Here are my beliefs: http://pub13.ezboard.com/fneedsomewi...icID=230.topic

Let me start this out very simply and easy: John 17:3 This moreover is the eternal life, that to know You the alone true G.d, and Who sent Yehoshua Mashiyach.

The above is from Greek that is not a bias translation, it's more like a transliteration, anyway, either the Son lied or the Father is alone the true G.d.

Welcome to TWEB Uriah-!

Like all anti-trinitarian heretics, Uriah and that vile website ignore the very clear statements of Jesus's divinity, including from the same apostle he quotes (e.g. John 1:1-3, 8:58).

Like all anti-trinitarian heretics, Uriah and that vile website ignore the very clear statements of Jesus's divinity, including from the same apostle he quotes (e.g. John 1:1-3, 8:58).

Yes, I do not deny being a heretic to a false belief.

But funny how you just ignore what the Son said, no? You play word games with something that is like 50/50 (100% it doesn't support an deity for the Son, but to play fair we'll say it's 50/50) insteand of dealing with something straight from the mouth of the Son that a little child who knows how to speak can understand; yet it seems to either fly over Trinitarians' heads or they just think the Son is a liar.

John 1:1-3 in detail: http://home.earthlink.net/%7Eeeshgee...20John%201.htm

The word made flesh.

John 1:1-3; 14 In a beginning was the word, and the was towards G.d, and G.d was the word. The same in a beginning was towards G.d. All things came into being through him, and without him not one thing came into being. 14 And the word became flesh and lived among us, and we have seen his glory, the glory as of a father’s only son, full of grace and truth.

Since it is “in a beginning” and not “in the beginning” we know there was a time when the word was not inside Ha’Mashiyach. The word inside Ha’Mashiyach is towards G.d because Ha’Mashiyach tells others what the only true G.d (Yod-Hey-Vav-Hey) told Ha’Mashiyach to say to others. We see this in Revelation 1:1 “The revelation of Yehoshua Mashiyach, which G.d gave him to show his servant….” I will show other places further on in this examination. But notice that it also gives us a clue that the word is not literally Ha’Mashiyach since it says “the glory as of” And the other clue that the word is inside Ha’Mashiyach is that it says “the word lived among us”.

Hebrews 1:2 Long ago G.d spoke to our ancestors in many and various ways by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by a Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, through whom he also created the worlds.

What does this mean is what we need to ask ourselves. Let me give you a few examples.

Exodus 5:1 Afterwards Moshe and Aaron came and said to Pharaoh, “So said Yod-Hey-Vav-Hey, the G.d of Yisrael, ‘Send out My people that they may celebrate for Me in the wilderness.’”

Here the word of G.d became flesh through Moshe (Moses) and Aaron.

Joshua 24:2 “Yehoshua said to the entire nation, Thus said Yod-Hey-Vav-Hey…”

Here the word of G.d became flesh through Yehoshua (Joshua).

Jeremiah 29:20-21 “So you must listen to the word of Yod-Hey-Vav-Hey, the entire exile that I have sent out from Jerusalem to Babylonia. Thus said Yod-Hey-Vav-Hey….”

Here the word of G.d became flesh through Jeremiah.

What I am trying to show you is that the word became flesh through all the prophets.

John 3:34 He whom G.d has sent speaks the words of G.d, for he gives the Spirit without measure.

Here we see it says that Ha’Mashiyach speaks the words of Yod-Hey-Vav-Hey. But why does it say “Yod-Hey-Vav-Hey gives the Spirit without measure”? Good question, look carefully at what Ha’Mashiyach says in John 6:63.

John 7:16-17 Yehoshua answered them and said, My doctrine is not mine, but His who sent me. If anyone wants to do His will, he shall know concerning the doctrine, whether it is from G.d or I speak of myself.

Here we see Ha’Mashiyach not only says that the doctrine is not his, but he even denies being the true G.d (whether it is from G.d or I speak of myself).

John 8:26-28 I have much to say about you and much to condemn; but the one who sent me is true, and I declare to the world what I have heard from him.’ They did not understand that he was speaking to them about the Father. So Yehoshua said, ‘When you have lifted up the Son of Man, then you will realize that I am he, and that I do nothing on my own, but I speak these things as the Father instructed me.

Here we see that Yod-Hey-Vav-Hey (the Father) told Ha’Mashiyach what he should say.

John 12:49-50 for I have not spoken on my own, but the Father who sent me has himself given me a commandment about what to say and what to speak. And I know that his commandment is eternal life. What I speak, therefore, I speak just as the Father has told me.’

Here we see that Yod-Hey-Vav-Hey (the Father) told Ha’Mashiyach what he should say.

John 14:8-10 Philip said to him, ‘lord, show us the Father, and we will be satisfied.’ Yehoshua said to him, ‘Have I been with you all this time, Philip, and you still do not know me? Whoever has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, “Show us the Father”? Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own, but the Father who dwells in me does his works.

Here we see Yod-Hey-Vav-Hey speak through a lower being, a representation, in whom is the word of G.d is in. Ha’Mashiyach confesses that Yod-Hey-Vav-Hey speaks through him.

John 14:24 Whoever does not love me does not keep my words; and the word that you hear is not mine, but is from the Father who sent me.

Here we see Ha’Mashiyach say he is not literally the word (the word that you hear is not mine).

I hope those who were misled to believe that the word of G.d is literally Ha’Mashiyach now see the truth. If you still want to believe that Ha’Mashiyach is literally the word of G.d, then your belief be yours, and my belief be mine.

Thank you for taking some time to read this examination. May you be blessed with understanding.

John 8:58: http://pub13.ezboard.com/fneedsomewi...icID=109.topic

Exodus 3:13-15: http://pub13.ezboard.com/fneedsomewi...icID=117.topic

The things my Rabbi Yehoshua is:

Rabbi Yehoshua is The Messiah.

Rabbi Yehoshua is The Lamb of the true G.d.

Rabbi Yehoshua is The unique Son of the true G.d.

Rabbi Yehoshua is The Representation of the true G.d.

Rabbi Yehoshua is The Greatest Apostle.

Rabbi Yehoshua is The Greatest Prophet.

Rabbi Yehoshua is The Greatest High Preist.

Rabbi Yehoshua is The sinless One.

Rabbi Yehoshua is The Mediator.

Rabbi Yehoshua is The First of his kind, and The Last of his kind.

Rabbi Yehoshua is The Instrument through whom everything was created.

Rabbi Yehoshua is The First to come out of the true G.d, everything else was created through him.

Now how about dealing with John 17:3? Or you going to run away from it like the majority of Trinitarians?

Jesus is also the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End, the First and the Last. Not very creaturely titles. I have an article here on the site refuting Unitarianism such as you advocate.

Uriah- :

Hey welcome to TWEB. I read your post and the links you provided. You should look in the thread which already discusses the whole trinity issue. There are some good arguments for it. You will also find some good threads about who Jesus was and who He was not. There are many people here who are better equipped than me to discuss these issues with you.


On a side note I read your material and I found it rather unconvincing. Especially the treatment of 1 John.

Anyway welcome to TWEB.


Russ

Jesus is also the Alpha and the Omega,

No, he is not.

John 14:8-10, the Father can speak through the Son anytime he wishes. The Son however is the first of his kind, and the last of his kind; the Son is not the Alpha and Omega. How did you come to that conclusion? By reading “red letters”? I can use your logic and say the Son is an angel straight from Revelations 22:8-13; it doesn't give a clue when the angel ever stopped speaking. Two can play loop holes.

I have an article here on the site refuting Unitarianism such as you advocate.

Please provide the link, I will take a look at it and see if you got anything that wasn't already refuted on my board; mainly this thread: http://pub13.ezboard.com/fneedsomewi...icID=106.topic

You should look in the thread which already discusses the whole trinity issue.

Please provide the link, and I will take a look at it.

On a side note I read your material and I found it rather unconvincing. Especially the treatment of 1 John.

It is okay, I do use christian threats that if you don't accept it you will burn in hell; if you do not want to believe, then do not believe. Everyone has right to their beliefs.


Can anyone deal with John 17:3 or are all the Trinitarians going to avoid it on this board like everywhere else?

Uriah- :
Here is a thread title off the top of my head............

"Rubia's questions about the trinity"

that dealt a bit with the trinity issue. To be honest with you I am not very active currently in debating this topic, since I long ago resolved the existance of the trinity to be a true one. Im sure there are others who would be more than willing to engage you in an indepth discussion of the issue. In fact you could even issue a challenge to have a debate with a trinitarian in the boxing ring.

If you want more threads do a search on "trinity" or a related topic.


Russ

Uriah:

• John 1:1-3; 14 In a beginning was the word, and the was towards G.d, and G.d was the word.

What a fruity translation. Where did you dredge this up from? Just about all translations recognise that the grammar of last clause means it should be "The Word was God".

• The same in a beginning was towards G.d. All things came into being through him, and without him not one thing came into being. 14 And the word became flesh and lived among us, and we have seen his glory, the glory as of a father’s only son, full of grace and truth. Since it is “in a beginning” and not “in the beginning” we know there was a time when the word was not inside Ha’Mashiyach.

Again, did the translator pick up his Greek qualifications in a matzo packet? The Greek en archè means "In the beginning". It's the way the LXX translated Genesis 1:1.

This pathetic excuse for an exegete also misrepresents the Trinity by failing to differentiate role and nature -- Jesus submitted to the Father as a role, but is equal by nature.

Here is a thread title off the top of my head............

"Rubia's questions about the trinity"

Russ

I'll just look through all the threads that have to do with the so-called deity of the Messiah and the so-called Trinity.

Uriah:
John 1:1-3; 14 In a beginning was the word, and the was towards G.d, and G.d was the word.
What a fruity translation. Where did you dredge this up from?

A place called fluent Greeks who grew up in Greece.

Just about all translations recognise that the grammar of last clause means it should be "The Word was God".

Yes, just about all the bias translations do.

The Greek en archè means "In the beginning". It's the way the LXX translated Genesis 1:1.

No, it does not, it is literally “In beginning” but we do not speak like that like English so it becomes “In [a] beginning.” As for Genesis 1:1, you can go along with the bias translations as “In [the] beginning”, it is literally “In beginning” but since we do not speak like that in English it is “In [a] beginning.”

You don't have to accept the correct translations, you can go along with your bias translations if you choose.


Can some Trinitarian please address John 17:3: This moreover is the eternal life, that to know You the alone (only) true G.d, and Who sent Yehoshua Mashiyach.

Thank you.

Uriah:

Here is the Alpha and Omega. We do not argue by weblink here so we please if there are arguments to be made make them here. Here is the thread:

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/sho...2520#post62520

Please though respond to the argument in that thread and this one can stay on the John passage you brought up.

I do not see a thread called “Rubia's questions about the trinity.” If you can find it, just quote whatever you thought was a worthy note as backup for the Trinity, and I will try to respond to it.

From the thread “Question concerning the deity of Christ.”

Will_C_Drotar

You must believe in the Trinity, or at least the deity of Christ, for salvation.

I'll like to see a single passage for that bold (and something else) statement.

From the thread “Question concerning the deity of Christ.”

Will_C_Drotar

If Jesus was not God, then whether consentually or not, it would be unjust to impute sin to someone else...But if Jesus was NOT God, it would have been unjust for God to punish Jesus whether He permitted it or not.

Read (I recommend reading the whole chapter to get context) Ezekiel 4:5-6, Ezekiel suffered for Judah and Yisrael. Was the true G.d being unjust for letting Ezekiel suffer for both Judah and Yisrael? His ways are beyond your thoughts.

Socrates:

Just about all translations recognise that the grammar of last clause means it should be "The Word was God".

Uriah:

• Yes, just about all the bias translations do.

Oh, yeah, some great conspiracy, and you are the epitome of objectivity. And it's "biased translations" not "bias translations" :dunce:.

Socrates:

The Greek Greek en archè means "In the beginning". It's the way the LXX translated Genesis 1:1.

Uriah:

• No, it does not, it is literally “In beginning” but we do not speak like that like English so it becomes “In [a] beginning.” As for Genesis 1:1, you can go along with the bias translations as “In [the] beginning”, it is literally “In beginning” but since we do not speak like that in English it is “In [a] beginning.”

Nonsense. The Hebrew bereshit and the Greek en archè convey the same MEANING as the English "in the beginning". One can't simply use a crass word-for-word translation and ignore grammatical context.

It's obvious that you have no idea about definite articles. Even your thread title "The true Ha’Mashiyach" contains a redundancy, because the Hebrew ha is the definite article -- your title translated to "The true the Messiah" :dufus:

Also, if you check Luke's genealogy of Christ, you'll find that all the names except for Jesus's foster father Joseph have the definite article. But you won't find that reflected in English translations, simply because in English we don't use definite articles with proper names. BTW, the absense of the article with Jesus is a clear indication to Luke's original readers that he was intending to trace Mary's line.

Uriah:

• Can some Trinitarian please address John 17:3: This moreover is the eternal life, that to know You the alone (only) true G.d, and Who sent Yehoshua Mashiyach.

Of course -- Jesus was both fully God and fully Man (as amply shown by the texts I provided and Uriah butchered), and in His humanity it was proper for Him to refer to the Father as the only true God, who indeed sent Jesus, the Son.

Socrates, it is clear you got false knowledge and you think you got true knowledge, I rather not waste my time with you; it seems all you got is insults.

Ha'Mashiyach = The Messiah.

Bereshiyt = In beginning.

The reason my thread is labelled as "The true TheMessiah" is because there are many Messiahs, I referred to my Rabbi as TheMessiah in English and as Ha'Mashiyach in Hebrew. I don't expect you to understand.

It is fine with me if you disagree with these fluent transliterations, it's not like you disagreeing will make it not true.

It doesn't matter what part of your mystical messiah spoke, either the humanity or deity, it was said. So is your messiah a liar? Mine isn't. That is why I accept my TheMessiah's words that the Father is alone the true G.d while you seem to believe your messiah lied so you accept some mystical tri-unity god.

Back to my post: Can another Trinitarian respond to John 17:3? Thanks.

Uriah, I look forward to seeing your response to the Alpha and Omega link that I provided you. When I get some time I hope to address your John issue. I apologize that my time is very limited during the weekdays.

Uriah,

Are you familiar with the idea of Jesus as the Wisdom of God?

Either way, how would you describe a hypostasis of the "true God" in terms of the "true God"? Would it also be "the only true God" or would it not be called by that title?

Finally, does alethinos restrict others from having a similar or derivative property? If so, why?