus said "i AM," he was referring to his being the Christ and the Son of the living God (Matt. 16:16-17). In John 10:36, he told the Jews that he is the Son of God, NOT God the Son.

This has all been covered.


Rev. 5:13 does NOT say that "all of creation JOINTLY WORSHIPING BOTH Father and son. Praising, honoring and glorifying BOTH the Father and the son is NOT the same as "worshipping Him who lives for ever and ever" as Rev. 5:14 clearly indicates.

Also already covered.


This was written in reply to your question that if Jesus were only MAN, why was he not among the twenty-four elders. God did NOT say that we should also worship the Lamb.

I never asked why Jesus was not among the 24 elders. I asked IF HE IS NOT GOD why is He not joining in the worship or refusing worship. A question you have still not answered.


The TRUTH is, Jesus TAUGHT that the Father seeks true worshipers to worship HIM (the Father) in spirit and in truth (John 4:23-24). Jesus NEVER said anything about worshiping him too.

Yet He ALWAYS accepted it when offered. That is what this thread is all about.


Talking about accepting the Bible as the word of God, why can't you accept that the Father is the ONLY true God and Jesus is a MAN as written in John 17:3 and John 8:40? Because if you do, you wouldn't even think that Rev. 22:1-3 has something to do with whether Jesus is God or not.

You still don't understand. I DO ACCEPT THE ABSOLUTE TRUTH OF BOTH TEXTS. THAT'S WHY I'M A TRINITARIAN.


I assume you are also prepared to show that God is INCAPABLE of giving Jesus a throne after giving him a kingdom, are you?

Capability isn't the issue. We are just looking at what these 2 verses are telling us. The Throne is singular. It is the Father's Throne. It is the Lamb's Throne. Connect the dots...


Rev. 5:13 is not about worship. Rev. 5:14 is and it is only for Him who lives for ever and ever.

Covered above.


The King James Version has the phrase, "Him who lives for ever and ever." Later versions of the verse dropped the phrase to make it look like BOTH Him who sat on the throne, who lives for ever and ever (Rev. 4:9) and the Lamb are worshiped.

Again, this last phrase makes no difference whatsoever. The preceding verses stand on their own. There is nothing in this phrase which contradicts or in any way amends the balance of the verse.

Regards,
xcav8tor

[Sparko]

xcav8tor,

welcome to the world of Incrus. He only has two verses in his bible. John 17:3 and John 8:40. Everything else has been mistranslated.

[IncRus]

Hello IncRus, :sigh:
This is becoming an exercise in futility. I have read some of your interactions with Old Shepherd and others which make it clear that no matter what or how much scriptural evidence is brought to your attention, you are unwilling to see it. Nonetheless, I will address your comments - hopefully for the last time.
It is not that I'm unwilling to see these so-called "scriptural evidences" that have been brought to my attention. In fact, I've seen them all and have evaluated them in accordance with what the Holy Spirit teaches, "by comparing spiritual things with spiritual" (1 Cor. 2:13).

By doing this, I find that these so-called "scriptural evidences" CANNOT hold water when COMPARED with other scriptures which I deem higher in my hierarchy of values. For one, I hold the sayings of Jesus Christ ABOVE what anyone in the Bible or out of it says. It's like upholding the Constitution over and above any other law.


I believe this would have been avoided had you referenced the Bible version from which you quoted the verse. At any rate, whether the phrase, "Him who lives for ever and ever" is included or not, I believe I had covered that in my first post.
Although I did not identify the NIV version I quoted in my original post (an oversight on my part), the quote was nonetheless accurately and thoroughly copied.
I agree that you quoted the NIV accurately and thoroughly. However, as I said, this NIV version is an alteration of the oldest English translated Bible, the King James Version, which includes the phrase, "Him who lives for ever and ever." This alteration MISLEADS people (including you, obviously) into believing that the twenty-four elders "fell down and worshiped" BOTH Him who sat on the throne AND the Lamb.


Jesus said, "as it is written, you shall worship the Lord your God and Him only shall you serve" (Matt. 4:10). Since Jesus did NOT rebuke the twenty-four elders, it is reasonable to assume that the twenty-four elders did NOT fall down before Jesus to worship him (Rev. 5:14). And the NKJV of Rev. 5:14bears me out.
According to Jesus own words you have just quoted, "the Lord your God and Him ONLY shall you serve," yet the Bible commands us to "serve" Jesus Christ: Col. 3:24 KJV, Rom. 14:18 KJV. In the same way that Christ is not forbidding us to serve Him, Christ is not here forbidding us to worship Him.
Your INTERPRETATION of Col. 3:24 and Rom. 14:18 is FALSE. These verses do NOT command us to "serve" Jesus Christ. This is only what you THINK! Moreover, these verses do NOT tell us that Christ is NOT forbidding us to serve him. Hence, your CONCLUSION that Christ is NOT forbidding us to WORSHIP him is FALSE.

Col. 3:24 and Rom. 14:18 are words of apostle Paul - NOT sayings of Jesus. I believe that whatever Paul meant to say to the first-century Christians in his letter is NOT addressed to me and does NOT change my conviction in what Jesus said to Satan in Matt. 4:10.

Therefore, I "worship" God ALONE - in spirit and in truth as Jesus taught (John 4:23-24) and "serve" God ALONE by OBEYING His commands. And God's COMMAND to people in the Christian era is to "Listen to His Son" (Matt. 17:5).


This is how the King James Version, renders Rev. 5:14: "And the four beasts said, Amen. And the four and twenty elders fell down and worshipped Him that liveth for ever and ever."

Since the King James Version is believed to be the oldest English translation of the Bible, I am more inclined to believe that the "best texts" you presented are manipulations by translators to make it appear that Jesus is ALSO worshipped as God.
How does the exclusion of the last phrase make it "appear that Jesus is ALSO worshipped as God." Actually, no need to answer. The question was rhetorical.
You are proof of that. Because your NIV lacks the last phrase, you were made to believe that the twenty-four elders fell down and worshiped BOTH Him who sat on the throne AND the Lamb, weren't you?

You do not seem to realize that PRAISE and ADULATION ARE an act of WORSHIP.

And all the angels stood round about the throne, and about the elders and the four beasts, and fell before the throne on their faces, and worshipped God, SAYING, AMEN: BLESSING, and GLORY, and WISDOM, and thanksgiving, and HONOUR, and POWER, and might, be UNTO OUR GOD for EVER AND EVER. AMEN. Rev. 7:11-12 KJV

Note the method of worship here is PRAISE and ADULATION. With this in mind, read the following:

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; 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.

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. And the four beasts said, AMEN. And the four and twenty elders fell down and worshipped him that liveth for ever and ever. Rev. 5:11-14 KJV

HONOUR, BLESSING, GLORY, POWER, WISDOM are all given the AMEN of affirmation to BOTH God the Father, AND The Lamb in these chapter 5 verses by the apostle John, just as they were given in worship to the Father in chapter 7 - but of course, this means nothing to you.
While praise and adulation may accompany worship, worship is RESERVED to God ALONE because God ALONE is the CREATOR of all things. For this reason, God is a JEALOUS God and does NOT tolerate rivals (Deuteronomy 6:15; Exodus 20:5 KJV/TEV)..

Hence, the Bible is very specific as to who is to be worshiped. In Rev. 7:11-12 you will note that the Bible specifically states, "...and fell on their face before the throne (this excludes the Lamb) and worshiped God." And in Rev. 5:14, the Bible specifically states that the twenty four elders fell down and worshiped Him who lives for ever and ever. Again, the Lamb is excluded because "Him who lives for ever and ever" is :Him who sat on the throne" (Rev. 4:10) - NOT the Lamb.


John 1:1-3, Col. 1:15-17 and Heb. 1:1-3 NIV do NOT acknowledge Jesus as Direct Creator and sustainer of the universe. If this were so, these verses would CONTRADICT other verses which clearly state that God ALONE created the heavens and the earth and everything in them.
Of course they do. You only insist there is a contradiction because you reject the truth of the Trinity. Since your have already ruled out the possibility of Jesus being the Creator, you cannot accept the clear teaching of these verses so the only conclusion left to you is a faulty one.

Even though you do not accept the Trinity, there is no reason trying to argue that God "ALONE" created when the Trinitarian POV includes ALL 3 PERSONS of the Trinity within the term "GOD."

TRINITARIANS DO BELIEVE that GOD ALONE (Father, Son and Spirit) is the ONE AND ONLY CREATOR.
Jesus did NOT teach the Trinity. Jesus taught that the ONLY true God is the Father (John 17:3). Therefore, the Trinitarian POV is UNACCEPTABLE to anyone who sincerely desires to be SAVED by the Lord Jesus Christ.


Jesus declared the Father (John 17:1) as the ONLY true God (John 17:3) and identified himself as a MAN (John 8:40). Therefore, Jesus' testimony that the Father is the ONLY true God supports the verses that say "God ALONE is the CREATOR (Rev. 4:10; 1 Cor. 8:6TEV, Neh. 9:6).

Apostles John and Paul would NOT contradict themselves and the prophet Nehemiah, would they? Of course, they would not. Therefore, what apostles John and Paul meant was that "everything was created BECAUSE OF Jesus, and FOR Jesus. Meaning, that nothing would have been created WITHOUT Jesus.
I have already explained how Jesus being a MAN does not in any way disprove His DEITY, and yet, here you are again, repeating your exact same argument as if you never read it in the first place, or you have selective amnesia (I can't tell which).
I keep repeating what Jesus said because you keep repeating that God is a Triune God. And you know very well that Jesus is the way, the TRUTH and the life. How you can even think yourself to be a Christian while rejecting John 17:3 is beyond me!


Your belief on the so-called "incarnation" of Christ is FALSE because it CONTRADICTS what Jesus said about himself. Jesus NEVER taught that he has a "divine nature as YHWH the Son who has no beginning." The TRUTH is, Jesus taught that he is a MAN (John 8:40) who proceeded forth and came from God (John 8:42).
Whether or not Jesus specifically said what you would require Him to say is beside the point. The NT writers are very clear about His Deity and His role as Creator. Still, it is inaccurate to imply that Jesus did not teach that He was also God:
What Jesus says should matter to anyone who sincerely desires to be saved. After all, it is Jesus who SAVES - not anyone else. The apostles were very clear as to WHO is God and WHAT Jesus is. Apostle Peter said Jesus is a MAN (Acts 2:22). Paul said Jesus is a MAN (Acts 17:31; Rom. 10:9; 1 Tim. 2:5) and taught that the Father is the ONLY ONE God of Christians (Eph. 4:6; 1 Cor. 8:6).

Jesus NEVER implied that he is God. On the contrary, Jesus clearly declared that the Father is the ONLY true God (John 17:3).

Jesus claimed to be able to forgive sin, to raise the dead (even Himself John 2:19-22 KJV), to be the judge of all men, to grant eternal life, to do what God does, and to be "One" with the God Father, and to have shared the Father's Glory before the world was created. These are not statements a mere man makes about himself - these are prerogatives and attributes of Deity alone and would be blasphemy if Jesus was not Himself ALSO God. Even the titles Son of God and Son of Man are claims of deity recognized by the Jews of His day. Mat. 26:63-65 KJV That all this evidence is lost on you comes as no surprise.
Jesus was able to forgive sin because God gave him authority to do so (Matt. 28:18; Acts 5:31). You are WRONG in saying that Jesus raised himself from the dead. Apostle Paul writes that it was God (the Father) who raised Jesus from the dead (Rom. 10:9). In John 2:19-22, Jesus was referring to his "body" or "church" as the temple of God (John 2:21).

The titles, "Son of God" and "Son of Man" are NOT Jesus' claims to deity. If the Jews recognized these as Jesus' claims to deity, it's because the Jews did NOT believe Jesus (John 8:42) and wanted to kill him (John 11:53). That's why the Jews FALSELY accused him of being equal to God (John 5:18) and being God (John 10:33).


The teaching that "Christ's human nature was mortal was necessary prerequisite for his role as our saviour" is NOT a fact. The TRUTH is, Jesus NEVER taught such doctrine.

The Bible does NOT support the FALSE teaching that "it is only His perfect human nature that was subject to death, and then raised to immortality." The TRUTH is, Jesus and his apostle did NOT teach such thing.
There's that amnesia kicking in again. Aside from the evidence I presented (and that of others which you have ignored), your denials will not change the unambiguous witness of the Bible to Christ's Deity.
The Bible does NOT have an "unambiguous witness to Christ's deity." On the contrary, the TRUTH is, the Bible clearly teaches that Jesus is a MAN (John 8:40) and the Father is the ONLY true God (John 17:3). These two verses need NOT be interpreted to be clearly understood. That's the reason why Trinitarians cringe at the mention of these two verses!


While the "EXACT SAME WORSHIP" is offered SIMULTANEOUSLY to Christ by a lot of people, this does NOT prove that "Jesus is YHWH the Son, EQUAL to the YHWH the Father in his deity."
It does as long as creature worship is forbidden, and I don't see God rescinding this command any time soon.
Since you say that "creature worship is forbidden," then I have more reason to say that the ""EXACT SAME WORSHIP" being offered SIMULTANEOUSLY to Christ by a lot of people does NOT prove that "Jesus is YHWH the Son, EQUAL to the YHWH the Father in his deity."

The TRUTH is, worshiping Jesus is IDOLATRY which is forbidden by God because Jesus is a CREATURE that was CREATED in the womb of Mary.


The Jews ACCUSED Jesus of "making himself EQUAL to God" (John 5:18). This was a FALSE accusation. Either the Jews FAILED to hear Jesus or did NOT believe Jesus when he said, "the Father is GREATER than I" (John 14:28). Unfortunately for Trinitarians, they believe the Jews more than Jesus, their Lord and Savior.
The Jews understood correctly that His claim to be God's Son was to claim God's nature for Himself - something He did on several occasions - and He never disputed their understanding. If anything, He rubbed their noses in it (Mat. 26:63-65, John 10:26-36 KJV). I am sure you have already been told by others the difference between Jesus saying the Father is "greater" in position instead of "better" in nature so I won't belabour the point here.
Jesus said WITHOUT qualifications, "My Father is GREATER than I." That means to me, that the Father is GREATER than Jesus in EVERYTHING. Jesus did NOT say "greater in position" as Trinitarians want people to believe.


The reason the doctrine of Trinity is FALSE is because it does NOT have Biblical support. Col. 2:9does NOT say that Jesus is BOTH fully God and fully MAN. This is only how Trinitarians INTERPRET the verse. If this were what apostle Paul meant when he wrote Col. 2:9,he would have been CONTRADICTING Jesus who said that he is MAN (John 8:40) and the Father is the ONLY true God (John 17:3).

But of course, apostle Paul did NOT mean this. He meant, "For the full content of divine nature lives in Christ, in his humanity" (Col. 2:9TEV).
Regarding Col. 2:9 NIV (more clear than the KJV), the Greek word for Deity in this passage is theotetos, and if you consult Thayer's Greek English lexicon, page 288, it will show you the difference between theotetos - DEITY, i.e. the state of being God, Godhead, and theiotes - DIVINITY. Thayer says, "Theot, deity differs from Theiot, divinity, as essence differs from quality or attribute." AND FOR THE RECORD, Thayer WAS NOT a Trinitarian. He was, however, an honest scholar.

So the NIV's "DEITY" is the the most faithful translation of the Greek - NOT "divinity" or "divine quality." Of course, you cannot accept this definition as it goes against the teachings of your cult.

I do not need a lexicon to tell me what to believe and what not to believe. The lexicon you are citing is biased towards the Trinity and the people who made it do NOT believe what Jesus said about himself as a MAN and about the Father, the ONLY true God.

Jesus and the apostles PREACHED that the Father is the ONLY true God (John 17:3; Eph. 4:6; 1 Cor. 8:6) and Jesus is a MAN (John 8:40; Psalm 80:17; Acts 2:22; Acts 17:31; Rom. 10:9; 1 Tim. 2:5).


This is an ABSURD statement! If it is really a FACT that "there is only one true God," how can Jesus, who is SEPARATE and distinct from the Father, be the SAME only one true God with the Father?" Besides, this CONTRADICTS what Jesus TAUGHT, that the Father (John 17:1) is the ONLY true God (John 17:3). Therefore, any OTHER God is NOT a true God.
As I said earlier, the alleged contradiction exists only in your mind. Once again, your question "how can Jesus, who is SEPARATE and distinct from the Father, be the SAME only one true God with the Father?" only betrays your lack of understanding of the Trinity doctrine. A person who knew what the doctrine claims would not have to ask this. They would also realize that a proper understanding of the Trinity DOES NOT make Jesus an "OTHER God."

Even though it won't get through to you, the simple answer to you question is that Jesus is SEPARATE in PERSON with the Father, but ONE in NATURE.
I perfectly understand the Trinity doctrine. But I DON'T believe it's true because it CONTRADICTS what Jesus said of himself (John 8:40) and of God the Father (John 17:3).

The Trinity is FALSE because the Bible does NOT support the Trinity concept that "Jesus is SEPARATE in person with the Father, but ONE in NATURE."

On the CONTRARY, the Bible teaches that the NATURE of the Fature is "Spirit" (John 4:24) while the NATURE of Jesus is "flesh and bones" (Luke 23:39).


The only argument I have for this is: Why should I believe you when the Bible does NOT say that "the Son is YHWH" and BOTH the Father and the Son are YHWH the one true God?"

On the CONTRARY, Jesus says that the Father is the ONLY true God (John 17:3) and he is a MAN (John 8:40). Jesus is the savior, NOT you, isn't he?
The Bible DOES teach that Jesus is YHWH by a comparison with OT verses about YHWH which the NT writers attribute to Christ. As this was pointed out to you by others, I will not repeat it here, nor again explain how Jesus is also the One True God.

It is NOT the Bible that teaches that "Jesus is YHWH by a comparison with OT verses." This is what Trinitarians CONCLUDE and want people to believe.


Again I say, Jesus is NOT my "Lord God." But Jesus is my "ONLY one Lord" (1 Cor. 8:6). God is my Father, NOT my Lord (Eph. 4:6; 1 Cor. 8:6).
So in addition to Jesus not being your Lord God, God the Father is not your Lord either? He is the Lord of Christian believers as any Bible search engine will confirm. You just don't get that The Father and Son ARE BOTH our LORD and our GOD. There are a myriad of Divine Titles shared by BOTH, but again, you can confirm this for yourself.
The first-century Christians had ONLY ONE God and that is the Father (Eph. 4:6; 1 Cor. 8:6) and ONLY ONE Lord Jesus Christ (Eph. 4:5; 1 Cor. 8:6). You must be referring to people who enjoy calling themselves "Christians" yet REJECT the sayings of Christ and the apostles' teachings!


Your understanding that "Jesus was warning the Jews that if they did not believe that he was "I AM" of Exo. 3:14(IOW, that He too was YHWH)" is FALSE.

Jesus NEVER claimed that he is "I AM" of Exo. 3:14 or that "he too is YHWH" as you understand.

The TRUTH is, when Jesus said "i AM," he was referring to his being the Christ and the Son of the living God (Matt. 16:16-17). In John 10:36,he told the Jews that he is the Son of God, NOT God the Son.
Already covered.
Yes, but your belief concerning "I AM" does NOT agree with what Jesus had in mind.


Rev. 5:13does NOT say that "all of creation JOINTLY WORSHIPING BOTH Father and son. Praising, honoring and glorifying BOTH the Father and the son is NOT the same as "worshipping Him who lives for ever and ever" as Rev. 5:14clearly indicates.
Also already covered.
Yes, but what you covered is what you were taught by your religious leaders, NOT what is truly depicted in the Bible.


This was written in reply to your question that if Jesus were only MAN, why was he not among the twenty-four elders. God did NOT say that we should also worship the Lamb.
I never asked why Jesus was not among the 24 elders. I asked IF HE IS NOT GOD why is He not joining in the worship or refusing worship. A question you have still not answered.
Whatever Jesus did or did not do does NOT change the TRUTH that ONLY God must be worshiped (Exo. 20:5; Deut. 6:13, 15).. Jesus is MAN (John 8:40) and NOT God (John 17:3). Therefore, Jesus must NOT be worshiped.


The TRUTH is, Jesus TAUGHT that the Father seeks true worshipers to worship HIM (the Father) in spirit and in truth (John 4:23-24). Jesus NEVER said anything about worshiping him too.
Yet He ALWAYS accepted it when offered. That is what this thread is all about.
The Bible does NOT say that Jesus accepted worship. A lot of people jaywalk everyday and are NOT bothered by police officers. Does that mean that jaywalking laws are dead? Most definitely not!


Talking about accepting the Bible as the word of God, why can't you accept that the Father is the ONLY true God and Jesus is a MAN as written in John 17:3and John 8:40? Because if you do, you wouldn't even think that Rev. 22:1-3 has something to do with whether Jesus is God or not.
You still don't understand. I DO ACCEPT THE ABSOLUTE TRUTH OF BOTH TEXTS. THAT'S WHY I'M A TRINITARIAN.
You must be kidding if you truly believe that you "DO ACCEPT THE ABSOLUTE TRUTH OF BOTH TEXTS." And that's why you are a Trinitarian?

Tell me, how can Jesus be ALSO God if the Father is the ONLY true God without mangling the English language?


I assume you are also prepared to show that God is INCAPABLE of giving Jesus a throne after giving him a kingdom, are you? 9
Capability isn't the issue. We are just looking at what these 2 verses are telling us. The Throne is singular. It is the Father's Throne. It is the Lamb's Throne. Connect the dots...
Yes, capability and rationality and common sense is the issue. Why would God give Jesus a kingdom and not a throne? Why would a gracious, omnipotent and Almighty God be so stingy that He could not provide another throne for His son to sit on? Open your mind and see that John must have wrote the verse thinking that "the throne of God and of the Lamb" is more gramatically correct than a redundant, "the throne of God and the throne of the Lamb."


Rev. 5:13is not about worship. Rev. 5:14is and it is only for Him who lives for ever and ever.
Covered above.
Yes, and I hope you and other Trinitarians understand that "Him who lives for ever and ever" is "Him who sat on the throne" (Rev. 4:10) - NOT the Lamb. Therefore, worship was directed to God - NOT to Jesus.


The King James Version has the phrase, "Him who lives for ever and ever." Later versions of the verse dropped the phrase to make it look like BOTH Him who sat on the throne, who lives for ever and ever (Rev. 4:9) and the Lamb are worshiped.
Again, this last phrase makes no difference whatsoever. The preceding verses stand on their own. There is nothing in this phrase which contradicts or in any way amends the balance of the verse.
The last phrase makes a BIG difference because it specifically points to God, Him who sat on the throne, as the one being worshiped ALONE. Thus, it REFUTES your belief that the Lamb was ALSO worshiped, thereby making the Lamb God.

[xcav8tor]

Hello IncRus, :sigh:

Talking to you is like trying to explain colour to one who is colour-blind. I don't mean this in a disparaging way, but to illustrate that you simply do not have the capacity to understand what I am talking about. Your worldview acts as a filter to block out any truth that does not fit into your narrow POV - you don't even see it. This is evident from your replies. Because of this, I am not going to repeat my previous arguments over again. I will, however, address a few final comments to you.



You are proof of that. Because your NIV lacks the last phrase, you were made to believe that the twenty-four elders fell down and worshiped BOTH Him who sat on the throne AND the Lamb, weren't you?

You seem to forget that John had already established in Rev 1:18 that Jesus is the one who lives "forever and ever":

I [am] he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death. KJV Literally in the Greek - zon eimi eis tous aiona ton aionon, "living I am into the ages of the ages"

In the context of the 4 living creatures saying "AMEN" in agreement with all of creation offering worship in praise to both to "HIM THAT SITTETH UPON THE THRONE, AND UNTO THE LAMB" AND knowing that John himself established that Jesus lives FOREVER AND EVER, there is no legitimate reason not to believe that IN THIS CONTEXT the 24 elders are here WORSHIPING THE LAMB as well as the Father. NOTE THAT VERSE 14 says the elders worshiped "him that liveth for ever and ever" - NOT SPECIFICALLY "him that sitteth upon the throne" and while this also describes God the Father, applies equally to the Son.

The only reason you can't see this, is as I said above, you are "colour-blind." 2 Cor. 4:4



What Jesus says should matter to anyone who sincerely desires to be saved. After all, it is Jesus who SAVES - not anyone else.

Then according to your own argument, Jesus is God in light of Isa. 43:3, 11 KJV

3. For I [am] the LORD thy God, the Holy One of Israel, thy Saviour:

11. I, [even] I, [am] the LORD; and beside me [there is] no saviour.


You are WRONG in saying that Jesus raised himself from the dead. Apostle Paul writes that it was God (the Father) who raised Jesus from the dead (Rom. 10:9). In John 2:19-22, Jesus was referring to his "body" or "church" as the temple of God (John 2:21).

You claim, "Jesus was referring to his "body" or "church" as the temple of God. This is not possible for 2 reasons.

First, the Church did not officially begin until the Day of Pentecost after the ascension of Christ (Acts 1:4,5/ Acts 2:1-4), but in this passage Jesus used the present tense ("THIS" temple), indicating that the “body” He had in mind already existed. Since the Jews could hardly destroy something that did not yet exist, Jesus could not be referring to a “resurrection” of the Church – spiritual or otherwise.

Secondly, Jesus said the Jews would destroy the temple/body He was referring to and in Mat. 16:15-19, Christ promised that even the gates of hell would not be able destroy the Church, much less the Jews.

Therefore, the BODY Jesus said HE WOULD RAISE (John 2:19 - "IN 3 DAYS I WILL RAISE IT UP"), was His own PHYSICAL BODY which the Jews had crucified (Acts 2:36, Mat. 27:63-66). The Father ALSO raised it (Rom. 10:9), and SO DID the Holy Spirit (Rom. 8:11). What the Bible is telling us is that The TRIUNE GOD raised Jesus from the dead (Acts 13:30).



I do not need a lexicon to tell me what to believe and what not to believe. The lexicon you are citing is biased towards the Trinity.

The purpose of the Lexicon is not to tell us what to believe, but what the Greek words MEAN so we can understand what the Bible is telling us. The word theotetos MEANS the full nature of Deity, so Paul is telling us in Col. 2:9 NIV that Jesus is BOTH God and Man.

Thayer's Lexicon CANNOT be "biased towards the Trinity" as Thayer himself WAS A UNITARIAN - JUST LIKE YOU. If he showed any bias whatsoever, it would be AGAINST the Trinity.


I perfectly understand the Trinity doctrine. But I DON'T believe it's true because it CONTRADICTS what Jesus said.

Which proves you DON'T understand the doctrine. IF YOU DID, YOU WOULD STILL SAY you don't believe it, BUT YOU WOULD NOT SAY that it contradicts what Jesus said.


On the CONTRARY, the Bible teaches that the NATURE of the Father is "Spirit" (John 4:24) while the NATURE of Jesus is "flesh and bones" (Luke 23:39).

:sigh: Jesus has 2 NATURES. Christ's HUMAN nature is "flesh and bones." Christ's DIVINE nature as God is "spirit." There is no other way for Him to be omnipresent as required by Mat. 18:20 and John 14:23.

Good Bye IncRus.

xcav8tor

[IncRus]

Hello IncRus, :sigh:

Talking to you is like trying to explain colour to one who is colour-blind. I don't mean this in a disparaging way, but to illustrate that you simply do not have the capacity to understand what I am talking about. Your worldview acts as a filter to block out any truth that does not fit into your narrow POV - you don't even see it. This is evident from your replies. Because of this, I am not going to repeat my previous arguments over again. I will, however, address a few final comments to you.


There is only one truth that I believe in and that's the Bible. Jesus said to the Father, "Sanctify them by your truth. Your word is truth" (John 17:17). And God's word is written in the Bible.

The Bible NEVER teaches the FALSE doctrine that Jesus is a SEPARATE person but ONE in nature with the Father. The Bible NEVER teaches the FALSE doctrine that the ONLY one true God is the Father AND the Son AND the Holy Spirit. These FALSE doctrines are based on opinions, interpretations and FALSE conclusions.

The Bible teaches that Jesus is a MAN (John 8:40; Acts 2:22; Acts 17:31; Rom. 10:9; Psalm 80:17; Isaiah 53:3; 1 Tim. 2:5) and the Father is the ONLY true God (John 17:3; Isaiah 45:21; 46:9; 63:16; 64:8; Malachi 2:10).


You are proof of that. Because your NIV lacks the last phrase, you were made to believe that the twenty-four elders fell down and worshiped BOTH Him who sat on the throne AND the Lamb, weren't you? You seem to forget that John had already established in Rev 1:18 that Jesus is the one who lives "forever and ever":

I [am] he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death. KJV Literally in the Greek - zon eimi eis tous aiona ton aionon, "living I am into the ages of the ages"

In the context of the 4 living creatures saying "AMEN" in agreement with all of creation offering worship in praise to both to "HIM THAT SITTETH UPON THE THRONE, AND UNTO THE LAMB" AND knowing that John himself established that Jesus lives FOREVER AND EVER, there is no legitimate reason not to believe that IN THIS CONTEXT the 24 elders are here WORSHIPING THE LAMB as well as the Father. NOTE THAT VERSE 14 says the elders worshiped "him that liveth for ever and ever" - NOT SPECIFICALLY "him that sitteth upon the throne" and while this also describes God the Father, applies equally to the Son.

The only reason you can't see this, is as I said above, you are "colour-blind." 2 Cor. 4:4

Rev. 1:18 refers to the one who was DEAD and NOW lives forevermore. This one does NOT live for ever and ever.

Rev. 5:14 refers to "Him who lifves for ever and ever." This means that "Him who lives for ever and ever" NEVER died and NEVER dies. This refers to the IMMORTAL God (1 Tim. 1:17).

This "Him who lives for ever and ever" is "Him who sat on the throne." You can read this in Rev. 4:10.



What Jesus says should matter to anyone who sincerely desires to be saved. After all, it is Jesus who SAVES - not anyone else.
Then according to your own argument, Jesus is God in light of Isa. 43:3, 11 KJV

3. For I [am] the LORD thy God, the Holy One of Israel, thy Saviour:

11. I, [even] I, [am] the LORD; and beside me [there is] no saviour.

You are referring to God who was talking to His ancient people, Israel (Heb. 1:1).

I am referring to Jesus by whom God has spoken to us in these last days (Heb. 1:2), whom God SENT into the world that the world through him might be saved (John 3:17).



You are WRONG in saying that Jesus raised himself from the dead. Apostle Paul writes that it was God (the Father) who raised Jesus from the dead (Rom. 10:9). In John 2:19-22,Jesus was referring to his "body" or "church" as the temple of God (John 2:21).
You claim, "Jesus was referring to his "body" or "church" as the temple of God. This is not possible for 2 reasons.

First, the Church did not officially begin until the Day of Pentecost after the ascension of Christ (Acts 1:4,5/ Acts 2:1-4), but in this passage Jesus used the present tense ("THIS" temple), indicating that the “body” He had in mind already existed. Since the Jews could hardly destroy something that did not yet exist, Jesus could not be referring to a “resurrection” of the Church – spiritual or otherwise.

Secondly, Jesus said the Jews would destroy the temple/body He was referring to and in Mat. 16:15-19, Christ promised that even the gates of hell would not be able destroy the Church, much less the Jews.

Therefore, the BODY Jesus said HE WOULD RAISE (John 2:19 - "IN 3 DAYS I WILL RAISE IT UP"), was His own PHYSICAL BODY which the Jews had crucified (Acts 2:36, Mat. 27:63-66). The Father ALSO raised it (Rom. 10:9), and SO DID the Holy Spirit (Rom. 8:11). What the Bible is telling us is that The TRIUNE GOD raised Jesus from the dead (Acts 13:30).

You are WRONG on all points.

The church or body of Christ started with his first recruited apostle. Jesus called his early church, "little flock" (Luke 12:32). When Jesus said, "I will build my church," he was talking about making his church GROW or BIG which is another meaning of "build."

The Jews thought that by killing Jesus, people would stop following his teachings because they were afraid that if the Jews left him alone, "everyone will believe in him, and the Romans will come and take away both their place and nation" (John 11:48). "Then from that day on they plotted to kill him" (John 11:53). During the three days that Jesus was tortured and killed, his followers deserted him, scattered and went everywhere. But upon his resurrection, his followers regained their courage and they spread rapidly into all the regions.

Rom. 10:9 refers to God the Father. The Holy Spirit referred to in Rom. 8:11 is the "Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead. And Acts 13:30 also refers to God the Father.


I do not need a lexicon to tell me what to believe and what not to believe. The lexicon you are citing is biased towards the Trinity.
The purpose of the Lexicon is not to tell us what to believe, but what the Greek words MEAN so we can understand what the Bible is telling us. The word theotetos MEANS the full nature of Deity, so Paul is telling us in Col. 2:9 NIV that Jesus is BOTH God and Man.

Thayer's Lexicon CANNOT be "biased towards the Trinity" as Thayer himself WAS A UNITARIAN - JUST LIKE YOU. If he showed any bias whatsoever, it would be AGAINST the Trinity.

The lexicon you are referring to directed you to MISINTERPRET what Paul was saying and led you to believe FALSELY that Jesus is BOTH God and man. The TRUTH is, Jesus is a MAN (John 8:40) and the Father (John 17:1) is the ONLY true God (John 17:3).



I perfectly understand the Trinity doctrine. But I DON'T believe it's true because it CONTRADICTS what Jesus said.
Which proves you DON'T understand the doctrine. IF YOU DID, YOU WOULD STILL SAY you don't believe it, BUT YOU WOULD NOT SAY that it contradicts what Jesus said.

Whatever you say, I will forever belive that the Trinity CONTRADICTS the teachings of Jesus. Jesus says he is a MAN (John 8:40) and the Father is the ONLY true God.



On the CONTRARY, the Bible teaches that the NATURE of the Father is "Spirit" (John 4:24) while the NATURE of Jesus is "flesh and bones" (Luke 23:39).
:sigh: Jesus has 2 NATURES. Christ's HUMAN nature is "flesh and bones." Christ's DIVINE nature as God is "spirit." There is no other way for Him to be omnipresent as required by Mat. 18:20 and John 14:23.

Again, you MISUNDERSTAND these verses. Jesus was talking to his followers, those who were BAPTIZED into "his body" (1 Cor. 12:13). Those who are BAPTIZED into Christ's body are "redeemed and receive adoption as sons. And because they are sons, God sends forth the Spirit of His son into their hearts crying "Abba, Father" (Gal. 45-6).

That's why, when two or three of his followers gather together in Christ's name, Christ's Spirit is in their midst. And if Christ's followers abide in Christ's teachings, his Spirit and the Spirit of God dwell in them.

Hence, your belief that Christ is omnipresent is FALSE. Proof of this is, before Christ died, he prayed to the Father to keep through His name the ones that He had given him (John 17:11-12). If Christ were omnipresent, would he have prayed the Father for this? I don't think so, do you?

[xcav8tor]

As I said... Good Bye IncRus.

[Sparko]

As I said... Good Bye IncRus.

I see you figured out that arguing with Incrus is like talking to a brick wall. He only thinks 2 verses in the bible are true and anything that says different must be a mistranslation.

Personally I think he is insane. I hope so because that means that he will still have a chance at salvation.

[JB]

IncRus is the ultimate example of what effect being trapped in a cult can have on someone's thought patterns.

[IncRus]

IncRus is the ultimate example of what effect being trapped in a cult can have on someone's thought patterns.

A thought pattern that makes three SEPARATE and DISTINCT Gods into one singular God is a sure sign that one is trapped in a cult.

Another sure sign that one is trapped in a cult is a thought pattern that makes two Gods, (one God who BECAME flesh and two, the God whom the God who BECAME flesh was WITH in the beginning), one and the same without batting an eyelash.

Yes, trinitarians are the ultimate example of what effect being trapped in a cult can have on someone's thought patterns.

[JB]

A thought pattern that makes three SEPARATE and DISTINCT Gods into one singular God is a sure sign that one is trapped in a cult.

Another sure sign that one is trapped in a cult is a thought pattern that makes two Gods, (one God who BECAME flesh and two, the God whom the God who BECAME flesh was WITH in the beginning), one and the same without batting an eyelash.

Good thing that's only your caricature of Trinitarianism and not the real thing, huh?

[Sparko]

I think the sure sign of a cult is when you have a bible that you only trust 2 verses out of and any other verses that contradict what you THINK those two verses say must be mistranslated.

Incrus, your problem is that you think you know what the truth is and so everything must be forced into that mold. Anything that doesn't fit, is discarded.

On the other hand, true Christians want to know the truth and they let the bible guide them to that truth, even if it contradicts what they already believe. In other words, their beliefs are molded by the bible, and the bible is not molded by their beliefs.

[IncRus]

On the other hand, true Christians want to know the truth and they let the bible guide them to that truth, even if it contradicts what they already believe. In other words, their beliefs are molded by the bible, and the bible is not molded by their beliefs.

That's not what I see in Trintarians Sparko.

On the contrary, trinitarians mold the Bible by their belief that Jesus is God. They don't let the Bible guide them to the truth where the Bible contradicts what they already believe in.

Case in point is John 8:40 where Jesus says he is a MAN and John 17:3 where Jesus says the Father is the ONLY true God.

To mold the Bible to their cultic belief that Jesus is God, trinitarians make Jesus the "word that was in the beginning with God" where John 1:1 does not say so and make John 1:1 say Jesus was God where it is clearly states that "the word - not Jesus - was God".

To mold the Bible to their cultic belief that Jesus is God, trinitarians make John 10:30 read "I and the Father are one [God]" where Jesus simply says, "I and the Father are one."

To mold the Bibe to their cultic belief that Jesus is God, trinitarians make John 8:58 read "Before Abraham was, I AM [God]" where Jesus simply says, "Before Abraham was, I AM" apparently referring to his being Christ and Son of the living God (Matt. 16:15-16).

Meanwhile, trinitarians conveniently DISCARD what Jesus says in John 8:40 and John 17:3 because these sayings CONTRADICT their cultic belief that Jesus is God..

Let me ask you Sparko. You believe that Jesus is God, don't you? Then, why in the world don't you believe "your God" when he says he is a man and his Father is the only true God? Isn't the Jesus who said these in John 8:40 and John 17:3 the SAME Jesus you worship as God?

Now I believe that people who are trapped in a cult have weird thought patterns!

[IncRus]

A thought pattern that makes three SEPARATE and DISTINCT Gods into one singular God is a sure sign that one is trapped in a cult.

Another sure sign that one is trapped in a cult is a thought pattern that makes two Gods, (one God who BECAME flesh and two, the God whom the God who BECAME flesh was WITH in the beginning), one and the same without batting an eyelash
Good thing that's only your caricature of Trinitarianism and not the real thing, huh?

People who are trapped in a cult don't even realize that their thought pattern is so muddled that they can't even differentiate what is caricature and what is real!

[Manwë Súlimo]

People who are trapped in a cult don't even realize that their thought pattern is so muddled that they can't even differentiate what is caricature and what is real!

I agree. That must suck for you.

[IncRus]

People who are trapped in a cult don't even realize that their thought pattern is so muddled that they can't even differentiate what is caricature and what is real!
I agree. That must suck for you.

No, it doesn't suck for me because I don't believe in a "three-in-one God."

[faithymom]

Since God has revealed himself as a Trinity, then you don't believe in any god but the one of your own making.

[Manwë Súlimo]

Since God has revealed himself as a Trinity, then you don't believe in any god but the one of your own making.

Get that disgusting cult-speak outta here lest you muddle the minds of our children! :ahem:

[Manwë Súlimo]

No, it doesn't suck for me because I don't believe in a "three-in-one God."

Ouch, you must tell me the exact magnitude of the suckage you must experience for shunning the truth in favor of a lie.

[IncRus]

No, it doesn't suck for me because I don't believe in a "three-in-one God."
Ouch, you must tell me the exact magnitude of the suckage you must experience for shunning the truth in favor of a lie.

The "three-in-one God" is the lie. You know that, don;t you?

[IncRus]

Since God has revealed himself as a Trinity, then you don't believe in any god but the one of your own making.

You say "God revealed himself as a Trinity." Which one? Are you referring to your God who revealed himself as a MAN and identified HIS Father as the ONLY true God?

[Manwë Súlimo]

The "three-in-one God" is the lie. You know that, don;t you?

Hahaha, that's a good joke. You should look into stand-up. That was so fu--- oh, you were serious...


You say "God revealed himself as a Trinity." Which one? Are you referring to your God who revealed himself as a MAN and identified HIS Father as the ONLY true God?

Have you ever heard of 'functional subordination'?

[faithymom]

You say "God revealed himself as a Trinity." Which one? Are you referring to your God who revealed himself as a MAN and identified HIS Father as the ONLY true God?
I'm referring to the ONLY God. Who has revealed Himself in the Scriptures.
His inspired word says that there is only one God.
It also says that the Father is God.
It says the Son is God.
It says the Holy Spirit is God.
Yet it is emphatic that there is only one God.

This leaves a few options:
1) God is lying when He proclaimed there is "no other God besides me"
2) He is lying when He says the Father, Son, and/or Holy Spirit are God
3) The Scripture we have is unreliable and there is no way to know what God actually wanted to say to us.
or 4) The Living God consists of the 3 persons that He revealed to us through the Scripture.


If we choose option1 or 2 we have a God who lies and cannot be trusted.
If we choose option 3 we are forced to toss out the Bible as we know it and we must acknowledge that we don't know what or how much was changed in Scripture or what is actually "God-breathed and useful for teaching" so we have zero certainty of ever knowing what God requires.
If we choose option 4 we have a concept that makes sense of what the Scripture actually says!!! When actually understood, the Trinity solves the seeming disparity between God saying He is One God and God also saying that the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God.

So if you believe that God's word will not pass away and that it is useful for teaching, rebuking, and correcting, then this is what it clearly and repeatedly shows us: God exists in Tri-unity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
If you are adamant in saying that God's Word has been corrupted and can no longer be trusted, then you must toss the entirety of it out since we have absolutely no idea what was changed and what was not.

[IncRus]

Have you ever heard of 'functional subordination'?

Functional subordination???? You trinitarians never run out of words or phrases to rationalize your FALSE cultic beliefs.

[Sparko]

is Incrus for real or just a troll?

[IncRus]

You say "God revealed himself as a Trinity." Which one? Are you referring to your God who revealed himself as a MAN and identified HIS Father as the ONLY true God?
I'm referring to the ONLY God. Who has revealed Himself in the Scriptures.
His inspired word says that there is only one God.
It also says that the Father is God.
It says the Son is God.
It says the Holy Spirit is God.
Yet it is emphatic that there is only one God.

Of course the word of God is truly emphatic that there is ONLY ONE true God (Isaiah 45:6; 46:9) and the ONLY ONE true God is the Father (Isaiah 63:16; 44:8; John 17:3).

However, where in the Bible can we find that the Father is God, the Son is God AND the Holy Spirit is God, yet these three Gods are "ONLY ONE God?" The answer is NONE!


This leaves a few options:
1) God is lying when He proclaimed there is "no other God besides me"
2) He is lying when He says the Father, Son, and/or Holy Spirit are God
3) The Scripture we have is unreliable and there is no way to know what God actually wanted to say to us.
or 4) The Living God consists of the 3 persons that He revealed to us through the Scripture.

If we choose option1 or 2 we have a God who lies and cannot be trusted.
If we choose option 3 we are forced to toss out the Bible as we know it and we must acknowledge that we don't know what or how much was changed in Scripture or what is actually "God-breathed and useful for teaching" so we have zero certainty of ever knowing what God requires.
If we choose option 4 we have a concept that makes sense of what the Scripture actually says!!! When actually understood, the Trinity solves the seeming disparity between God saying He is One God and God also saying that the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God.

1. Option # 1 is FALSE because God was NOT lying when He said, " there is no God besides me." God says He is NOT a MAN that he should lie (Num. 23:19).

2. Option # 2 is likewise FALSE because God NEVER said that the Father, Son and Holy Ghost ARE God.

3. Option # 3 is also FALSE because it is NOT true that the Scripture we have is unreliable and there is no way to know what God actually wanted to say to us.

On the CONTRARY, the Scripture is surely RELIABLE despite apparent MISTRANSLATIONS because we have a way of knowing what God actually wanted to say to us by "COMPARING spiritual things with spiritual as the Holy Spirit teaches" (1 Cor. 2:13).

4. Option # 4 is even more FALSE because there is NOT a single verse in the whole Bible that says the living God consists of 3 persons.


So if you believe that God's word will not pass away and that it is useful for teaching, rebuking, and correcting, then this is what it clearly and repeatedly shows us: God exists in Tri-unity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

What you are saying is NOT true! I dare you to show a single verse that CLEARLY and EXPLICITLY tell us that God exists in Tri-unity of Father, Son AND Holy Spirit.


If you are adamant in saying that God's Word has been corrupted and can no longer be trusted, then you must toss the entirety of it out since we have absolutely no idea what was changed and what was not.

Why would I say that God's word has been corrupted and can no longer be trusted when I know what was changed and what was not?

I'm glad you admit that you have "absolutely no idea what was changed and what was not." That only shows that you are a "natural man." And the "natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned" (1 Cor. 2:14).

[Manwë Súlimo]

Functional subordination???? You trinitarians never run out of words or phrases to rationalize your FALSE cultic beliefs.

Yea, we're just a wellspring of logic and reasoning. Its a shame that the deluded such as yourselves can't comprehend it.

So, when are you going to debunk functional subordination? Or will you continue to ignore it because you can't?

[IncRus]

Yea, we're just a wellspring of logic and reasoning. Its a shame that the deluded such as yourselves can't comprehend it.

So, when are you going to debunk functional subordination? Or will you continue to ignore it because you can't?

Functional subordination, whatever that means, is like a ghost. It does not exist. Why waste time debunking something that does not exist?

[Manwë Súlimo]

Functional subordination, whatever that means, is like a ghost. It does not exist. Why waste time debunking something that does not exist?

Oh wow, you make this too easy for me. All that above drivel is pure, unadulterated assertion. It is a fallacy. "Functional subordination is false because its false, darn it!" That's not going to fly.

Prove that it is false.

[IncRus]

Oh wow, you make this too easy for me. All that above drivel is pure, unadulterated assertion. It is a fallacy. "Functional subordination is false because its false, darn it!" That's not going to fly.

Prove that it is false.

Jesus said the Father SENT him. Jesus said he proceeded forth and came FROM God.

Jesus said he can of himself do NOTHING. Jesus said the Father is GREATER than him.

Jesus said of his coming NOBODY knows, NOT even the Son but the Father ONLY.

What functional subordination are you talking about?

Jesus is subordinate to God the Father in everything because he is a MAN (John 8:40) - NOT the Almighty God..

[Manwë Súlimo]

What functional subordination are you talking about?

Still obvious you have no idea what you're talking about, since this is what functional subordination answers. I'm not doing your homework for you. Go study it a bit and come back to me :ahem:.

[IncRus]

What functional subordination are you talking about?Still obvious you have no idea what you're talking about, since this is what functional subordination answers. I'm not doing your homework for you. Go study it a bit and come back to me :ahem:.

As I said, Jesus is not only "functionally subordinate" to the Father, whatever that means, but Jesus is subordinate to God the Father in EVERYTHING because he is a MAN (John 8:40) - NOT the Almighty God..

Apostle Paul teaches that the HEAD of Christ is God (1 Cor. 11:3). Obviously, you are the one who has NO clue about what you're talking about. You are NOT more believeable than apostle Paul, are you?

Hence, if God is the HEAD of Christ, how can Christ be ALSO God? How can Christ be NOT fully subordinate to God?

[Manwë Súlimo]

As I said, Jesus is not only "functionally subordinate" to the Father, whatever that means, but Jesus is subordinate to God the Father in EVERYTHING because he is a MAN (John 8:40) - NOT the Almighty God..

Apostle Paul teaches that the HEAD of Christ is God (1 Cor. 11:3). Obviously, you are the one who has NO clue about what you're talking about. You are NOT more believeable than apostle Paul, are you?

Hence, if God is the HEAD of Christ, how can Christ be ALSO God? How can Christ be NOT fully subordinate to God?

Ok, its obvious you're not going to look this up on your own, so here it is:

Do you have a job? Are you subordinate to your boss? If so, is your boss inherently "better" than you in nature? I should hope you would say no. You follow the will of your boss, but you are not inferior to him. That's "functional subordination" because you are subordinate in function but not in nature.

[IncRus]

As I said, Jesus is not only "functionally subordinate" to the Father, whatever that means, but Jesus is subordinate to God the Father in EVERYTHING because he is a MAN (John 8:40) - NOT the Almighty God..

Apostle Paul teaches that the HEAD of Christ is God (1 Cor. 11:3). Obviously, you are the one who has NO clue about what you're talking about. You are NOT more believeable than apostle Paul, are you?

Hence, if God is the HEAD of Christ, how can Christ be ALSO God? How can Christ be NOT fully subordinate to God?
Ok, its obvious you're not going to look this up on your own, so here it is:

Do you have a job? Are you subordinate to your boss? If so, is your boss inherently "better" than you in nature? I should hope you would say no. You follow the will of your boss, but you are not inferior to him. That's "functional subordination" because you are subordinate in function but not in nature.

You think you can compare Jesus and God as you compare apples with apples. You're wrong!

Jesus and God the Father cannot be compared as one compares apples with apples because Jesus and God the Father are NEVER the same in nature.

1. Jesus is by nature a MAN (John 8:40; Psalm 80:17) while the Father is the ONLY true God (John 17:3).

2. Jesus is by nature created (Luke 1:31) while God the Father is the creator (Neh. 9:6; Mal. 2:10; 1 Cor. 8:6 TEV)..

3. Jesus is by nature flesh and bones (Luke 24:39) while God the Father is Spirit (John 4:24).

4. Jesus by nature died (John 19:33) while God the Father is immortal or does not die (1 Tim. 1:17).

5. Jesus by nature can be seen (Matt 24:30; Acts 1:11) while God the Father is invisible or cannot be seen (John 1:18; 1 Tim. 1:17; 6:16).

6. Jesus by nature was made holy (sanctified) by God the Father (John 10:36) while God the Father is inherently Holy (1 Peter 1:16; Lev. 11:44-45; 19:2;20:7).

7. Jesus can of himself do nothing (John 5:19) while God the Father is Almighty (Rev. 1:8; 4:8).

8. Jesus proceeded forth and came from God (John 8:42) while God the Father has no beginning. God the Father is from everlasting to everlasting (Psam 90:2).

Jesus summed it all when he said, "My Father is GREATER than I" (John 14:28). And you better believe it!

[Brown Cat]

Hi xcav8tor,

I'm kind of late to this thread but I wanted to say you brought up a very good insight on something I had often "read over" in Revelation 5 without knowing it, namely that the reason the Lamb (Christ) is silent is because He is being worshiped. I'm glad you shared it with us and that this deserves more than just an "amen" from me on the bottom of the OP.

God bless,
Z :thumb:

[Manwë Súlimo]

You think you can compare Jesus and God as you compare apples with apples. You're wrong!

Jesus and God the Father cannot be compared as one compares apples with apples because Jesus and God the Father are NEVER the same in nature.

1. Jesus is by nature a MAN (John 8:40; Psalm 80:17) while the Father is the ONLY true God (John 17:3).

2. Jesus is by nature created (Luke 1:31) while God the Father is the creator (Neh. 9:6; Mal. 2:10; 1 Cor. 8:6 TEV)..

3. Jesus is by nature flesh and bones (Luke 24:39) while God the Father is Spirit (John 4:24).

4. Jesus by nature died (John 19:33) while God the Father is immortal or does not die (1 Tim. 1:17).

5. Jesus by nature can be seen (Matt 24:30; Acts 1:11) while God the Father is invisible or cannot be seen (John 1:18; 1 Tim. 1:17; 6:16).

6. Jesus by nature was made holy (sanctified) by God the Father (John 10:36) while God the Father is inherently Holy (1 Peter 1:16; Lev. 11:44-45; 19:2;20:7).

7. Jesus can of himself do nothing (John 5:19) while God the Father is Almighty (Rev. 1:8; 4:8).

8. Jesus proceeded forth and came from God (John 8:42) while God the Father has no beginning. God the Father is from everlasting to everlasting (Psam 90:2).

Jesus summed it all when he said, "My Father is GREATER than I" (John 14:28). And you better believe it!

........

I provide this quote as proof that we need a smiley of some guy having his brain explode.

Xcavator, do you mind if I join you?

[xcav8tor]

Xcavator, do you mind if I join you?

Not all all Turin. Feel welcome anytime. :teeth:

I've got plenty of :popcorn:

xcav8tor

[IncRus]

Hi xcav8tor,

I'm kind of late to this thread but I wanted to say you brought up a very good insight on something I had often "read over" in Revelation 5 without knowing it, namely that the reason the Lamb (Christ) is silent is because He is being worshiped. I'm glad you shared it with us and that this deserves more than just an "amen" from me on the bottom of the OP.

God bless,
Z :thumb:

Look at Rev. 5:14 of the New King James Version. It reads, " And the twenty-four elders fell down and worshiped Him who lives for ever and ever."

Who is "Him who lives for ever and ever?" Definitely not Jesus!

If you go to Rev. 4:9, you will find out that "Him who lives for ever and ever" is "Him who sits on the throne." And in Rev. 4:10, we see the twenty-four elders fall down before Him who sits on the throne and worship Him who lives for ever and ever."

On the other hand, Rev. 5:6 teaches us that Jesus is the Lamb who took the scroll from the right hand of Him who sat on the throne."

[Brown Cat]

Look at Rev. 5:14 of the New King James Version. It reads, " And the twenty-four elders fell down and worshiped Him who lives for ever and ever” .

Who is "Him who lives for ever and ever?" Definitely not Jesus!

Hi Incrus. After looking all through this thread, I’ve noticed that although there has been a lot of Scriptural evidence presented in this discussion that demonstrated Christ’s eternal nature and deity (that you've disregarded), I’ll only briefly refer to a few passages.

Isaiah 9:6: For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us; And the government will rest on His shoulders; And His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace.

John 1:1: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God”. (Notice there is not an article between “was” and “God”.)

John 8:58: Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am." (The Jews rightly understood Jesus’ messianic claim, and the unmistakable implication of deity in that claim. That’s why they tried to stone Him to death.)

There are several others but these should suffice. You cannot make them mean anything other than what they say unless you add to, subtract from or otherwise distort the Word of God.


If you go to Rev. 4:9, you will find out that "Him who lives for ever and ever" is "Him who sits on the throne." And in Rev. 4:10, we see the twenty-four elders fall down before Him who sits on the throne and worship Him who lives for ever and ever."

On the other hand, Rev. 5:6 teaches us that Jesus is the Lamb who took the scroll from the right hand of Him who sat on the throne."

The main question under discussion is that of Jesus’ deity. As it has been previously stated, the Lamb does not join in the worship. If He is merely a created being as you claim, why doesn’t He either join in and/or encourage worship of the Father? To remain silent in that case would be disrespectful and derelict unless Christ is almighty God.

And there’s one other thing I’d like to bring up: the story of the man born blind in John 9. After the man was healed it reads, starting in verse 35:

Jesus heard that they had put him out, and finding him, He said, "Do you believe in the Son of Man?" He answered, "Who is He, Lord, that I may believe in Him?" Jesus said to him, "You have both seen Him, and He is the one who is talking with you." And he said, "Lord, I believe." And he worshiped Him. And Jesus said, "For judgment I came into this world, so that those who do not see may see, and that those who see may become blind."

In every other instance in the New Testament those who attempted to worship God’s angels or godly men were told immediately to stop offering worship to a created being (Acts 10:26; 14-15;Colossians 2:18;Revelation 19:10:22:8). Jesus Himself said to Satan, “It is written, ‘you shall worship the Lord your God and serve Him only” (Luke 4:8). We don’t see Jesus telling the formerly blind man to cease his worship at all. If Christ was a created being (e.g. as Jehovah’s Witnesses have taught, Michael the archangel) and didn’t stop a man from worshipping Him, that would be one of the worst examples if not the worst example of blasphemy. If on the other hand Jesus is the eternal son of God and God the Son, fully God and fully man, then such worship was, and is very appropriate.

[IncRus]

Look at Rev. 5:14of the New King James Version. It reads, " And the twenty-four elders fell down and worshiped Him who lives for ever and ever” .

Who is "Him who lives for ever and ever?" Definitely not Jesus!

Hi Incrus. After looking all through this thread, I’ve noticed that although there has been a lot of Scriptural evidence presented in this discussion that demonstrated Christ’s eternal nature and deity (that you've disregarded), I’ll only briefly refer to a few passages.

Isaiah 9:6: For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us; And the government will rest on His shoulders; And His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace.

John 1:1: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God”. (Notice there is not an article between “was” and “God”.)

John 8:58: Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am." (The Jews rightly understood Jesus’ messianic claim, and the unmistakable implication of deity in that claim. That’s why they tried to stone Him to death.)

There are several others but these should suffice. You cannot make them mean anything other than what they say unless you add to, subtract from or otherwise distort the Word of God

I have been shown these verses a lot of times and I have refuted them each time without adding to, nor subtracting from nor distorting any of them. Concerning:

Isaiah 9:6 - This version of Isaiah 9:6 is a mistranslation.

This is a prophecy concerning Jesus which was not fully fulfilled. Jesus was never called "Mighty God" nor was he called "everlasting Father." On the contrary, Jesus himself said that one is our Father, He who is in heaven" (Matt. 23:9). Jesus also said that he was going to his God and to his Father (John 20:17). If this were not a mistranslation, Jesus would have known that he was the "Mighty God and everlasting Father.""

Besides, Isaiah was a prophet of God and a believer that the only one God (Isaiah 45:6; 46:9) is the Father (Isaiah 63:16; 64:8). It is inconceivable that he would write something that contradicts his other writings and his belief. This mistranslated version makes it appear that there are two Gods.

The truth is, the term "Mighty God" was not mentioned as one of the names of the child but as part of a name which in Hebrew reads as "Pele-joez-el-gibbor-Abi-ad-sar-shalom" (Is. 9:6, Jewish Publications Society of America) which in its footnote is explained as; "That is, wonderful in counsel is God the Mighty, the Everlasting Father, the Ruler of Peace."

Hence, the Smith-Goodspeed Translation renders this verse thus, "For a child is born to us, a son is given to us; And the government will be upon his shoulder; And his name will be called 'Wonderful Counselor is God Almighty, Father forever, Prince of peace'".

John 1:1 - Trinitarians distort this verse to make it appear that Jesus is the "word" that was with God in the beginning. John 1:1 says no such thing. The "word" - not Jesus - was God. And the "word" became Jesus when Jesus was born - not before.

The "word" refers to the "mental emanation" or "plan" of God concerning Jesus before the foundation of the world. Apostle Peter explains that Jesus was "foreordained" before the world was (1 Peter 1:20). This "word" concerning Jesus is found written in Gen. 17:7; Deut. 18:18 and Isaiah 7:14.

The phrase "the word was God" was John's metaphorical assurance of the certainty of fulfillment of God's "word." And John 1:14 is the fulfillment of God's "word."

John 8:58 - Again, Trinitarians distort the meaning of this verse to make it appear that Jesus was claiming to be God. Had Jesus said to the Jews, "Before Abraham was born, I was I AM," then I would agree that Jesus was claiming God's name, which would have meant that Jesus was claiming to be God.

But Jesus did not say that. Jesus said, "Before Abraham was born, I AM." Jesus was referring to what he was at that time. This can be gleaned from the conversation Jesus had with his apostles.

"When Jesus came into the region of Caesarea in Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, "Who do men say that I, the son of man, AM" (Matt. 16:13). So they said, "Some say John the Baptist, some Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets" (Matt. 16:14).

He said to them,"But who do you say that I AM?" And Simon Peter answered and said, "You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God" (Matt. 16:15-16). Jesus answered and said to him, "Blessed are you Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven" (Matt. 16:17).

From this conversation, we can conclude that when Jesus said, "Before Abraham was born, I AM," he was referring to his being "the Christ and Son of the living God" even before Abraham was born. Jesus knew that God foreordained him to be the Christ and Son of the living God before the foundation of the world (1 Petr 1:20).



If you go to Rev. 4:9,yo
u will find out that "Him who lives for ever and ever" is "Him who sits on the throne." And in Rev. 4:10,we see the twenty-four elders fall down before Him who sits on the throne and worship Him who lives for ever and ever."

On the other hand, Rev. 5:6teaches us that Jesus is the Lamb who took the scroll from the right hand of Him who sat on the throne."

The main question under discussion is that of Jesus’ deity. As it has been previously stated, the Lamb does not join in the worship. If He is merely a created being as you claim, why doesn’t He either join in and/or encourage worship of the Father? To remain silent in that case would be disrespectful and derelict unless Christ is almighty God.

You are asking for something that is not written. "God exalted Jesus to His right hand....." (Acts 5:31). That's why Jesus was seated at the right hand of God instead of worshiping God with the twenty-four elders. Jesus had no reason to talk when the twenty-four elders fell down and worship "Him who lives for ever and ever" because the worship was not directed at him. The twenty-four elders knew what they were doing, even before Jesus ascended to heaven and sat on the right hand of God. They did not need to be encouraged to worship God.

Hence, the silence of the Lamb does not mean that the Lamb is also God.


And there’s one other thing I’d like to bring up: the story of the man born blind in John 9. After the man was healed it reads, starting in verse 35:

Jesus heard that they had put him out, and finding him, He said, "Do you believe in the Son of Man?" He answered, "Who is He, Lord, that I may believe in Him?" Jesus said to him, "You have both seen Him, and He is the one who is talking with you." And he said, "Lord, I believe." And he worshiped Him. And Jesus said, "For judgment I came into this world, so that those who do not see may see, and that those who see may become blind."

In every other instance in the New Testament those who attempted to worship God’s angels or godly men were told immediately to stop offering worship to a created being (Acts 10:26; 14-15;Colossians 2:18;Revelation 19:10:22:8). Jesus Himself said to Satan, “It is written, ‘you shall worship the Lord your God and serve Him only” (Luke 4:8). We don’t see Jesus telling the formerly blind man to cease his worship at all. If Christ was a created being (e.g. as Jehovah’s Witnesses have taught, Michael the archangel) and didn’t stop a man from worshipping Him, that would be one of the worst examples if not the worst example of blasphemy. If on the other hand Jesus is the eternal son of God and God the Son, fully God and fully man, then such worship was, and is very appropriate.

Who are you to say that "not stopping someone from worshiping him is one of the worst examples if not the worst example of blasphemy?"

Only God can lay down the law on blasphemy and we can find this only in the Bible. God does not say that Jesus committed blasphemy for not stopping people from worshiping him.

The command to worship God is directed to all. If anyone chooses to disobey this command, it becomes a matter between him and God. Hence, Jesus did not find it necessary to reprimand the blind man. At that time, Jesus was in a healing - not teaching or reprimanding - mode.

It does not make the one being worshiped to be God, whether he consciously allows to be worshiped or not. In fact, Jesus himself worshiped the Father (John 4:21). He said, "You worship what you do not know; we know what we worship, for salvation is of the Jews" (John 4:22).

[Brown Cat]

I have been shown these verses a lot of times and I have refuted them each time without adding to, nor subtracting from nor distorting any of them.

It seems to me that it would be better instead to believe them rather than refute them although I’m sure you meant you were refuting my interpretation of these verses. However, in your attempts to do this you’ve only explained them away and not given persuasive reasons why they should not mean exactly what they say. And if you can’t show why the normal, obvious readings are incorrect, by the way, your explanations amount to distortions of God’s word.


Concerning:
Isaiah 9:6 - This version of Isaiah 9:6 is a mistranslation.

Then I guess a whole lot of people have mistranslated this verse according to you. I went through 35 translations and none of them agreed with your reading and interpretation. Although this fact in and of itself doesn’t prove my interpretation right and yours wrong, it still should cause you to consider that maybe, just maybe, the majority of biblical scholars might be on to something after all.


Jesus was never called "Mighty God" nor was he called "everlasting Father."

Matthew, in his gospel (1:23) quotes Isaiah 7:14 when he says “they shall call His name Immanuel, which translated means ‘God with us’”. Then why was Jesus never called “Immanuel”? The reason for this is that is a title, a description of who He is. Same thing goes for “Wonderful”, “Counselor”, “Mighty God”, and “Eternal Father” in Isaiah 9:6, although many people in history have referred to Him with these names. Also, I’d like to point out that the names of Old Testament people often gave a description of something of the person’s nature, who they were, their character and sometimes their destiny and those of their descendants, which is characteristic of Semitic names in the Bible. This was especially true of God given names such as Abraham, Sarah and Jacob (when he was renamed Israel), to name a few. It would not be surprising then, that the greatest of them all, the Messiah, would be so aptly described with these names and titles.


Besides, Isaiah was a prophet of God and a believer that the only one God (Isaiah 45:6; 46:9) is the Father (Isaiah 63:16; 64:8). It is inconceivable that he would write something that contradicts his other writings and his belief. This mistranslated version makes it appear that there are two Gods.

He wrote what was revealed to him by God to write, and yes, because he wrote under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit it is impossible that he would write something that would contradict existing and future scripture. But his understanding was incomplete about everything he was given to prophesy about and this was the case with many of the other biblical prophets (e.g., 1 Peter 1:10; see also Daniel 12:8-9, 13).


The truth is, the term "Mighty God" was not mentioned as one of the names of the child but as part of a name which in Hebrew reads as "Pele-joez-el-gibbor-Abi-ad-sar-shalom" (Is. 9:6, Jewish Publications Society of America) which in its footnote is explained as; "That is, wonderful in counsel is God the Mighty, the Everlasting Father, the Ruler of Peace."

You might want to check out this website for another interpretation of Isaiah 9:6 and the Hebrew phrase you mentioned.

http://www.jesusplusnothing.com/questions/JesusisGod.htm


Hence, the Smith-Goodspeed Translation renders this verse thus, "For a child is born to us, a son is given to us; And the government will be upon his shoulder; And his name will be called 'Wonderful Counselor is God Almighty, Father forever, Prince of peace'".

I’m not impressed by the Smith-Goodspeed translation either as this is the work of two liberal theologians versus the thirty some odd translations I mentioned earlier. BTW, where did that “is” come from? (Wonderful Counselor is God Almighty). And you said you were not “adding” in your refutations. Great heresies have sometimes swung on such small hinges.


John 1:1 - Trinitarians distort this verse to make it appear that Jesus is the "word" that was with God in the beginning. John 1:1 says no such thing. The "word" - not Jesus - was God. And the "word" became Jesus when Jesus was born - not before.

Since you say, “the ‘word’ – not Jesus was God”. Surely you don’t mean it reads like (if you substitute “God” for “Word”): “In the beginning was the God and the God was with God and the God was God”?

Have you not observed that whenever the apostle John uses the term, “Word” in reference to a person he always refers to Christ in his gospel, in 1 John and in Revelation? And how you find a basis in concluding that the first instance of “the Word” in John 1:1 then changes to refer to Jesus later on but not as God (same word) without some kind of clue from the context is beyond me.


The "word" refers to the "mental emanation" or "plan" of God concerning Jesus before the foundation of the world. Apostle Peter explains that Jesus was "foreordained" before the world was (1 Peter 1:20). This "word" concerning Jesus is found written in Gen. 17:7; Deut. 18:18 and Isaiah 7:14.

That God had a plan concerning Jesus does not establish Him as merely a “mental emanation”. .

“For He was foreknown before the foundation of the world, but has appeared in these last times for the sake of you” (1 Peter 1:20)

Which does not rule out Christ’s deity.

"I will establish My covenant between Me and you and your descendants after you throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and to your descendants after you. (Genesis 17:7)

This was God’s promise to Abraham of an everlasting covenant and was something God planned before the creation but I don’t see how this supports your point.

“I will raise up a prophet from among their countrymen like you, and I will put My words in his mouth, and he shall speak to them all that I command him.” (Deuteronomy 18:18)

Again, although Jesus was the Prophet spoken of by Moses, it in no way says that He is not something more than a prophet.

"Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, a virgin will be with child and bear a son, and she will call His name Immanuel.” (Isaiah 7:14)

Actually this verse is strong evidence for my view. In none of these Scripture passages have you helped your case against Christ’s deity. Sure Jesus work of redemption involved the plan of God before the world began. But you seem to be either unable or unwilling to consider the idea that Jesus was, and is more than merely human, as is evidenced by your constant repeating (and limited understanding) of John 8:40 throughout this thread.


The phrase "the word was God" was John's metaphorical assurance of the certainty of fulfillment of God's "word." And John 1:14 is the fulfillment of God's "word."


Look a little further down the chapter and you’ll find verse 23: John the Baptist said:

He said, "I am A VOICE OF ONE CRYING IN THE WILDERNESS, `MAKE STRAIGHT THE WAY OF THE LORD,' as Isaiah the prophet said."

This is a quotation from Isaiah 40:3. Compare this with Malachi 3:1:

"Behold, I am going to send My messenger, and he will clear the way before Me. And the Lord, whom you seek, will suddenly come to His temple; and the messenger of the covenant, in whom you delight, behold, He is coming," says the LORD of hosts.”

It seems pretty clear to me that this refers to Christ’s deity.


John 8:58 - Again, Trinitarians distort the meaning of this verse to make it appear that Jesus was claiming to be God. Had Jesus said to the Jews, "Before Abraham was born, I was I AM," then I would agree that Jesus was claiming God's name, which would have meant that Jesus was claiming to be God. But Jesus did not say that. Jesus said, "Before Abraham was born, I AM." Jesus was referring to what he was at that time.

I see a really good example of more “explaining away” in the above paragraph.

"Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad." So the Jews said to Him, "You are not yet fifty years old, and have You seen Abraham?" Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am." (John 8:58)

Why was there the necessity for Jesus to say “I was I am”? That would be redundant. Jesus’ reply directly answered His questioners and not only that it enraged them to the point of their picking up stones to kill Him. Whether you accept it or not, they did so because they correctly understood Jesus’ declaration to be claiming equality with the Father, and by strong implication, deity. In fact, you find this recurrent theme throughout John’s gospel (Word of God=Son of God=equal with God=fully God and fully man). “…these have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name” (John 20:31).

And he says it again in 1 John 5:20:

“And we know that the Son of God has come, and has given us understanding so that we may know Him who is true; and we are in Him who is true, in His Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal life.”


Who are you to say that "not stopping someone from worshiping him is one of the worst examples if not the worst example of blasphemy?"

I’m taking it from the first two of the Ten Commandments, that’s how I can say it (Exodus 20 3-6). Because if someone was offered worship and that person allowed it to happen without protest, such a one would be putting himself in the place of God and therefore would be condoning a blasphemous act. Case in point: Consider King Herod Agrippa I in Acts 12:21-23:

“On an appointed day Herod, having put on his royal apparel, took his seat on the rostrum and began delivering an address to them. The people kept crying out, ‘The voice of a god and not of a man!’ And immediately an angel of the Lord struck him because he did not give God the glory, and he was eaten by worms and died.”

If that’s not blasphemy, I don’t know what is. Besides, sins of omission can be just as bad as or worse than sins that are committed.


Only God can lay down the law on blasphemy and we can find this only in the Bible.

Yes He did, and I took Him at His word.


God does not say that Jesus committed blasphemy for not stopping people from worshiping him.

That’s because Jesus is eternally God the Son as I’ve been asserting all along.


The command to worship God is directed to all. If anyone chooses to disobey this command, it becomes a matter between him and God.

In a sense that is true but it adds another element when you have a created being who becomes an object of worship. Every time it was recorded, as I said, that a godly person was offered worship, they immediately tried to stop it from happening. Any godly human or angel would feel compelled that this is the necessary and proper thing to do. Furthermore, when Satan attempted to get Jesus to worship him in the desert, Christ shut him down quickly (Matthew 4:9-10; Luke 4:6-8). Another example was when Jesus drove out the money changers in the Temple. He said that they had turned God’s house, which is the Lord’s house of prayer, into a den of thieves (Mark 11:15-17). Jesus expelled those who worshiped money more than God. Recall that Paul wrote in Colossians 3:5 that covetousness is idolatry. And since idolatry is the act of making something more important than God, it amounts to worshipping something other than God. Finally, Jesus confronted the scribes and Pharisees with their idolatry of man-made tradition rather than the Scriptures and rebuked them severely. So if Christ was a created being as you claim, what’s His excuse, if lesser beings felt the need to stop unlawful worship and did that, why didn’t He?


Hence, Jesus did not find it necessary to reprimand the blind man. At that time, Jesus was in a healing - not teaching or reprimanding - mode.

:hrm: I fail to see what difference that makes, the “mode” He was in and it’s irrelevant anyway. He said and did whatever was necessary as the situation required every time. I might point out (again) wherever it’s recorded without exception that Christ was worshiped He never said, “Don’t worship me; only worship the Father”.


In fact, Jesus himself worshiped the Father (John 4:21). He said, "You worship what you do not know; we know what we worship, for salvation is of the Jews" (John 4:22).

Even though we will not come to an agreement on this issue I respect your zeal and passion for what you believe to be true.

I wish you a happy and blessed 2009.

God bless,
Z

[IncRus]

I have been shown these verses a lot of times and I have refuted them each time without adding to, nor subtracting from nor distorting any of them.
It seems to me that it would be better instead to believe them rather than refute them although I’m sure you meant you were refuting my interpretation of these verses. However, in your attempts to do this you’ve only explained them away and not given persuasive reasons why they should not mean exactly what they say. And if you can’t show why the normal, obvious readings are incorrect, by the way, your explanations amount to distortions of God’s word.

Thank you for pointing that out to me. You're correct, I meant to refute your interpretation of these verses.



Concerning:
Isaiah 9:6 -This version of Isaiah 9:6is a mistranslation.
Then I guess a whole lot of people have mistranslated this verse according to you. I went through 35 translations and none of them agreed with your reading and interpretation. Although this fact in and of itself doesn’t prove my interpretation right and yours wrong, it still should cause you to consider that maybe, just maybe, the majority of biblical scholars might be on to something after all.

No, I won't even think of giving these so-called biblical scholars an inch until I am shown another version of John 17:3 where Jesus says to the Father, "And this is eternal life, that they may know you and I are the ONLY true God and Jesus Christ whom you have sent." Of course, this version would NOT make any sense at all, don't you think?

So far, ALL the versions of John 17:3 I have seen, CLEARLY identifies the Father as the ONLY true God.



Jesus was never called "Mighty God" nor was he called "everlasting Father."
Matthew, in his gospel (1:23) quotes Isaiah 7:14when he says “they shall call His name Immanuel, which translated means ‘God with us’”. Then why was Jesus never called “Immanuel”? The reason for this is that is a title, a description of who He is. Same thing goes for “Wonderful”, “Counselor”, “Mighty God”, and “Eternal Father” in Isaiah 9:6,although many people in history have referred to Him with these names. Also, I’d like to point out that the names of Old Testament people often gave a description of something of the person’s nature, who they were, their character and sometimes their destiny and those of their descendants, which is characteristic of Semitic names in the Bible. This was especially true of God given names such as Abraham, Sarah and Jacob (when he was renamed Israel), to name a few. It would not be surprising then, that the greatest of them all, the Messiah, would be so aptly described with these names and titles.

Jesus does not believe that he is "Mighty God." He identified the Father as the ONLY true God (John 17:3).

Jesus does not believe that he is "everlasting Father" either. He said he and his disciples have ONLY ONE Father, He who is in heaven (Matt. 23:9).

The name IMMANUEL which means "God with us," describes the end result of the mission for which God sent Jesus into the world (Matt. 1:21; John 3:17). Those who will be saved will "dwell with God in the Holy City" (Rev. 21:1-4).



Besides, Isaiah was a prophet of God and a believer that the only one God (Isaiah 45:6; 46:9) is the Father (Isaiah 63:16; 64:8). It is inconceivable that he would write something that contradicts his other writings and his belief. This mistranslated version makes it appear that there are two Gods.

He wrote what was revealed to him by God to write, and yes, because he wrote under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit it is impossible that he would write something that would contradict existing and future scripture. But his understanding was incomplete about everything he was given to prophesy about and this was the case with many of the other biblical prophets (e.g., 1 Peter 1:10; see also Daniel 12:8-9, 13).

Well then, since the second part of Isaiah's prophecy has been repudiated by Jesus himself, this version of Isaiah 9:6 should therefore be of no value.



The truth is, the term "Mighty God" was not mentioned as one of the names of the child but as part of a name which in Hebrew reads as "Pele-joez-el-gibbor-Abi-ad-sar-shalom" (Is. 9:6, Jewish Publications Society of America) which in its footnote is explained as; "That is, wonderful in counsel is God the Mighty, the Everlasting Father, the Ruler of Peace."
You might want to check out this website for another interpretation of Isaiah 9:6and the Hebrew phrase you mentioned.

http://www.jesusplusnothing.com/ques...JesusisGod.htm

So far, I'm satisfied with this version since it agrees with what Jesus taught concerning the Father as the ONLY true God (John 17:3).



Hence, the Smith-Goodspeed Translation renders this verse thus, "For a child is born to us, a son is given to us; And the government will be upon his shoulder; And his name will be called 'Wonderful Counselor is God Almighty, Father forever, Prince of peace'".
I’m not impressed by the Smith-Goodspeed translation either as this is the work of two liberal theologians versus the thirty some odd translations I mentioned earlier. BTW, where did that “is” come from? (Wonderful Counselor is God Almighty). And you said you were not “adding” in your refutations. Great heresies have sometimes swung on such small hinges.

I am not adding anything. I am simply quoting from another version of the Bible, which I believe is more truthful than your opinion or interpretation.



John 1:1 -Trinitarians distort this verse to make it appear that Jesus is the "word" that was with God in the beginning. John 1:1says no such thing. The "word" - not Jesus - was God. And the "word" became Jesus when Jesus was born - not before.
Since you say, “the ‘word’ – not Jesus was God”. Surely you don’t mean it reads like (if you substitute “God” for “Word”): “In the beginning was the God and the God was with God and the God was God”?

Have you not observed that whenever the apostle John uses the term, “Word” in reference to a person he always refers to Christ in his gospel, in 1 John and in Revelation? And how you find a basis in concluding that the first instance of “the Word” in John 1:1then changes to refer to Jesus later on but not as God (same word) without some kind of clue from the context is beyond me.

First, John 1:1 does not mention Jesus as the "word." Second, John 1:14 tells us that the "word" became flesh or man. This corresponds to the birth of the child whom his parents named "Jesus." The "word of God" whom John refers to in 1 John and in Revelation is Jesus, the MAN (John 8:40) whom the "word" in John 1:1 turned into.



The "word" refers to the "mental emanation" or "plan" of God concerning Jesus before the foundation of the world. Apostle Peter explains that Jesus was "foreordained" before the world was (1 Peter 1:20). This "word" concerning Jesus is found written in Gen. 17:7; Deut. 18:18and Isaiah 7:14.
That God had a plan concerning Jesus does not establish Him as merely a “mental emanation”. .

In the beginning, Jesus was a "mental emanation" or plan of God. This was fulfilled in the full dispensation of time when Mary gave birth to him (John 1:14).



“For He was foreknown before the foundation of the world, but has appeared in these last times for the sake of you” (1 Peter 1:20)

Which does not rule out Christ’s deity.

Which does not make him God either because according to Jesus, the Father (John 17:1) is the ONLY true God (John 17:3).


"I will establish My covenant between Me and you and your descendants after you throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and to your descendants after you. (Genesis 17:7)

This was God’s promise to Abraham of an everlasting covenant and was something God planned before the creation but I don’t see how this supports your point.

The King James Version (KJV) renders the verse, thus: "And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy SEED after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy SEED after thee."

This SEED refers to Christ: "Now to Abraham and his SEED were the promises made. He saith not, And to SEEDS, as of many; but as of ONE, And to thy SEED, which is Christ" (Gal. 3:16).

This indicates that even before Abraham was born, God had planned to have a covenant with Christ which was yet to be born AFTER Abraham.


“I will raise up a prophet from among their countrymen like you, and I will put My words in his mouth, and he shall speak to them all that I command him.” (Deuteronomy 18:18)

Again, although Jesus was the Prophet spoken of by Moses, it in no way says that He is not something more than a prophet.

This unequivocably proves that God was talking to Moses about a MAN like Moses. Jesus said that God commanded him what to say and what to speak (John 12:49), just as God told Moses.


"Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, a virgin will be with child and bear a son, and she will call His name Immanuel.” (Isaiah 7:14)

Actually this verse is strong evidence for my view. In none of these Scripture passages have you helped your case against Christ’s deity. Sure Jesus work of redemption involved the plan of God before the world began. But you seem to be either unable or unwilling to consider the idea that Jesus was, and is more than merely human, as is evidenced by your constant repeating (and limited understanding) of John 8:40throughout this thread.

I trust what Jesus says, he being my Lord and Savior. He says he is a MAN (John 8:40) and the Father is the ONLY true God (John 17:3). These verses are sufficient for me.



The phrase "the word was God" was John's metaphorical assurance of the certainty of fulfillment of God's "word." And John 1:14is the fulfillment of God's "word."
Look a little further down the chapter and you’ll find verse 23: John the Baptist said:

He said, "I am A VOICE OF ONE CRYING IN THE WILDERNESS, `MAKE STRAIGHT THE WAY OF THE LORD,' as Isaiah the prophet said."

This is a quotation from Isaiah 40:3. Compare this with Malachi 3:1:

"Behold, I am going to send My messenger, and he will clear the way before Me. And the Lord, whom you seek, will suddenly come to His temple; and the messenger of the covenant, in whom you delight, behold, He is coming," says the LORD of hosts.”

It seems pretty clear to me that this refers to Christ’s deity.

John the Baptist is the fulfillment of Isaiah 40:3. Please read Matt. 3:3, John 1:23 and Luke 3:3-4.



John 8:58 -Again, Trinitarians distort the meaning of this verse to make it appear that Jesus was claiming to be God. Had Jesus said to the Jews, "Before Abraham was born, I was I AM," then I would agree that Jesus was claiming God's name, which would have meant that Jesus was claiming to be God. But Jesus did not say that. Jesus said, "Before Abraham was born, I AM." Jesus was referring to what he was at that time.
I see a really good example of more “explaining away” in the above paragraph.

"Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad." So the Jews said to Him, "You are not yet fifty years old, and have You seen Abraham?" Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am." (John 8:58)

Why was there the necessity for Jesus to say “I was I am”? That would be redundant. Jesus’ reply directly answered His questioners and not only that it enraged them to the point of their picking up stones to kill Him. Whether you accept it or not, they did so because they correctly understood Jesus’ declaration to be claiming equality with the Father, and by strong implication, deity. In fact, you find this recurrent theme throughout John’s gospel (Word of God=Son of God=equal with God=fully God and fully man). “…these have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name” (John 20:31).

Yes, Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God. When Jesus asked his disciples, "But who do you say that I AM?" Simon Peter answered and said, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God" (Matt. 16:15-16). That's what Jesus meant when he said, "Before Abraham was born, I AM" (John 8:58) - meaning, "I AM Christ, the Son of the living God.


And he says it again in 1 John 5:20:

“And we know that the Son of God has come, and has given us understanding so that we may know Him who is true; and we are in Him who is true, in His Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal life.”

I suggest you rid your mind of your preconceived belief and let's analyze 1 John 5:20 rationally:

Q. Who came?
A. The Son of God (Jesus).

Q.. Why did Jesus come? \
A. To give us understanding.

Q. What understanding did Jesus give us?
A.1. That we may know Him who is true;
A.2. That we are in Him who is true.
A.3. That we are in His Son Jesus Christ

Q. Who is the true God and eternal life that the Son of God (Jesus) came to give us understanding of?
A. The Father.

Jesus spoke these words, lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said: "Father....And this is eternal life, that they may know YOU the ONLY true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have SENT" (John 17:1, 3). ".... I have finished the work which you have given me to do" (John. 17:4).



Who are you to say that "not stopping someone from worshiping him is one of the worst examples if not the worst example of blasphemy?"
I’m taking it from the first two of the Ten Commandments, that’s how I can say it (Exodus 203-6). Because if someone was offered worship and that person allowed it to happen without protest, such a one would be putting himself in the place of God and therefore would be condoning a blasphemous act. Case in point: Consider King Herod Agrippa I in Acts 12:21-23:

“On an appointed day Herod, having put on his royal apparel, took his seat on the rostrum and began delivering an address to them. The people kept crying out, ‘The voice of a god and not of a man!’ And immediately an angel of the Lord struck him because he did not give God the glory, and he was eaten by worms and died.”

If that’s not blasphemy, I don’t know what is. Besides, sins of omission can be just as bad as or worse than sins that are committed.

The Bible says the Lord struck him because King Agrippa did not give God the glory - NOT because he didn't stop the people from worshiping him. Jesus GLORIFIED God despite NOT stopping people from worshiping him. God had judged Jesus holy. Who are we to IMPOSE on God?



Only God can lay down the law on blasphemy and we can find this only in the Bible.
Yes He did, and I took Him at His word.

Please show me the verse which indicates that NOT stopping people from worshiping someone constitutes blasphemy.



God does not say that Jesus committed blasphemy for not stopping people from worshiping him.
That’s because Jesus is eternally God the Son as I’ve been asserting all along.

That's only your [i]preconceived[/b] belief that was formed PRIOR to actual knowledge that the Father is the ONLY true God. Hence, I have no reason to believe it.



The command to worship God is directed to all. If anyone chooses to disobey this command, it becomes a matter between him and God.
In a sense that is true but it adds another element when you have a created being who becomes an object of worship. Every time it was recorded, as I said, that a godly person was offered worship, they immediately tried to stop it from happening. Any godly human or angel would feel compelled that this is the necessary and proper thing to do. Furthermore, when Satan attempted to get Jesus to worship him in the desert, Christ shut him down quickly (Matthew 4:9-10; Luke 4:6-8). Another example was when Jesus drove out the money changers in the Temple. He said that they had turned God’s house, which is the Lord’s house of prayer, into a den of thieves (Mark 11:15-17). Jesus expelled those who worshiped money more than God. Recall that Paul wrote in Colossians 3:5that covetousness is idolatry. And since idolatry is the act of making something more important than God, it amounts to worshipping something other than God. Finally, Jesus confronted the scribes and Pharisees with their idolatry of man-made tradition rather than the Scriptures and rebuked them severely. So if Christ was a created being as you claim, what’s His excuse, if lesser beings felt the need to stop unlawful worship and did that, why didn’t He?

Whether Jesus stopped those worshiping him or not does NOT alter the TRUTH that he is a MAN (John 8:40) and the Father (John 17:1) is the ONLY true God (John 17:3).



Hence, Jesus did not find it necessary to reprimand the blind man. At that time, Jesus was in a healing - not teaching or reprimanding - mode.
I fail to see what difference that makes, the “mode” He was in and it’s irrelevant anyway. He said and did whatever was necessary as the situation required every time. I might point out (again) wherever it’s recorded without exception that Christ was worshiped He never said, “Don’t worship me; only worship the Father”.

Jesus commanded Satan to "Worship God.." (Matt. 4:10). The angels commanded John to "Worship God" (Rev. 19:10; 22:9). Jesus did not have to say, "Don't worship me, only worship the Father" because the command "Worship God" says it all. Jesus and his disciples knew that he was a MAN - NOT God.

Moreover, Jesus taught his disciples that the Father seeks true worshipers to worship Him (the Father) in spirit and truth (John 4:23). Note that he did NOT include himself.



In fact, Jesus himself worshiped the Father (John 4:21). He said, "You worship what you do not know; we know what we worship, for salvation is of the Jews" (John 4:22).
Even though we will not come to an agreement on this issue I respect your zeal and passion for what you believe to be true.

Thank you for respecting my zeal and passion for what I believe to be true. But can you tell me your reason why we cannot come to an agreement on this issue?

[Brown Cat]

Thank you for respecting my zeal and passion for what I believe to be true. But can you tell me your reason why we cannot come to an agreement on this issue?

Sorry it took so long to respond. I’ve been very busy and it takes me awhile to think about and put together forum posts.

Although our last two posts make it obvious, that’s a very good question. The short answer is I believe the Bible teaches the triune nature of God and the deity of Christ and I won’t back down from these beliefs. You are equally adamant when you say of Christ, in your repeated quotation throughout this thread of John 8:40 “that he is a MAN and the Father is the ONLY true God”. We are therefore at an impasse.

You also hit on part of the answer when you mentioned “preconceived” beliefs. You and I have come from the basic starting point that God exists and that He is revealed accurately only in the Bible. From there we differ. My opinion is that you have made certain assumptions about the nature of God that do not take into consideration all that has been revealed in the Bible about Him. You’ve taken some verses about God, and then overly emphasized these into a scripturally incomplete and inadequate concept of who He is. Personally, I would be careful not to make the statement “God can’t possibly be (fill in the blank)” unless it’s specifically and clearly taught in the Bible. To do otherwise is to create a different, false and smaller” God” and/or “Christ” than is presented in Scripture.

The proper method, and the one that best honors God and His word, is to consider all the verses that deal with the nature of God and from them gain a view that is as comprehensive and complete as far as the Bible teaches it. God hasn’t told us everything about Himself, but I believe there is enough, if one is willing to see it, that testify to the deity of Christ.

If I remember correctly, you said are not a Jehovah’s Witness. If so, I would be interested if you would refer me to a resource or a website that explains your religious views so I can better understand where you are coming from.

[IncRus]

Thank you for respecting my zeal and passion for what I believe to be true. But can you tell me your reason why we cannot come to an agreement on this issue?
Sorry it took so long to respond. I’ve been very busy and it takes me awhile to think about and put together forum posts.

Although our last two posts make it obvious, that’s a very good question. The short answer is I believe the Bible teaches the triune nature of God and the deity of Christ and I won’t back down from these beliefs. You are equally adamant when you say of Christ, in your repeated quotation throughout this thread of John 8:40 “that he is a MAN and the Father is the ONLY true God”. We are therefore at an impasse.

You say you believe that the Bible TEACHES the "triune" nature of God and the "deity" of Christ. But you CANNOT show me ANY verse that says "the Father, AND the Son, AND the Holy Spirit ARE the triune God.

I say, I believe that the Bible teaches that God is NOT a "triune" God and Jesus is NOT God but a MAN. I show you John 8:40 where Jesus says he is a MAN and John 17:3 which CLEARLY shows that the Father with whom Jesus was speaking to (John 17:1) is the ONLY true God. Therefore, God is NOT a "triune" God.

If you were TRULY searching for the TRUTH, and only the Bible is the TRUTH (John 17:17), why CAN'T you back down from your UNBIBLICAL beliefs?


You also hit on part of the answer when you mentioned “preconceived” beliefs. You and I have come from the basic starting point that God exists and that He is revealed accurately only in the Bible. From there we differ. My opinion is that you have made certain assumptions about the nature of God that do not take into consideration all that has been revealed in the Bible about Him.

You’ve taken some verses about God, and then overly emphasized these into a scripturally incomplete and inadequate concept of who He is. Personally, I would be careful not to make the statement “God can’t possibly be (fill in the blank)” unless it’s specifically and clearly taught in the Bible. To do otherwise is to create a different, false and smaller” God” and/or “Christ” than is presented in Scripture.

A "preconceived" belief is a belief that has been acquired PRIOR to ACTUAL knowledge from the basic starting point which you say is the Bible.

You are correct in saying that from there we differ, because, while you say, "revealed ACCURATELY" only in the Bible, you CANNOT show me where in the Bible is the "triune" nature of God and the "deity" of Jesus is "revealed accurately."

On the other hand, I have SHOWN you that the "non-triune" nature and identity of God are "revealed accurately" in Isaiah 45:6; 46:9; 63:16; 64:8; Mal. 2:10; John 17:3; Eph. 4:6 and 1 Cor. 8:6. I also have SHOWN you that the belief that Jesus is a MAN not God is "revealed accurately" in John 8:40 and John 17:3.

Hence, your OPINION that "I have made certain assumptions about the nature of God that do not take into consideration all that has been "revealed" in the Bible about him" is FALSE.

As you aptly say, I would be careful not to make the statement that God is a "triune" God and "Jesus is God" unless it’s specifically and clearly taught in the Bible. To do otherwise is to create a DIFFERENT God and ANOTHER Jesus that was NOT preached by the apostles (2 Cor. 11:3-4).


[The proper method, and the one that best honors God and His word, is to consider all the verses that deal with the nature of God and from them gain a view that is as comprehensive and complete as far as the Bible teaches it. God hasn’t told us everything about Himself, but I believe there is enough, if one is willing to see it, that testify to the deity of Christ.

The Biblical way to study the word of God ius to follow what the Holy Spirit teaches, "comparing spiritual things with spiritual" (1 Cor. 2:13). What you are suggesting is what allowed about 35,000 Catholic and Protestant denominations in the world to exist today.


[If I remember correctly, you said are not a Jehovah’s Witness. If so, I would be interested if you would refer me to a resource or a website that explains your religious views so I can better understand where you are coming from.

You don't have to know my religious affiliation. All you have to do is open your Bible to the verses I cite and determine for yourelf whether I am telling the truth or not. If I am not telling the truth, a million angels that testify for me won't make any difference.

[Brown Cat]

You say you believe that the Bible TEACHES the "triune" nature of God and the "deity" of Christ. But you CANNOT show me ANY verse that says "the Father, AND the Son, AND the Holy Spirit ARE the triune God.


That’s because not all Biblical truth is always spelled out. When you have verses that say the Father is God, the Son is God and the Holy Spirit is God it leads to the logical inference of the Trinity. That the word “trinity” does not occur in Scripture does not invalidate the truthfulness of the concept.


I say, I believe that the Bible teaches that God is NOT a "triune" God and Jesus is NOT God but a MAN. I show you John 8:40 where Jesus says he is a MAN and John 17:3 which CLEARLY shows that the Father with whom Jesus was speaking to (John 17:1) is the ONLY true God. Therefore, God is NOT a "triune" God.

Yes, you have trotted out these verses over and over and over and over again in this thread. Nothing new here. BTW, what about Jesus’ three I AM statements in John 8:24, John 8:28 and especially 8:58. Need I remind you in these verses translated “I am he” that “he” is not in the original and in each of these three verses it literally says, “I am?”


If you were TRULY searching for the TRUTH, and only the Bible is the TRUTH (John 17:17), why CAN'T you back down from your UNBIBLICAL beliefs?


Because you have not succeeded in showing me that they ARE unbiblical.



A "preconceived" belief is a belief that has been acquired PRIOR to ACTUAL knowledge from the basic starting point which you say is the Bible.

My presupposition is that the Bible is God’s inerrant word and to properly understand it one has to consider it in its entirety and not gloss over verses that might not be to my liking.


On the other hand, I have SHOWN you that the "non-triune" nature and identity of God are "revealed accurately" in Isaiah 45:6; 46:9; 63:16; 64:8; Mal. 2:10; John 17:3; Eph. 4:6 and 1 Cor. 8:6. I also have SHOWN you that the belief that Jesus is a MAN not God is "revealed accurately" in John 8:40 and John 17:3.


Okay, let’s see here. Isaiah 45:6, 46:9, 63:16, 64:8 and Malachi 2:10. All these speak of monotheism, which I agree with. They don’t, however, preclude Trinitarian belief.

John 17:3. If this is all there was on the subject, I might agree with you but it isn’t. It’s the same situation with Ephesians 4:6 and 1 Corinthians 8:6.


Hence, your OPINION that "I have made certain assumptions about the nature of God that do not take into consideration all that has been "revealed" in the Bible about him" is FALSE.


Then explain to me Revelation22:13 where Christ says of Himself, "I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end." And a few verses later in Revelation 22:16 He says, “I am the root and the descendant of David, the bright morning star."

Not only was Jesus born in David’s line, as Almighty God He was the originator of it when He created Adam.

And not only that, you still haven’t answered why Jesus accepted worship, which is the sole prerogative of God.



The Biblical way to study the word of God ius to follow what the Holy Spirit teaches, "comparing spiritual things with spiritual" (1 Cor. 2:13). What you are suggesting is what allowed about 35,000 Catholic and Protestant denominations in the world to exist today.

That there are these many denominations is evidence that in a lot of cases (but not all) that many have not compared “spiritual things with spiritual.”


You don't have to know my religious affiliation.

So did you come up with your views yourself?


All you have to do is open your Bible to the verses I cite and determine for yourelf whether I am telling the truth or not. If I am not telling the truth, a million angels that testify for me won't make any difference.

I have opened my Bible and you have not proven your points. Pardon me for saying so, but it seems every time I pull your string, the same angry invective and the same repetitive arguments come out. I referred you to a website in an earlier post to better explain my position that you could not be bothered with, because you feel that you have it all figured out. I on the other hand asked for a website describing your views because the implications of your theology leave unanswered questions that such a broad discussion of on a forum such as this would be too unwieldy.

So does that sound fair? I would also ask you to reciprocate and see the website on the subject of Jesus as God as well, but somehow I don’t think you will.

PS: In closing, it is my prayer that God will open your mind and soften your heart to His truth.

[jahrule84]

But the Jesus you worship is not Almighty, All-knowing God of the Bible.

John 5:26 says that the Father GAVE Jesus life. He was created.
Only a created being can call another person "MY God." Rev 3:12
A relationship of equals cannot have one being THE GOD OF the other! Jesus is a worshipper of God just as much as any other being.

Rev 1:1 "the revelation of Jesus Christ, which God GAVE unto him."
The event of the end had to be REVEALED TO Jesus. God Almighty does not RECEIVE revelations; Jesus does.

Note Rev 1:1; 3:12 deal with Jesus in his glorified position in heaven, long after the resurrection. Yet, he is still not on par with the Almighty.

Sorry to pull the rug from right out under ya.

[IncRus]

You say you believe that the Bible TEACHES the "triune" nature of God and the "deity" of Christ. But you CANNOT show me ANY verse that says "the Father, AND the Son, AND the Holy Spirit ARE the triune God.
That’s because not all Biblical truth is always spelled out. When you have verses that say the Father is God, the Son is God and the Holy Spirit is God it leads to the logical inference of the Trinity. That the word “trinity” does not occur in Scripture does not invalidate the truthfulness of the concept.

While there are verses, BOTH in the Old and New Testaments, which EXPLICITLY point to the Father as the ONLY ONE God, there is NO verse in the Old Testament that EXPLICITLY point to Jesus as God.

There is one verse in the New Testament which APPEARS to point to Jesus as God. However, tThis verse, Heb. 1:8, was LIFTED from a MISTRANSLATED version of Psalm 45:6 and CONTRADICTS Jesus' declaration in John 17:3 that the Father is the ONLY true God.

There is one verse in the New Testament which APPEARS to point to the Holy Spirit as God. But this verse, Acts 5:3, refers to God who is Spirit (John 4:24) and Holy (1 Peter 1:16). Therefore, the Holy Spirit. is God Himself - NOT ANOTHER God.



I say, I believe that the Bible teaches that God is NOT a "triune" God and Jesus is NOT God but a MAN. I show you John 8:40 where Jesus says he is a MAN and John 17:3 which CLEARLY shows that the Father with whom Jesus was speaking to (John 17:1) is the ONLY true God. Therefore, God is NOT a "triune" God.
Yes, you have trotted out these verses over and over and over and over again in this thread. Nothing new here. BTW, what about Jesus’ three I AM statements in John 8:24, John 8:28 and especially 8:58. Need I remind you in these verses translated “I am he” that “he” is not in the original and in each of these three verses it literally says, “I am?”

What did Jesus mean by "I AM?" Jesus was NOT saying he is God! If you go to Matt. 16:15-16, you will probably understand what Jesus means by I AM. Jesus asked his apostles: "But who do you say that I AM?" And Simon Peter answered and said: "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."

Hence, Jesus was saying in John 8:58 that, before Abraham was born, he (Jesus) IS "Christ, the Son of the living God," having been "foreordained before the foundation of the world" (1 Peter 1:20).



If you were TRULY searching for the TRUTH, and only the Bible is the TRUTH (John 17:17), why CAN'T you back down from your UNBIBLICAL beliefs?
Because you have not succeeded in showing me that they ARE unbiblical.

For as long as you CLOSE your mind to the SAYINGS of Jesus, more importantly John 8:40 and John 17:3, you will NEVER accept that the DEITY of Jesus and the TRIUNITY of God are UNBIBLICAL.



A "preconceived" belief is a belief that has been acquired PRIOR to ACTUAL knowledge from the basic starting point which you say is the Bible.
My presupposition is that the Bible is God’s inerrant word and to properly understand it one has to consider it in its entirety and not gloss over verses that might not be to my liking.

Your presupposition that "to properly understand the word of God one has to consider it in its entirety" is WRONG. That's NOT what the Holy Spirit teaches. The Holy Spirit teaches us to "COMPARE spiritual things with spiritual" (1 Cor. 2:13).

Thus, when we COMPARE John 17:3 with the verses that APPEAR to make Jesus God, what Jesus said MUST prevail over OTHER verses or their INTERPRETATION.



On the other hand, I have SHOWN you that the "non-triune" nature and identity of God are "revealed accurately" in Isaiah 45:6; 46:9; 63:16; 64:8; Mal. 2:10; John 17:3; Eph. 4:6 and 1 Cor. 8:6. I also have SHOWN you that the belief that Jesus is a MAN not God is "revealed accurately" in John 8:40 and John 17:3.
Okay, let’s see here. Isaiah 45:6, 46:9, 63:16, 64:8 and Malachi 2:10. All these speak of monotheism, which I agree with. They don’t, however, preclude Trinitarian belief.

John 17:3. If this is all there was on the subject, I might agree with you but it isn’t. It’s the same situation with Ephesians 4:6 and 1 Corinthians 8:6.

Isaiah 63:16 and 64:8 identify the MONOTHEISTIC God as the Father. Therefore, these verses preclude Trinitarian belief that the MONOTHEISTIC God ARE the Father, AND the Son, AND the Holy Spirit.



Hence, your OPINION that "I have made certain assumptions about the nature of God that do not take into consideration all that has been "revealed" in the Bible about him" is FALSE.
Then explain to me Revelation22:13 where Christ says of Himself, "I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end." And a few verses later in Revelation 22:16 He says, “I am the root and the descendant of David, the bright morning star."

Not only was Jesus born in David’s line, as Almighty God He was the originator of it when He created Adam.

These verses do NOT tell us that Jesus, "as Almighty God was the originator of it when he created Adam." This is CEARLY your OPINION that you would like to INSERT into these verses.


And not only that, you still haven’t answered why Jesus accepted worship, which is the sole prerogative of God.

Did Jesus ACCEPT worship? Who knows what Jesus had in mind. We can only know what Jesus ws thinking by what he said.

The TRUTH is, Jesus did NOT allow John to worship him in Rev. 22:9. Jesus is that angel who showed John "things that must take place shortly" (Rev. 6, 8 cf Rev. 1:1).



The Biblical way to study the word of God ius to follow what the Holy Spirit teaches, "comparing spiritual things with spiritual" (1 Cor. 2:13). What you are suggesting is what allowed about 35,000 Catholic and Protestant denominations in the world to exist today.
That there are these many denominations is evidence that in a lot of cases (but not all) that many have not compared “spiritual things with spiritual.”

On the contrary, the reason why there are about 35,000 Christian denominatons in the world today is the Trinitarians' propensity to SPECULATE on what the verses SEEM to say then INJECT their OWN interpretation into the verse. For example, Jesus said "I AAM." Trinitarians JUMP to the CONCLUSION that Jesus is saying he is God, when in truth nd in fact, Jesus said he is a MAN (John 8:40) and the Father is the ONLY true God (John 17:3).



You don't have to know my religious affiliation.
So did you come up with your views yourself?

I was taught by the leaders of my religious organization. However, I don't want you to be influenced, one way or another, by my religious organization. If you believe what I say, well and good. If not, knowing my religious affiliation would not matter.



All you have to do is open your Bible to the verses I cite and determine for yourelf whether I am telling the truth or not. If I am not telling the truth, a million angels that testify for me won't make any difference.
I have opened my Bible and you have not proven your points. Pardon me for saying so, but it seems every time I pull your string, the same angry invective and the same repetitive arguments come out. I referred you to a website in an earlier post to better explain my position that you could not be bothered with, because you feel that you have it all figured out. I on the other hand asked for a website describing your views because the implications of your theology leave unanswered questions that such a broad discussion of on a forum such as this would be too unwieldy.

What's so difficult about understanding John 8:40 and John 17:3?


So does that sound fair? I would also ask you to reciprocate and see the website on the subject of Jesus as God as well, but somehow I don’t think you will.

Why do I have to go to a website to DISPROVE Jesus or MAKE Jesus a LIAR?


PS: In closing, it is my prayer that God will open your mind and soften your heart to His truth.

Please...the TRUTH is Jesus is a MAN (John 8:40) and the Father is the ONLY true God (John 17:3). The Bible is the TRUTH (John 17:17).

I was a Trinitarian for over 30 years. But my mind was OPENED to the TRUTH that the Trinity doctrine is FALSE when I realized that the Father is the ONLY true God. Therefore, I now believe with all my heart that Jesus is NOT God.

[faithymom]

Oh, the irony!
I love looking at IncRus' repeated quoting of two verses in the Gospel of John to refute the Trinity and then seeing him write lovely things like this:
NOBODY knows for sure what John was thinking when he wrote it

Can't have it boths ways, my dear. Either John wrote down God's words or he didn't.
This isn't a smorgasboard.

[xcav8tor]

Hello jahrule84, :smile:

How nice to see a short post for a change. Makes is easy to give a quick response.


John 5:26 says that the Father GAVE Jesus life. He was created.

Jesus is NOT teaching that He is a created being (or He would be contradicting what He says in John 5:17-18, John 8:58 and John 10:30). The context of the passage is made clear in John 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." This is WHY the final judgment has been DELEGATED to the Son (vs 22) as well as the DIVINE PREROGATIVE of raising the dead.

This is the setting in which Jesus talks about His having "life in Himself" from the Father - it is THE ABILITY (OR PERMISSION) TO BESTOW LIFE that Jesus received from the Father. Read the preceding sentence along with the part you quoted:

"Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when THE DEAD shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear SHALL LIVE. FOR AS THE FATHER HATH life in himself; so hath he given to the Son TO HAVE LIFE IN HIMSELF."

Jesus IS NOT a creature. Jesus was BEGOTTEN - NOT MADE, and this begetting includes Christ's sharing of God's DIVINE NATURE (ESSENCE) and God's INHERENT LIFE-GIVING POTENTIAL. God the Father's ROLE as the FIRST Person of the Trinity, is the "ORIGINATOR," and as such DELEGATES to the Son - the SECOND PERSON (the "EXECUTOR") - the DIVINE DUTIES of Judgment and Resurrection.

Only those who HONOUR CHRIST AS GOD "HONOUR THE SON, EVEN AS they honour THE FATHER." Those who fail to do so, "HONOURETH NOT THE FATHER which hath sent him."


Only a created being can call another person "MY God." Rev 3:12
A relationship of equals cannot have one being THE GOD OF the other! Jesus is a worshipper of God just as much as any other being.

And AS THE HUMAN MESSIAH, whose HUMANITY DID HAVE AN ORIGIN IN TIME (Rom. 1:2-4), it is only appropriate for the GOD-MAN to own the Father as "MY GOD." This in no way takes away from Christ's equality with the Father with regards to Christ's DIVINE NATURE. If not for the fact that Jesus has 2 NATURES as a result of the INCARNATION, your objection would be legitimate.


Rev 1:1 "the revelation of Jesus Christ, which God GAVE unto him." The event of the end had to be REVEALED TO Jesus. God Almighty does not RECEIVE revelations; Jesus does.

You left out a part.

"The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God GAVE UNTO HIM, TO SHEW UNTO HIS SERVANTS things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John."

This ISN'T a revelation given to Jesus FOR HIS ENLIGHTENMENT, but a message from the Father INTENDED FOR CHRIST'S SERVANTS FOR THEIR EDIFICATION which the Father first gave to Jesus TO PASS ON to them. There is a difference. There is nothing in the text to indicate that Jesus was not already aware of the information contained in the message at the time it was given (Col. 2:2-3, 1 Cor. 1:24).


Note Rev 1:1; 3:12 deal with Jesus in his glorified position in heaven, long after the resurrection. Yet, he is still not on par with the Almighty.

With respect to Christ's HUMAN NATURE - even though now resurrected and glorified - this WILL NEVER BE ON PAR with GOD THE FATHER - while Christ's DIVINE NATURE as the SON OF GOD will ALWAYS AND ETERNALLY be ON PAR with the Father, although voluntarily subservient in keeping with His ROLE as the SECOND PERSON of the Trinity.

Regards,
xcav8tor

[jahrule84]

1st problem with ur interpretation of John 5:26, is that God ALWAYS had the ability to give life; therefore, there could be no OCCASION for God to "be GRANTED [given]" this ability.
Unless you claim that Jesus as a man could not give life and needed to get the ability BESTOWED on him; but that would mean that he was MERELY a man, and not God; for if he was God, hewould be able to give life and not need to RECEIVE this ability from anyone else. So even ur attemp toevade the clear language of the text refutes ur position.

2nd problem, vs26 did not say "so hashe given to the Son to have THE ABILITY TO GIVE life," that's ur forcing ur ideas into the vs. I take it the way its worded. "Life in himself," the Father is the source; Jesus gets life from his Father, and that is what a Father does - give life to his kids.

As for this bit @ context, vs 25 merely shows that Jesus will give life to the dead at the resurrection, just as the Father gave life to him. Jesus havig the ABILITY to give life in vs 25 is no different from the Father excercising the ABILITY to give life to the Son in vs 26.

In vs 27 the Son again has to REVEIVE authority to judge; God always had this authority. No need to receive it! The context does not negate my position.

As for John 5:17-18, John 8:58 and John 10:30; Jesus being created does not contradict these passage; but they might contradict ur interpretation of them.

John 5:18, we today call God our Father, is that a claim to equality with God? Hardly; so John was simply writing the opinion of the Jews who wanted to kill Jesus. They also thought he broke the sabbath; but the sabbath law did not pass away till the death of Jesus removed the mosaic law; so at John 5:18 it was sill in force. Had Jesus broken it, he would be breaking the law, and sin is transgression of the law. Jesus never broke the law, did he?

Jesus defended himself saying that "the Son can do NOTHING of himself." vs 19. Can God do anything of himself? Of course. Jesus can only do what his father SHOWS him, REVEALS to him. vs 20. see John 8:28. And Jesus needs first to RECEIVE from God the authority to do any of these things the Father SHOWS him. vs 22.

John 5:23 shows that we must honor the Son just as [in the same way] that we honor God. It said nothing about honoring him AS GOD anymore than it says honoring him AS THE FATHER. Ur the one inserting ur own ideas.

We honor Jesus in the same way that we honor God; total obedience to his words. For the things Jesus taught are not HIS OWN teaching, but belong to God. John 7:16,17. Had Jesus been God Almighty, his doctrine would be his own by reason of his Diety. So when we honor the Son by obeying him, we are honoring the Father. Both must be obeyed fully above all others, for everything Jesus told us is in harmony with God's will.

John 8:58 does not mention Moses [when the I AM statement was made] but Abraham. This passage merely indicates that Jesus existed before Abraham just as the angels did.

I AM, is the present state of "to be," meaning "existence." Before Abraham was, heexisted. The ? the Jews asked in 8:57 was not about his diety or equality with God or any such thing; but @ his AGE. "u r not yet 5 yrs old and yet u have seen Abraham?"

It is, not context, but you who are inserting ideas about Godship into the verse. I take it as it reads.

Even if I accept that Jesus was sharing God's "I AM" name, so what? Both Jesus and Abraham were called LORD, doesn't mean the same thing in both cases does it?

Being one with God is no proof of godship John 17:20-23.

Bk to John 5:26; this does not discuss oreven mention non of your conplex theological ideas about nature, essence, etc. Jesus did not say, "has given unto the HUMAN BODY of the Son to have life," he said no such thing. Jesus was not discussing a mere body; he was talking about HIMSELF. You are the only inserting claims about "given unto the HUMAN NATURE of the Son to have life;" the text does not mention nature. If you want, I can get into those complex issues and show u otherwise. But I don't want to make this post too long. It already is; sorry!

Rev 1:1
Had Jesus known already all these things, there would be no need to GIVE this revelation to him. A revelation is a surprizing disclosure; the vs says, "the revelation [surprizing disclosure of previously unknown events] of Jesus Christ, which God GAVE him." So before we get to us on earth, God revealed, REVEALED, gave a REVELATION TO, Jesus. He passed it onto the angel, he passed it to us. But maybe I am wrong on this point; I conceed however that u may have a valid point here thou. I give credit where it is due. I won't press on this point in future posts.

Rev 3:12
Again, u assume that "my God" is the relationship between God and Jesus' body of flesh. The text says nothing like that! U assume this is the reason. The Bible does not say that this is the reason, even if Jesus still had a human body; still doesn't make this the underlining reason. Jesus' body has a God, but not Jesus himself? A bundle of skin and bones was crying out "my God" but not the very spirit that animated the body in the first place?

U seem to think that Jesus' human body is INDEPENDENT of the spirt thatanimated it. So God's human body pushes his divinity into thebackground in order to cry "my God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" None of these theological issues are found in the simple passages I originally presented. You are the one ASSUMING, "oh, he said that because it was HIS HUMAN NATURE talking, and NOT HIM." No way that a body of flesh formed in mary's womb while Jesus was in heaven waiting to come down into it could be Jesus! More similar to demonic posession. The whole idea is madness.

Sorry for making the post so long; try to take the Bible as it is and not push ur own ideas into the vss.

[Brown Cat]

But the Jesus you worship is not Almighty, All-knowing God of the Bible.

John 5:26 says that the Father GAVE Jesus life. He was created.

I suppose it wouldn’t do any good for me to point out that the apostle John WRITING UNDER THE INSPIRATION OF THE HOLY SPIRIT, in John 1:1 stated that the “Word” (clearly referring to Jesus Christ) “was God”? Nah, I didn’t think so.


Only a created being can call another person "MY God." Rev 3:12

I’d say your concept of God is too limited, as there is abundant scriptural evidence of Christ’s deity (which has been explained time and again throughout this thread) and yet He still calls the Father “my God”.


A relationship of equals cannot have one being THE GOD OF the other! Jesus is a worshipper of God just as much as any other being.

Rev 1:1 "the revelation of Jesus Christ, which God GAVE unto him."
The event of the end had to be REVEALED TO Jesus. God Almighty does not RECEIVE revelations; Jesus does.

Note Rev 1:1; 3:12 deal with Jesus in his glorified position in heaven, long after the resurrection. Yet, he is still not on par with the Almighty.

Subordination of function (where the duties of the Son and the Holy Spirit are voluntarily subordinate to those of the Father) does not equal subordination of ontology. The Father, Son and Holy Spirit have been and will always remain co-equal with one another. The best illustration I can think of (although it is not a perfect one) is the marriage union. Since the fall of man, God gave the male the leadership role in the home and the female was to be subordinate to his authority. This does not make man greater than woman; they are equal in their being, yet differ in their God-given roles.

You would do well to study the gospel of John comprehensively and see it for the masterfully organized argument and testimony for Christ that it is. His gospel wasn’t just a loose recording of events in Jesus life just thrown together but was carefully organized around the theme that Christ the Son is God and Savior, from the prolegomena, or introduction (the first eighteen verses of chapter 1 all the way to the end. He summed it up well in John 20:31:

“but these have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name.”

John used the phrase “son of God” nine times in His gospel so it must mean something pretty darn important. I’d like to point out here that the phrase “Son of God” was used by John affirmatively (e.g. John 1:34; John 3:18), as it was used negatively against Jesus (e.g. John 10:33; John 18:7) by the chief Priests and Pharisees as a messianic term. Both His friends and foes knew that this phrase defined that the Messiah was in fact, deity. The understanding was that it referred to someone who was claiming to be equal with God, (and therefore God). Although the Jews had no problem calling God, OUR Father corporately, it would be unthinkable for any devout one to call God MY father. This is because in that day and in that culture, to say you were someone’s son was to claim equality with that person. When Jesus called God His father, they knew exactly that was what He was saying. And that’s why they sought to kill Him.


Sorry to pull the rug from right out under ya.

Not a problem. It looks to me like it’s still there. :teeth:

[jahrule84]

The sad part, is that you go to UNBELIEVING Jews to support your argument. Your theme seems to be how THEY understood Scripture, what THEIR culture was like, and not what JESUS had to say on the issue. The Jews were simply wrong, and they went as far as to reject the messiah.

As for thie philosophical jargon you bring about subordination of function and ontology, the fact is that "MY God" expresses, not a fuction, but a RELATIONSHIP. When you call someone your God, you are the worshipper, the creature. If you think that is a limited view of God, then ask yourself why is it that the Father NEVER calls anyone "my God"? Because it's not his fucntion? Well, that seems like a reluctant admission that the Father has no God!

In every ca[acity, both as a man and as a divine being, Jesus has a above him. Heb 1:9,10, way back when Jesus created the world, long before he was a man, he had a God above him. Though he is presented here in his capacity as "Lord," he still has a God, "thy [your] God" vs 9.

1 Pet 1:3 "the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ." In his capacity as our Lord, Jesus has both a God (to worship) and Father (to teach him and care for him). Is it only when he became man that he was our lord? Of course not! Even in his divinity, he is below God.

As for your poorly thought out illustration of marriage, its found at 1 Cor 11:3. The head of Christ is God just as the head of every man is Christ. This shows that every man is INFERIOR to Christ in rank, and in a different class, so they cannot be Jesus; same way, Jesus has a head. His head out ranks him! He obviously is not his head anymore than the woman is her husband, anymore than every man in this same verse is Christ! All four are totally separe. God-Christ-Man-Woman.

Stange how u get confused. U wounld never argue that the man was the woman, but u argue that the Christ is God. READ THE TEXT!!!!! and even if ur text about Christ diety that u claim are all over this thread; let me ask u this:

me, u and obama r humans, we share the same nature. does having the same nature make us the same being? does it make us 3 persons in one human? if not, then why should having the same nature (which u call God) make 3 persons the same being? u'd get 3 gods just like u'd get 3 humans! when a religion stops a person from reasoning logically, which is a gift from God, it isjust fanatical.

Good day

[Brown Cat]

The sad part, is that you go to UNBELIEVING Jews to support your argument. Your theme seems to be how THEY understood Scripture, what THEIR culture was like, and not what JESUS had to say on the issue. The Jews were simply wrong, and they went as far as to reject the messiah.

It is even sadder that you don’t accept the Apostle John’s testimony that the unbelieving Jews, though wrong in rejecting Jesus as their Messiah, got it right when they correctly understood “son of God” to be a clear declaration of Christ’s deity. You might have had a point if John did not take the same understanding and interpretation on this issue and run with it like he did.

It is not as if I quoted Acts 19:26-27 and tried to use it to prove that Diana was a goddess, where Demetrius and the silversmiths complain:

“You see and hear that not only in Ephesus, but in almost all of Asia, this Paul has persuaded and turned away a considerable number of people, saying that gods made with hands are no gods at all.
"Not only is there danger that this trade of ours fall into disrepute, but also that the temple of the great goddess Artemis be regarded as worthless and that she whom all of Asia and the world worship will even be dethroned from her magnificence."

You see the difference? Luke reported the facts of what Demetrius said but the book of Acts, as well as the rest of the Bible makes it clear that this was idol worship. John, on the other hand, also reported the facts BUT IN ADDITION confirmed as true what the religious leaders understood about Jesus’ claim.



As for thie philosophical jargon you bring about subordination of function and ontology, the fact is that "MY God" expresses, not a fuction, but a RELATIONSHIP.

Though the phrase, “my God” was used by Christ to refer to the relationship He has with God the Father, this does not rule out the co-equal status God the Son has with Him.


When you call someone your God, you are the worshipper, the creature.

The worshiper, yes, but not necessarily a creature. That only applies to you and me and every other created being in the universe.


If you think that is a limited view of God, then ask yourself why is it that the Father NEVER calls anyone "my God"? Because it's not his fucntion?

It doesn’t bother me that the Father did not say that anywhere in the Bible. It really has no bearing as far as disproving the validity of the Trinitarian position.


As for your poorly thought out illustration of marriage, its found at 1 Cor 11:3. The head of Christ is God just as the head of every man is Christ. This shows that every man is INFERIOR to Christ in rank, and in a different class, so they cannot be Jesus; same way, Jesus has a head. His head out ranks him! He obviously is not his head anymore than the woman is her husband, anymore than every man in this same verse is Christ! All four are totally separe. God-Christ-Man-Woman.

You carried my illustration much farther than I intended. I never said anything about Christ and His relationship with the Church. Here’s what I was saying (one more time) and yes it's not a perfect illustration. Man is not a greater being than woman although the male was given by God the leadership role in the family and the woman was to support him. She is not ontologically (in her being) inferior to her husband and she is not the same person, granted. In a SOMEWHAT similar way, God the Father is not a greater being than God the Son and God the Holy Spirit. The illustration falters in fact the Three divine Persons ARE ONE being, differing in roles and tasks but not in equality and power.


Stange how u get confused

I’m not confused at all, sorry.


. U wounld never argue that the man was the woman, but u argue that the Christ is God.

Bingo!



READ THE TEXT!!!!!

What, are you angry with me (with all the exclamation points there)? I have done so. I believe it and I also take a comprehensive view of this text and seek to do the same with all the rest of the Bible. Do you?


and even if ur text about Christ diety that u claim are all over this thread; let me ask u this:

me, u and obama r humans, we share the same nature. does having the same nature make us the same being? does it make us 3 persons in one human? if not, then why should having the same nature (which u call God) make 3 persons the same being? u'd get 3 gods just like u'd get 3 humans!

Do you know everything? How do you know FOR CERTAIN you’d get three gods just like you’d get three humans? I for one am not going to impose my finite human conceptions like you do on the most unimaginably powerful Being there is, of whose nature we know only what He has revealed to us.


when a religion stops a person from reasoning logically, which is a gift from God, it isjust fanatical.

Couldn't say that better myself.

God bless,
Z

[IncRus]

Jesus is NOT teaching that He is a created being (or He would be contradicting what He says in John 5:17-18, John 8:58 and John 10:30). The context of the passage is made clear in John 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." This is WHY the final judgment has been DELEGATED to the Son (vs 22) as well as the DIVINE PREROGATIVE of raising the dead.

Jesus said he proceeded forth and CAME from the Father. He did NOT come by himself but God SENT him (John 8:42; 17:3). There was another MAN who was SENT from God. His name is John (John 1:6). This INDICATES that both Jesus and John were CREATED by God.

Honoring the son by CONTRADICTING his word is NOT honoring the son at all!

The FACT that God DELEGATED to the Son the final judgment and the power to raise the dead, PROVES without any iota of doubt that Jesus is NOT God.


This is the setting in which Jesus talks about His having "life in Himself" from the Father - it is THE ABILITY (OR PERMISSION) TO BESTOW LIFE that Jesus received from the Father. Read the preceding sentence along with the part you quoted:

"Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when THE DEAD shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear SHALL LIVE. FOR AS THE FATHER HATH life in himself; so hath he given to the Son TO HAVE LIFE IN HIMSELF."

Yes, Jesus RECEIVED the "ability or permission to bestow life" on whom he wills. And this is yet further PROOF that Jesus is NOT God. God is ALMIGHTY (Rev. 4:8, 11) and does NOT need anyone to give Him the "ability or permission to bestow life."


Jesus IS NOT a creature. Jesus was BEGOTTEN - NOT MADE, and this begetting includes Christ's sharing of God's DIVINE NATURE (ESSENCE) and God's INHERENT LIFE-GIVING POTENTIAL. God the Father's ROLE as the FIRST Person of the Trinity, is the "ORIGINATOR," and as such DELEGATES to the Son - the SECOND PERSON (the "EXECUTOR") - the DIVINE DUTIES of Judgment and Resurrection.

The dictionary defines "begotten" as "sired." God "sired" Jesus through the Holy Spirit. Therefore, Jesus was CREATED or MADE. There is no other way to go around this TRUTH.

It is NOT true that Jesus shared God's "divine nature or essence" and God's INHERENT life-giving potential." God, the Father INHERENTLY possesses the POWER to bestow life. Jesus' POWER to bestow lkife was only DELEGATED to him. He does NOT have INHERENT power to bestow life.


Only those who HONOUR CHRIST AS GOD "HONOUR THE SON, EVEN AS they honour THE FATHER." Those who fail to do so, "HONOURETH NOT THE FATHER which hath sent him."

There is NOTHING in the Bible which says, "HONOUR CHRIST AS GOD." This is a complete FABRICATION!

You FORGOT John 5:24 where Jesus says, "Most ASSUREDLY, I say to you, he who HEARS my word and BELIEVES in Him who SENT me has everlasting life, and shall NOT come into judgment, but has passed from death to life."

God, the Father who SENT Jesus (John 8:42; 17:3) COMMANDS people to "LISTEN to His beloved Son" (Matt. 17:5). Jesus SAID that everything he SAID is a COMMAND from God (John 12:49).

Therefore, to "BELIEVE in Him who SENT Jesus" means BELIEVING every WORD that one HEARS Jesus say. Jesus said he is a MAN (John 8:40) and the Father is the ONLY true God (John 17:3).

He who does NOT believe Jesus does NOT honor the son and does NOT believe Him who SENT Jesus.


And AS THE HUMAN MESSIAH, whose HUMANITY DID HAVE AN ORIGIN IN TIME (Rom. 1:2-4), it is only appropriate for the GOD-MAN to own the Father as "MY GOD." This in no way takes away from Christ's equality with the Father with regards to Christ's DIVINE NATURE. If not for the fact that Jesus has 2 NATURES as a result of the INCARNATION, your objection would be legitimate.

The Bible says, "the word BECAME a human being" (John 1:14 TEV). This is like saying "the egg BECAME chick." The "egg" is GONE and you DON'T call the chick, "egg/chick," do you?

Thus, what you are saying about Jesus' "two natures" as a result of the so-called "incarnation" is a FABRICATION!


With respect to Christ's HUMAN NATURE - even though now resurrected and glorified - this WILL NEVER BE ON PAR with GOD THE FATHER - while Christ's DIVINE NATURE as the SON OF GOD will ALWAYS AND ETERNALLY be ON PAR with the Father, although voluntarily subservient in keeping with His ROLE as the SECOND PERSON of the Trinity.

The prophet David says that the one sitting at the right hand of God is a MAN (Psalm 80:17 KJV). King David says NOTHING about a "human nature and a divine nature" seated at the right hand of God.

NOBODY should have ANY reason to believe that you are correct and King David was wrong!

[IncRus]

I suppose it wouldn’t do any good for me to point out that the apostle John WRITING UNDER THE INSPIRATION OF THE HOLY SPIRIT, in John 1:1 stated that the “Word” (clearly referring to Jesus Christ) “was God”? Nah, I didn’t think so.

How do you know that John was "clearly" referring to Jesus Christ?

It is IMPOSSIBLE for John to NOT have known that there is ONLY ONE God (Isaiah 45:6; 46:9) and that ONLY ONE God is the Father (Isaiah 63:16; 64:8), he being a Jew.

Therefore, John could NOT have been referring to a "person" or ANOTHER God that was with the ONLY ONE God in the beginning.

The more reasonable explanation for John 1:1 is that John was referring to SOMETHING - NOT someone, that WAS God but does NOT violate the Jewish belief that there is ONLY ONE God and that ONLY ONE God is the Father (Mal. 2:10; John 17:3).


I’d say your concept of God is too limited, as there is abundant scriptural evidence of Christ’s deity (which has been explained time and again throughout this thread) and yet He still calls the Father “my God”.

The ONLY TRUE God does NOT recognize ANOTHER God besides Him (Isaiah 45:6; 46:9). The FACT that Jesus RECOGNZES another as his God PROVES that Jesus is NOT God.

Your so-called "scriptural evidences" are NOTHING but your interpretation, speculation and conclusion based on what you want the verses say.


Subordination of function (where the duties of the Son and the Holy Spirit are voluntarily subordinate to those of the Father) does not equal subordination of ontology. The Father, Son and Holy Spirit have been and will always remain co-equal with one another. The best illustration I can think of (although it is not a perfect one) is the marriage union. Since the fall of man, God gave the male the leadership role in the home and the female was to be subordinate to his authority. This does not make man greater than woman; they are equal in their being, yet differ in their God-given roles.

You INSIST on your OWN the "co-equality" of the Father and the son DESPITE the TRUTH that the Father is GREATER than the son (John 14:28) and GREATER than ALL (John 10:29).


You would do well to study the gospel of John comprehensively and see it for the masterfully organized argument and testimony for Christ that it is. His gospel wasn’t just a loose recording of events in Jesus life just thrown together but was carefully organized around the theme that Christ the Son is God and Savior, from the prolegomena, or introduction (the first eighteen verses of chapter 1 all the way to the end. He summed it up well in John 20:31:

“but these have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name.”

John used the phrase “son of God” nine times in His gospel so it must mean something pretty darn important. I’d like to point out here that the phrase “Son of God” was used by John affirmatively (e.g. John 1:34; John 3:18), as it was used negatively against Jesus (e.g. John 10:33; John 18:7) by the chief Priests and Pharisees as a messianic term. Both His friends and foes knew that this phrase defined that the Messiah was in fact, deity. The understanding was that it referred to someone who was claiming to be equal with God, (and therefore God). Although the Jews had no problem calling God, OUR Father corporately, it would be unthinkable for any devout one to call God MY father. This is because in that day and in that culture, to say you were someone’s son was to claim equality with that person. When Jesus called God His father, they knew exactly that was what He was saying. And that’s why they sought to kill Him.

The "son of God" does NOT mean "God the son." That "son of God" TRANSLATES to "God the Son" is Jewish thinking (John 10:33-36). And the Jews were WRONG in FALSELY accusing Jesus of BLASPHEMY!

[jahrule84]

According to u:

It is even sadder that you don’t accept the Apostle John’s testimony that the unbelieving Jews, though wrong in rejecting Jesus as their Messiah, got it right when they correctly understood “son of God” to be a clear declaration of Christ’s deity.

Ok, I'll bite! Where does John ever say that the expression "son of God" is a claim to be God? You claim that John agrees with the wicked Jew's interpretation - now show me where he SPECIFICALLY DISCUSSES THE MEANING OG THE EXPRESSION "SON OF GOD." I wonder if John even goes into what the phrase means, or if you merely INTERPRET the meaning of it for him? It will be interesting to see if you will let John speak for himself! I look forward to yout listof verses that DO NOT EVEN DISCUSS the meaning of "son og God."

Luke 3:38, Adam is called "son of God" just as Isaac is called "son of Abraham." Think about what "son of" means in this chapter.

So say you:
Though the phrase, “my God” was used by Christ to refer to the relationship He has with God the Father, this does not rule out the co-equal status God the Son has with Him.

Where does the Bible say that Jesus is "God the Son"? Again, you go to your own theology instead of the Bible, just as you went to the inbelieving Jews in your previous post! Had John agreed with them, you could have originally gone to his words; you didn't! Hmmmmmmmmm????

You continue:
The worshiper, yes, but not necessarily a creature. That only applies to you and me and every other created being in the universe.

John 8:37, Jesus was BORN.
John 5:26 Jesus was given life
John 1:18 Jesus is monogenes "onlyBEGOTTEN." He cannot be the "onlyBEGOTTEN" and not be begotten!
monogenes, from mono (only) and ginomai (to be born, to become, come into being) Strong's Exhaustive Concordance.

If as trinitarians say, it means "only one of a kind," then there is no trinity, for if the Son at John 1:14 is the only one of his kind, this excludes the Father and the holy spirit from being of his kind! He cannot be the ONLY one of his kind, if they are 2 others like him.

Anyway, the argument that genes does not come from genao (to beget) but from genos (kind), still does not help your position. Genos refers to descent or birth:
Acts17:28 "For we are also his offspring [genos]"
Acts 17:28 "Forasmuch as we are the offspring [genos] of God"
Rev 22:16 "I am the root and offspring [genos] of David"
Acts 18:2 "And found a certain Jew named Aquilla, born [genos] in Pontus"
Acts 18:24 "And a certain Jew named Apollos, born [genos] at Alexandria"

Yip, guess the word "creature" applies to Jesus to! More could be added, but heck, one verse of inspiration is worth over an eternity of trinitarian reasoning.

Next you reiterate:
You carried my illustration much farther than I intended. I never said anything about Christ and His relationship with the Church. Here’s what I was saying (one more time) and yes it's not a perfect illustration. Man is not a greater being than woman although the male was given by God the leadership role in the family and the woman was to support him. She is not ontologically (in her being) inferior to her husband and she is not the same person, granted. In a SOMEWHAT similar way, God the Father is not a greater being than God the Son and God the Holy Spirit. The illustration falters in fact the Three divine Persons ARE ONE being, differing in roles and tasks but not in equality and power.

Your argument hinges on the idea that man's authority over woman does not make the nature of his organism different from hers. First of all, what it proves is that the woman is not the man. Just as God's authority over Jesus shows that Jesus is not God.

Secondly, man's nature is very different from women. Look at a woman, research her anatomy, then comapre yours. Why do you think the word of God calls her the "weaker vessel" 1 Pet 3:7? Both God and the angels are spirits [same nature?]; no, though they are all spirits, they are in different categories! Men and women are both human, but also in different categories.

Finally, my point still stands that having the same nature does not make 3 men into 1 being. You have given no reason for me to believe that having the same nature [even if they did] would make the Father, Son, and holy spirit into one being. Why would it not just mean that these three beings have the same nature, as opposed to meaning that the 3 are one being?

Say you:
Do you know everything? How do you know FOR CERTAIN you’d get three gods just like you’d get three humans? I for one am not going to impose my finite human conceptions like you do on the most unimaginably powerful Being there is, of whose nature we know only what He has revealed to us.

And where did he reveal that he is 3 persons in one being? You can only use your own falible, imperfect, syllogistic reasoning, to pull different verses together in order to sombine them into a trinity; but that is, NOT WHAT THE BIBLE ITSELF TEACHES IN ANY PARTICULAR PASSAGE, but what YOU use your OWN logic to MAKE IT SAY what you want! There is no passage where God's nature is identified as being tripersonal. You know it, and I know it!

So all this talk about knowling only what he has revealed to us about his nature, ignores that he never revealed himself to be 3persons in one being. That's merely YOUR INTERPRETAITON of a number of verse you PUT TOGETHER, just like JWs might put together different verse to get 1914!

And don't worry, I am not angry with you.

God bless.

[Brown Cat]

Hello all,

I will now wind up my participation in this forum thread so I had one more thing I’d like to share and this will be my summary statement. I’m trying not to start any new rabbit trails as this discussion has gone off-topic enough as it is. These can best be discussed in threads of their own. In trying to get back more to the spirit of the OP of this thread, I’d like to present a more positive thought as to why the Lamb (Jesus Christ) deserves worship and praise. To those who have disagreed with me and other Trinitarians on this thread, I bear you no ill will and hope that we can “agree to disagree, agreeably “as someone else has said in another post.

When King David in (2 Kings 24) bought the threshing floor from Araunah as a place to offer sacrifices to God, Araunah volunteered to freely give the king not only the real estate, but also everything else needed (wood, oxen) for the burnt offerings. In 2 Kings 24:24, King David gave his reply:

“However the king said to Araunah, “No but I will surely buy it from you for a price, for I will not offer burnt offerings to the LORD my God which cost me nothing”.

The necessary idea in sacrifice is that it always costs something from the giver. You don’t sacrificially give in the truest sense unless it involves giving away something valuable to you personally. And if this is true of humans, it is especially true of God. 1 John chapter 4 states, “God is love”. And one of the characteristics of the “agape” love of God, the purest form, is in its unselfish giving nature, that from it flows the attitude that “bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things” (1 Corinthians 13:7, NASB). Here’s my point. If Jesus Christ was not fully God (as well as being fully man), what did His sacrifice cost the Father?

So I’m looking at these two scenarios.

1. Jesus was only human; or Jesus was the archangel Michael incarnate (JW view). If this is correct, God sent someone else to do the “hard labor” and “heavy lifting” in the work of making salvation available to mankind. How did God give of Himself if this is true? It seems to me if that He sent and gave someone else He was one step removed and isolated away from the process.

2. Jesus was and is God incarnate; He has one consciousness with a divine and a human nature; one in being with the Father and Holy Spirit, yet a separate person. If this is true, then God the Father gave up His unique and dear Son, as Paul wrote in Romans 8:32 (NASB): “He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him over for us all”. God the Son voluntarily gave His life to pay the demands of divine justice for mankind’s sin. Jesus shortly before His death told His disciples, “Greater love has no one than this, that one lay down His life for His friends” (John 15:13, NASB).Thus God alone did the hard work and gave personally to eternally save those who put their faith and trust in Christ as Lord and Savior.

As is obvious, I favor scenario 2 to be the scripturally accurate view. And in my opinion, this exalts the love of God much more than if Jesus was only a proxy or an agent sent by God the Father. Not only that it seems to me to be more of what one would expect of God’s great love for us. And so, I believe that Lamb of God, Jesus Christ, “who loved me and gave Himself up for me” (Galatians 2:20, NASB) to be worthy of all worship, honor and praise now and throughout eternity.

God bless,
Z

[xcav8tor]

Hi jahrule84, :smile:

Only have time for a quick clarification.


Finally, my point still stands that having the same nature does not make 3 men into 1 being. You have given no reason for me to believe that having the same nature [even if they did] would make the Father, Son, and holy spirit into one being. Why would it not just mean that these three beings have the same nature, as opposed to meaning that the 3 are one being?...

You don't seem to understand the basics of the Trinity. It is based on 3 Biblical observations:

1) There is ONLY ONE REAL GOD in existence Who is INHERENTLY GOD BY NATURE (all others are mere creatures who false gods or "gods" in a representative sense).

2) The Bible IDENTIFIES THE FATHER as GOD, THE SON as GOD, and the HOLY SPIRIT as GOD (through a combination of Titles, Attributes and Divine Works).

3) The Bible tells us THE FATHER, THE SON and THE HOLY SPIRIT are each DISTINCT PERSONS.

IF these 3 observations are true - and they are - then God is a TRINITY.

We are not saying that The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are ONE BEING just because they have the SAME NATURE - but because IN ADDITION - THE BIBLE TEACHES THERE IS ONLY ONE GOD. If all three PERSONS have the SAME DIVINE NATURE AND there is ONLY ONE GOD, these facts COMBINED point to the TRINITY.

So to answer your question directly, the reason why it would not just mean that these three beings have the same nature is that would mean there is MORE THAN ONE BEING WHO IS GOD which would contradict the Bible's STRICT MONOTHEISM.


And where did he reveal that he is 3 persons in one being? You can only use your own fallible, imperfect, syllogistic reasoning, to pull different verses together in order to combine them into a trinity; but that is, NOT WHAT THE BIBLE ITSELF TEACHES IN ANY PARTICULAR PASSAGE, but what YOU use your OWN logic to MAKE IT SAY what you want! There is no passage where God's nature is identified as being tripersonal. You know it, and I know it!

Just because God in His wisdom chose not to explicitly spell it all out for us in a single verse doesn't mean we invented the concept. We are only following Christ's own teachings here:

JESUS TAUGHT that there was ONLY ONE God (Mark 12:29 NIV, John 5:44 NIV).

That The Son is GOD (uncreated and eternal - John 8:58 NIV, John 17:5 NIV / equal to the Father - John 5:17-18 NIV / One in nature w. God - John 10:28-33 NIV/ He can only do what God does - John 5:19-23 NIV / forgives sin - Luke 5:20-21 NIV / grants eternal life - John 10:27-28 NIV, etc).

That The Father is GOD (John 17:3 NIV)

That The Holy Ghost is a DIVINE PERSON (Mat. 12:31 NIV / John 14:26 NIV)

That the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are DISTINCT individuals (John 14:16-17 NIV, John 14:23 NIV, John 16:16 NIV), AND

He presented the FIRST Trinitarian Formula in that we are to be baptized in the NAME - SINGULAR - of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit (Mat. 28:19 NIV).

All we have done is connect the dots. You may disagree, but it is right there in the text for all who are willing to accept it.

Regards,
xcav8tor

[jahrule84]

Hello all,

I will now wind up my participation in this forum thread so I had one more thing I’d like to share and this will be my summary statement. I’m trying not to start any new rabbit trails as this discussion has gone off-topic enough as it is. These can best be discussed in threads of their own. In trying to get back more to the spirit of the OP of this thread, I’d like to present a more positive thought as to why the Lamb (Jesus Christ) deserves worship and praise. To those who have disagreed with me and other Trinitarians on this thread, I bear you no ill will and hope that we can “agree to disagree, agreeably “as someone else has said in another post.

When King David in (2 Kings 24) bought the threshing floor from Araunah as a place to offer sacrifices to God, Araunah volunteered to freely give the king not only the real estate, but also everything else needed (wood, oxen) for the burnt offerings. In 2 Kings 24:24, King David gave his reply:

“However the king said to Araunah, “No but I will surely buy it from you for a price, for I will not offer burnt offerings to the LORD my God which cost me nothing”.

The necessary idea in sacrifice is that it always costs something from the giver. You don’t sacrificially give in the truest sense unless it involves giving away something valuable to you personally. And if this is true of humans, it is especially true of God. 1 John chapter 4 states, “God is love”. And one of the characteristics of the “agape” love of God, the purest form, is in its unselfish giving nature, that from it flows the attitude that “bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things” (1 Corinthians 13:7, NASB). Here’s my point. If Jesus Christ was not fully God (as well as being fully man), what did His sacrifice cost the Father?

So I’m looking at these two scenarios.

1. Jesus was only human; or Jesus was the archangel Michael incarnate (JW view). If this is correct, God sent someone else to do the “hard labor” and “heavy lifting” in the work of making salvation available to mankind. How did God give of Himself if this is true? It seems to me if that He sent and gave someone else He was one step removed and isolated away from the process.

2. Jesus was and is God incarnate; He has one consciousness with a divine and a human nature; one in being with the Father and Holy Spirit, yet a separate person. If this is true, then God the Father gave up His unique and dear Son, as Paul wrote in Romans 8:32 (NASB): “He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him over for us all”. God the Son voluntarily gave His life to pay the demands of divine justice for mankind’s sin. Jesus shortly before His death told His disciples, “Greater love has no one than this, that one lay down His life for His friends” (John 15:13, NASB).Thus God alone did the hard work and gave personally to eternally save those who put their faith and trust in Christ as Lord and Savior.

As is obvious, I favor scenario 2 to be the scripturally accurate view. And in my opinion, this exalts the love of God much more than if Jesus was only a proxy or an agent sent by God the Father. Not only that it seems to me to be more of what one would expect of God’s great love for us. And so, I believe that Lamb of God, Jesus Christ, “who loved me and gave Himself up for me” (Galatians 2:20, NASB) to be worthy of all worship, honor and praise now and throughout eternity.

God bless,
Z


God sacrificed a lot more than giving up his own life! He gave up the life of his only begotten Son. When a parent has to lose a child, it hurts deeply, does it not? A parent would rather die than see their child suffer and die; God endured that!

If Jesus had been God, then he merely gave up a foreign human body which he saw being created in mary's womb when he was in heaven before inahbiting it. But did not truely die; you see, if Jesus is God, then the Father gave up NOTHING! For Jesus went back to heaven the same day as the crucifiction as God, an immortal Spirit; and he COULD NOT TRUELY DIE, therefore, while his CLOATHING (body) felt physical pain, HE HIMSELF IN ESSENCE did not! God cannot die, therefore, it was not God the Son who died, but merely a body he took on. That's no real sacrifice!

For your onlybegotton son, to cease to exist, that is a real sacifice; hurting more than if it were you yourself!

[jahrule84]

You claim that there is only one REAL God in existence, and if by "God" you mean "Supreme Being" I totally agree. The Bible teaches that there is one, and only one, Supreme Being!

But to call all other gods false is to assume that the others were pretending to be the supreme being, and to assume that there are no other meanings for the word God. Many others are truely "gods" when the word god has a different meaning other than Supreme Being. Doesn't make them false, for they didn't pretend to be Jehovah.

To illustrate, just as the Bible says there is only one God, it says that there is ONLY ONE Lord. 1 Cor 8:6. Now, because there is only ONE Lord does that mean that the two angels who visited Lot are false lords at Gen 19:2? Does it mean that Abraham and David and the many others called Lord, are false? Of course not! They were never pretending to be the one Lord, Jesus. When called lord, the word itself has a different meaning from when it is attached to Jesus. Doen't imply that anybody is false! Similarly, the other gods are in a different class, the word "God" meaning something different when applied to them. Doesn't make them false.

Ps 8:5 calls the angels elohim, gods, in the Heb Masoretic text. This is no corruption of the Bible, but simply another word meaning the same thing as “angels,” just as I AM means the same thing, or is an explanation of YAHWEH.
The sons of God are called gods at Ps 82:1,6. If these are flase gods, then a false god actually qualified to be a "son of God." Wow! 1 John 3:1, 10

Yes, the Son is called God, but it does not mean Supreme Being when appled to him, as the Bible makes clear that ONLY the Father is Supreme over all.

This is your defense that the Son is the Supreme Being.
That The Son is GOD (uncreated and eternal - John 8:58 NIV, John 17:5 NIV / equal to the Father - John 5:17-18 NIV / One in nature w. God - John 10:28-33 NIV/ He can only do what God does - John 5:19-23 NIV / forgives sin - Luke 5:20-21 NIV / grants eternal life - John 10:27-28 NIV, etc).

John 8:58 in context does not connect to Moses' time when the I AM statement was made, but to Abraham. Nor is any quotation made from the Exodus account. It is pure speculation that the phrase "i am" is referring back to the I AM statement of Exodus.

The Jew's question was not about hid godhood, but about his age. John 8:57. Jesus naturally showed them that he predates Abraham via his prehuman existence, for "i am" is present tence of "to be, to exist." The Jews, who revered Abraham above all others, tried to stone this man who was claiming to be greater than their great ancenstor and prophet. John8:53 Nothing here about any eternal uncreated God as you assume! Even the angels predate Abaham. Doesn't make them Supreme Being.

Notice Jesus' reply in John 8:54. If God honors himself, is his honor nothing? Even if you hide behind the argument that he is speaking as a man; why would becoming flesh stop God from having the right to honor himself? The context, however, shows that Jesus spoke the things he learnt from his Father even before he came into the world. John 8:26-28.

John 17:5, don't see why that would imply being uncreated for the Son, or equal with God, for even the angels existed before the world was. They applauded when the earth was made. And God doesn't share his worship (glory) but their is glory that he does sahre. John 17:22; 2 Cor 3:18. So not even having the Father's glory would imply equality. This is a strawman.

John 5:18
Do you not recognizse God as your Father? If so, is that a claim to equality with God? The Jews obviously misinterpreted Jesus' words, just as they misinterpreted his words in John 2:20 to mean that he would rebuilt the Jerusalem temple in 3 days. They also thought he broke the sabbath; but Jesus kept the law perfectly while it was in force, and if he broke the sabbath, then he sinned, for sin is transgression of the law! Healing was not forbidden on the sabbath in the OT, so the wicked Jewish leaders were quite off base!

Jesus refuted the charges in context. The Son can only do what the Father first TEACHES or SHOWS him how to do. John 5:19, 20 (compare John 8:28); the Son RECEIVED the authority to judge from God, which he would have already had had he been the Supreme Being. John 5:22. The Father GAVE JESUS LIFE, and GAVE him authority to judge. John 5:26, 27. Jesus CANNOT ACT ON HIS OWN INITIATIVE John 5:30. Obviously, had he been equal to the Father, he could! But his will is not as impotant as the Father's! Same verse. It saddens me that you don't understand the very simple verses you gave me in context.

John 10:28-33
It was the wicked Jews who claimed that Jesus was blaspheming, claiming to be God, not Jesus! Those words don't come out of his mouth! I go to what JESUS said, not what some hipocritical Jews believe.

Jesus claimed that the Father is GREATER THAN ALL. John 10:29. That includes Jesus 1 Cor 15:24-28; John 14:28.

His oneness with the Father is the same oneness we share with God too. John 17:20-23. Even Paul and Apollos are one 1 Cor 3:5-8.

Before I go further, let me say that you ASSUME something about NATURE; but where do any of these texts talk about NATURE? What proof do youhave that the word God even refers to the NATURE of the being? You take "God" as a reference to Jehovah's NATURE, where is the proof? Just more trinitarian speculation!

Luke 5:20,21
Again, it was, NOT JESUS, but the Pharisee and Scribes who claimed that only God can forgive sins. You keep going to UNBELIVERS to make your arguments for you.

Matthew's account adds something you overlooked. Matt 9:8, GOD GAVE MEN THE AUTHORITY TO FORGIVE SINS! Who are some of these men? John 20:23. Having this authority doesn't make Jesus equal to God anymore than it made his disciples equal to God; everything Jesus possesses is his, not because he is God, but because God GAVE HIM these things. John 3:35.

Now, I do agree with you, the holy spirit is a divine person. No doubt about that. If he was their God, why did they not worship him? Why did they not pray to him? Where does the Bible say he is God (Supreme Being)?

Matt 28:19
Gen 48:16 "In the NAME [SINGULAR] of my fathers Abraham and Isaac." Guess by your logic, a singular name means that Abraham and Isaac are two persons in one, the same age, etc. Singular name proves nothing.

You certainly have connected the dots alright, in the wrong way thou. Start over and connect them properly!

[xcav8tor]

Hello jahrule84, :smile:



You claim that there is only one REAL God in existence, and if by "God" you mean "Supreme Being" I totally agree. The Bible teaches that there is one, and only one, Supreme Being!

Nice to see there is something we can agree on.



But to call all other gods false is to assume that the others were pretending to be the supreme being, and to assume that there are no other meanings for the word God. Many others are truly "gods" when the word god has a different meaning other than Supreme Being. Doesn't make them false, for they didn't pretend to be Jehovah.

I am not saying all other gods are "false," but that NONE OF THEM are "REAL," that none of them are "God" in a way that really matters. I have explained my view of the Bible's claim that there is only ONE GOD in more detail on the Basketball Court. See: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=2572511&postcount=142



Yes, the Son is called God, but it does not mean Supreme Being when applied to him, as the Bible makes clear that ONLY the Father is Supreme over all.

When the Bible speaks of the Son as God, it does so in the sense of a Supreme Being (The Creator for example - John 1:1-3 NIV / Heb. 1:1-3 NIV / Col. 1:15-17 NIV / Heb. 1:8-12 NIV)



This is your defense that the Son is the Supreme Being...

John 8:58 in context does not connect to Moses' time when the I AM statement was made, but to Abraham. Nor is any quotation made from the Exodus account. It is pure speculation that the phrase "i am" is referring back to the I AM statement of Exodus.

The context is the question of Christ's identity (verses 24 and 53), to which Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I am!" That they understood His words as a claim to deity is clear by their response - they attempted to stone Him for claiming to be God (blasphemy).

Note that if Jesus merely wanted to claim a pre-human existence as you suggest, all He had to do was say "before Abraham WAS (Greek, genesthai - came into being) I WAS (genesthai - came into being) - this wording would also prove that Jesus thought of Himself as a created being.

INSTEAD, He said "before Abraham WAS, I AM (Greek, ego eimi - the verb TO BE). In other words, Christ was CONTRASTING His timeless and uncreated existence with Abraham's temporal existence, and by applying to Himself the Divine Name of Exo. 3:14 - I AM - the Jews understood all too well that Christ was claiming to be YHWH, and because they did not believe His claim, they took up stones to cast at Him. There was no other LEGAL CAUSE for them to try to stone Him.



The Jew's question was not about his godhood, but about his age. John 8:57. Jesus naturally showed them that he predates Abraham via his prehuman existence, for "i am" is present tense of "to be, to exist." The Jews, who revered Abraham above all others, tried to stone this man who was claiming to be greater than their great ancestor and prophet. John8:53 Nothing here about any eternal uncreated God as you assume! Even the angels predate Abraham. Doesn't make them Supreme Being.

The Jews were strict legalists. Claiming to be greater than Abraham was not one of the 5 allowable stoning offenses (1. having a familiar spirit; 2. blasphemy; 3. false prophet; 4. stubborn son; 5. adultery). As I said above, if Jesus wanted to claim merely to predate Abraham, He would not have said "I AM," but "I was."



Notice Jesus' reply in John 8:54. If God honors himself, is his honor nothing? Even if you hide behind the argument that he is speaking as a man; why would becoming flesh stop God from having the right to honor himself? The context, however, shows that Jesus spoke the things he learnt from his Father even before he came into the world. John 8:26-28.

It's not a matter of "hiding behind" anything. It is simply the truth of the matter. Jesus took upon Himself the FORM of a servant (Heb. 2:14-18 NIV). He voluntarily HUMBLED HIMSELF and LAID ASIDE THE USE of His royal prerogatives as God (Phil. 2:5-8 NIV). He instead focused on glorifying His Father (John 17:1-5 NIV) and left it to the Father to glorify the Son (Phil. 2:9-11 NIV).

Verse 28 tells us that Jesus passed on what the Father had taught Him (as a human being, since His birth - Luke 2:52 NIV / Heb. 5:8 NIV). There is nothing here that says the Father taught the Son anything prior to the incarnation.



John 17:5, don't see why that would imply being uncreated for the Son, or equal with God, for even the angels existed before the world was. They applauded when the earth was made. And God doesn't share his worship (glory) but their is glory that he does share. John 17:22; 2 Cor 3:18. So not even having the Father's glory would imply equality. This is a strawman.

The OT reveals that God does not give His Inherent Glory TO ANY CREATURE (Isa. 42:8 NIV), yet Jesus SHARED GOD'S GLORY before He created the earth (John 17:5 NIV). In fact, Jesus IS the Glory of God the Father (Heb. 1:3 NIV). This shows He cannot be a created being. The apostle John confirms this when He tells us that when Isaiah saw YHWH's glory (in Isa. 6:1-10 NIV) that it was Christ's glory that Isaiah witnessed (John 12:37-41 NIV).

As for God sharing His Glory in the sense of "Worship" with Jesus, this was discussed in the opening post of this thread.

Regarding John 17:22, John is speaking here of the Glory Jesus received as the Messiah (2 Pet. 1:16-17 NIV) - not His Divine Glory which He alone shares with the Father (Rev. 21:23 NIV) - and it is THE FORMER which He shares with His disciples (Rom. 8:16 NIV), NOT THE LATTER. We merely REFLECT Christ's glory back to Him (2 Cor. 3:18 NIV). It does not come from within as in Christ's case.

Just FYI - A straw-man argument is where you misrepresent the other person's POV and then attack it. I could hardly misrepresent your view as you have not even come out and stated what it is. You attack both JWs and Trinitarians without clearly stating your own position. How would you like to let everyone know where you are coming from so we can formulate our responses in a more meaningful manner?



John 5:18
Do you not recognizse God as your Father? If so, is that a claim to equality with God? The Jews obviously misinterpreted Jesus' words, just as they misinterpreted his words in John 2:20 to mean that he would rebuilt the Jerusalem temple in 3 days. They also thought he broke the sabbath; but Jesus kept the law perfectly while it was in force, and if he broke the sabbath, then he sinned, for sin is transgression of the law! Healing was not forbidden on the sabbath in the OT, so the wicked Jewish leaders were quite off base!

God is my Father by CREATION and by ADOPTION. I am NOT BY NATURE His ONLY BEGOTTEN SON as Jesus is. THAT is the difference. Because Jesus is BEGOTTEN by God, He shares the SAME DIVINE ESSENCE or NATURE AS DEITY as God the Father (just as our children partake in our HUMAN nature).

When John said Jesus' calling God His Father was "making Him EQUAL to God," he was giving his own inspired explanation of the meaning of Jesus' words, not telling us per se what the Jews in the crowd were thinking. That this was also the common understanding of the Jews in his day is however proven at Jesus' trial where the High Priest insists that Jesus tell Him under oath whether or not He is The Son of God (Mat. 26:63-65 NIV). Christ's affirmation that He was God's Son was interpreted as being EQUAL to God which in turn was taken as an admission of blasphemy.



Jesus refuted the charges in context. The Son can only do what the Father first TEACHES or SHOWS him how to do. John 5:19, 20 (compare John 8:28); the Son RECEIVED the authority to judge from God, which he would have already had had he been the Supreme Being. John 5:22. The Father GAVE JESUS LIFE, and GAVE him authority to judge. John 5:26, 27. Jesus CANNOT ACT ON HIS OWN INITIATIVE John 5:30. Obviously, had he been equal to the Father, he could! But his will is not as important as the Father's! Same verse...

Jesus claimed that the Father is GREATER THAN ALL. John 10:29. That includes Jesus 1 Cor 15:24-28; John 14:28.

Subordination in FUNCTION or RANK does not prove INFERIORITY of NATURE. You seem to have no understanding of the implications of the INCARNATION, or the VOLUNTARY SUBMISSION within the DIVINE PERSONS of the Trinity.

A soldier in an army is under the authority of his commander, but they are both men - equal in nature though they are assigned different roles. Same in a marriage, where both a man and woman are equal in nature (both are human beings) but the man has been put in authority over the woman. Within the Godhead, The Father is "first" (the Originator), the Son is "second" (the Executor), the Holy Ghost is "third" (the Facilitator) yet they are ONE BEING sharing ONE DIVINE ESSENCE and therefore co-equal and co-eternal. While each fills different ROLES, none of these examples show an inferiority OF NATURE.

THE FATHER is "GREATER than All" IN RANK - PERIOD (INCLUDING JESUS).

GOD (Father, Son and Spirit) is "BETTER than All" BY NATURE - PERIOD.

THE FATHER is "BETTER than All" BY NATURE EXCEPT THE PERSONS OF SON AND THE SPIRIT (because they are the same ENTITY).

THE FATHER is "BETTER than All" BY NATURE INCLUDING the HUMAN NATURE of the Son (keeping in mind the exception noted above as to Christ's DIVINE NATURE)

Do at least make an attempt to understand what I am saying before you dismiss it.



John 10:28-33
It was the wicked Jews who claimed that Jesus was blaspheming, claiming to be God, not Jesus! Those words don't come out of his mouth! I go to what JESUS said, not what some hipocritical Jews believe.

I have dealt with this in depth here: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=2566760&postcount=127



His oneness with the Father is the same oneness we share with God too. John 17:20-23. Even Paul and Apollos are one 1 Cor 3:5-8.

No. This is speaking of a different "oneness" - a oneness of cooperation, not one of essence.



Before I go further, let me say that you ASSUME something about NATURE; but where do any of these texts talk about NATURE? What proof do you have that the word God even refers to the NATURE of the being? You take "God" as a reference to Jehovah's NATURE, where is the proof? Just more trinitarian speculation!

We use the word "nature" to describe what something is made of (Gal. 4:8 NASB / Rom.11:24 NASB), it's qualities (Rom. 2:14 NASB), attributes (Rom. 1:20 NASB) or behaviour (Eph. 2:3 NASB). I am just using common terminology to explain what the Bible is teaching. For example, it doesn't matter whether or not the word "trinity" is in the Bible, only whether or not the Bible teaches it. I am assuming nothing about "nature."



Luke 5:20,21
Again, it was, NOT JESUS, but the Pharisee and Scribes who claimed that only God can forgive sins. You keep going to UNBELIVERS to make your arguments for you.

Are you denying that ONLY GOD has the ULTIMATE RIGHT to forgive sin? If I stole money from your wallet, and you found out, you could forgive me, but that does not change the fact that I broke God's law and am still accountable to Him for my actions.

Now how would you feel if I stole money from you and a third party - himself unaffected by the crime - forgave me? This is what Jesus was doing which caused the Jews to be so offended. He told another that his sins were forgiven - AND THIS IS A PREROGATIVE OF GOD ALONE. Believers can pronounce God's forgiveness of another's sin based on Christ's work on the cross and provided the person give evidence of repentance, but Jesus took it upon Himself to act as the injured party and UNILATERALLY FORGIVE OTHERS. Only God Himself can do this.



Now, I do agree with you, the holy spirit is a divine person. No doubt about that. If he was their God, why did they not worship him? Why did they not pray to him? Where does the Bible say he is God (Supreme Being)?

The Holy Spirit IS God as ONLY GOD is an eternal person - and therefore uncreated (Heb. 9:14 NASB).

He is worshiped - whenever the Triune God is worshiped (perhaps the significance behind the "holy, holy, holy" in Isa. 6:3 NASB and Rev. 4:8 NASB).

We are to pray TO the Father, IN THE NAME OF the Son, THROUGH the Holy Spirit. Standard protocol, though there are a few exceptions: Stephen prayed directly to Jesus - Acts 7:59-60 NASB. Also in John 14:14 NIV, NASB, NRSV Jesus says "If you ASK ME anything in My name, I will do it.

Where does the Bible call Him God? - Acts 5:3-4 NASB - when Peter tells Annanias that he has lied to the Holy Spirit, which was a lie not unto men, "BUT TO GOD."



Matt 28:19
Gen 48:16 "In the NAME [SINGULAR] of my fathers Abraham and Isaac." Guess by your logic, a singular name means that Abraham and Isaac are two persons in one, the same age, etc. Singular name proves nothing.

No. You have to abide by the context. Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are clearly 3 separate human beings in the Bible, and for Jacob to bless Joseph's sons in the name(s) of his forefathers (NASB and NIV read "names") in no way suggests they are one being.

The Trinity is a different matter. You agree that the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are 3 distinct PERSONS, and this is clearly brought out by Jesus in this passage. IN THIS CONTEXT, if Jesus wanted to teach us to be baptized in the names of 3 DISTINCT ENTITIES AS WELL, then the most straight-forward way to state this is to say NAMES - PLURAL. Then there would be no doubt whatsoever. So why the use of the SINGULAR of NAME associated with THREE PERSONS if not to suggest a plurality within the nature of God?

Consider also the Trinitarian implications of the benedictions of Num. 6:24-26 NASB

The LORD bless you, and keep you; The LORD make His face shine on you, And be gracious to you; The LORD lift up His countenance on you, And give you peace.

and 2 Cor. 13:14 NASB

The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit, be with you all.

Another verse to consider is the Shema - Israel's most famous statement of faith in Deut. 6:4 NASB: "Hear, O Israel! The LORD is our God, the LORD is one!

Literally this reads, ECHAD YHWY ELOHIM YHWH (reading as shown - One Yahweh God(s) Yahweh, which though read right to left in Hebrew would appear in English left to right as "Yahweh our God(s) Yahweh ONE). The most interesting observation is that the word for "one" IS NOT YACHID (which means a solitary, indivisible one; only - Gen. 22:12 NASB / Ps. 25:16 NASB / Zech. 12:10 NASB) but ECHAD (which means a UNITED or COMPOSITE ONE) as in morning and evening as DAY ONE (Gen. 1:5 NASB), man and woman as ONE FLESH (Gen. 2:24 NASB), and ONE CLUSTER of GRAPES (Num. 13:23 NASB).

If Moses had used YACHID instead of ECHAD, it would have been a strong argument against the Trinity, however as it reads, a plurality within the unity of God is clearly indicated.

Regards,
xcav8tor

[LambofElohim]

Greetings,

The Lamb is not silent anymore; in fact He has been speaking to many for quite some time now. They just refuse to listen to Him and know it is Him. He has posted on many a thread and visited many websites and even they refuse to acknowledge the Lamb. I am His Brother; I and My Brother are One; it will not get any closer to "Jesus Christ" than Me! I have come to do exactly what the poster of this thread says I should be doing, but even he will not like it! I have been sent to tell mankind that every religion based around the teachings of Israel is wrong in its beliefs and is being used by Lucifer as Jehovah in some way. Yes that is right...read it again! It stinks to feel betrayed I know, but you have been by your very own beliefs which you were taught and learned to believe was The Truth.

I am not the KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS in Revelation 19; that will be Elohim. Jehovah is one of those LORDS that Elohim is LORD over. When Elohim comes then all those who have been washed in the blood of the Lamb (know that His blood runs through their veins because of Elohim coming as flesh and letting man shed it leaving us a Brother on the stake) will be changed into beings just as the Adam that was spoken forth from nothing by Elohim in Gen 1:26-28 as His sons and daughters, lords and lordesses with His Son and Our Brother, Jesus Christ, The Lamb. The rest will perish for and with their Jehovah, Satan and their goddess. I come as Our King's Lord to prepare the way for Our King!

I am the same and The Lamb and I am only the Lord of lords and King of kings upon the earth and I am in Revelation 17:14 and with the 144,000 male Jews who have never followed Jewish customs or traditions and they will be witnesses for Elohim and The Lamb. Do you really think that the Lamb would wait until three fours of the earth is destroyed before He Himself would come? I come not to destroy, but to save all that will come and know that Elohim is God alone and Father of the Lamb.

The Brother of the Jesus Christ that the only true God hast sent
Reverend Carlton

And yes! Jesus Christ, The Lamb does worship God, but Michael on the other hand...!

[xcav8tor]

REVEREND CARLTON
... I was shown by "God" Himself that "God" of Gen 1 and "the LORD God" of 2-3 have never been the same... I had a vision of me standing in front of a great multitude of people and I was dressed in a white hooded robe... (from Bio)
... I have been sent to tell mankind that every religion based around the teachings of Israel is wrong... I come as Our King's Lord to prepare the way for Our King!
... The Lamb and I am only the Lord of lords and King of kings upon the earth

PETER
But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them - bringing swift destruction on themselves. (2 Pet. 2:1 NIV)

PAUL
But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! (Gal. 1:8 NIV)

JESUS
Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. (Mat. 7:15 NIV)

GOD
But a prophet who presumes to speak in my name anything I have not commanded him to say, or a prophet who speaks in the name of other gods, must be put to death. You may say to yourselves, "How can we know when a message has not been spoken by the LORD?" If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the LORD does not take place or come true, that is a message the LORD has not spoken. That prophet has spoken presumptuously. Do not be afraid of him.
(Deut. 18:20-22 NIV)

[Mags]

You left out the important part about all of creation JOINTLY WORSHIPING BOTH Father AND Son: "TO HIM WHO SITS on the throne AND TO THE LAMB be praise and honor and glory and power, for ever and ever!" But you are right in saying, "that's what God wants and we CANNOT do anything about it." So you should be worshiping the Lamb too.
xcav8tor



Again, not sure what version you are appealing to. ALL the Bibles I have talk about the Lamb being IN THE MIDST or MIDDLE or CENTER of the Throne Rev. 5:1 NIV. Even so, regardless of whether Jesus is SEATED or STANDING, whether ON the Throne or IN FRONT of it, John has made it absolutely clear that JESUS IS BEING WORSHIPED BY ALL CREATION:
xcav8tor



"Then I heard every creature in heaven and on earth and under the earth and on the sea, and all that is in them, singing: "To him who sits on the throne AND TO THE LAMB be praise and honor and glory and power, for ever and ever!"
xcav8tor

These verses tie in neatly to
Jn 5:21-23, "For as the Father raises up the dead and bestows life on them, even so the Son bestows life to whom He will. For the Father judges no man, but has committed all judgement unto the Son: that all men should honor the Son, even as they honor the Father. He that honors not the Son, honors not the Father who sent him"

Jn 5:25-26, "Verily, verily I say unto you, the hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live. For as the Father has life in Himself; so has he given to the Son to have life in himself; and has given him authority to execute judgement also, because He is the Son of man.

Jn 4:23-4, "For the hour comes, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worhhip the Father in spirit for the Father seeks such to worship Him. God is a Spirit: and they that worship Him must worship Him in spirit and in truth."