It seems to me that unitarians spend all their time attacking the Trinity proof texts of John 1:1 and John 8:58. They seem oblivious to the fact that these are only a couple of the many, many pieces of evidence for the divinity of Christ throughout the Bible. This is evidenced by the fact that there is much unitarian discussion going on at the moment in a couple of threads about the aforementioned verses, however the new Son of Man thread that I started as further evidence of the divinity of Christ (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/sho...?threadid=6324) has attracted an underwhelming response.

Oh well, perhaps I'll try another piece of evidence, and see if I can get a better response from the unitarians this time.

Who is our Saviour? Well, according to many places in the OT, it is YHWH our God who is our Rock, our Fortress, and our Saviour. Some examples (there are many more instances):

"The LORD lives! Praise be to my Rock! Exalted be God, the Rock, my Savior! (2 Samuel 22:47)

Cry out, "Save us, O God our Savior; gather us and deliver us from the nations, that we may give thanks to your holy name, that we may glory in your praise." (1 Chronicles 16:35)

The LORD lives! Praise be to my Rock! Exalted be God my Savior! (Psalm 18:46)

He will call out to me, 'You are my Father, my God, the Rock my Savior.' (Psalm 89:26)

You will drink the milk of nations and be nursed at royal breasts. Then you will know that I, the LORD , am your Savior, your Redeemer, the Mighty One of Jacob. (Isaiah 60:16)

As far as I can tell, the word "Saviour" is never applied to anyone in the Old Testament other than God. It seems that only God was considered the Saviour. In fact, there are verses in the OT that explicitly state that only God is the Saviour:

I, even I, am the LORD , and apart from me there is no savior. (Isaiah 43:11)

"But I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt. You shall acknowledge no God but me, no Savior except me. (Hosea 13:4)

Thus the OT is very clear - God and only God is the Saviour. We are to acknowledge no Saviour apart from Him.

The NT continues consistently with the theme that God is the Saviour:

and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior, (Luke 1:47)

Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the command of God our Savior and of Christ Jesus our hope, (1 Timothy 1:1)

(and for this we labor and strive), that we have put our hope in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, and especially of those who believe. (1 Timothy 4:10)

and at his appointed season he brought his word to light through the preaching entrusted to me by the command of God our Savior, (Titus 1:3)

and not to steal from them, but to show that they can be fully trusted, so that in every way they will make the teaching about God our Savior attractive. (Titus 2:10)

So the NT also says that God alone is the Saviour of all mankind. Thus it is consistent with the OT. Or is it?

What about these passages:

Today in the town of David a Savior has been born to you; he is Christ the Lord. (Luke 2:11)

They said to the woman, "We no longer believe just because of what you said; now we have heard for ourselves, and we know that this man really is the Savior of the world." (John 4:42)

God exalted him to his own right hand as Prince and Savior that he might give repentance and forgiveness of sins to Israel. (Acts 5:31)

"From this man's descendants God has brought to Israel the Savior Jesus, as he promised. (Acts 13:23)

Suddenly, it seems that Christ is the Saviour! While the OT only ever refers to God as the Saviour (and explicitly states that we are to acknowledge no other Saviour), the NT refers to both Jesus and God as the Saviour (but noone else).

It seems to me that this puts unitarians into a bit of a pickle. If you are a unitarian, who is your Saviour? Is God your Saviour, or is Jesus your Saviour? If you choose Jesus as your Saviour, and you don't believe then you are violating the Bible's command that we are to acknowledge no Saviour other than God Himself. But if Jesus is not your Saviour, then what was the point of Him dying on the cross?

There is, of course, a third possibility - Jesus is God. In that case, there is no contradiction if you call both Jesus and God your saviour, because both are God. And if Jesus is God, this also means that the NT only ever calls God the Savioiur - just as the OT requires. Thus we have perfect consistency. This is, in fact, what the Bible teaches:

while we wait for the blessed hope–the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ, (Titus 2:13)

Simon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who through the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ have received a faith as precious as ours: (2 Peter 1:1)

So unitarians, it's crunch time. Who is your Saviour?

Today @ 03:57 AM post located here
Jezz:

It seems to me that unitarians spend all their time attacking the Trinity proof texts of John 1:1 and John 8:58. They seem oblivious to the fact that these are only a couple of the many, many pieces of evidence for the divinity of Christ throughout the Bible. This is evidenced by the fact that there is much unitarian discussion going on at the moment in a couple of threads about the aforementioned verses, however the new Son of Man thread that I started as further evidence of the divinity of Christ (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/sho...?threadid=6324) has attracted an underwhelming response.

Oh well, perhaps I'll try another piece of evidence, and see if I can get a better response from the unitarians this time.

Who is our Saviour? Well, according to many places in the OT, it is YHWH our God who is our Rock, our Fortress, and our Saviour. Some examples (there are many more instances):


As far as I can tell, the word "Saviour" is never applied to anyone in the Old Testament other than God. It seems that only God was considered the Saviour. In fact, there are verses in the OT that explicitly state that only God is the Saviour:


Thus the OT is very clear - God and only God is the Saviour. We are to acknowledge no Saviour apart from Him.

The NT continues consistently with the theme that God is the Saviour:


So the NT also says that God alone is the Saviour of all mankind. Thus it is consistent with the OT. Or is it?

What about these passages:



Suddenly, it seems that Christ is the Saviour! While the OT only ever refers to God as the Saviour (and explicitly states that we are to acknowledge no other Saviour), the NT refers to both Jesus and God as the Saviour (but noone else).

It seems to me that this puts unitarians into a bit of a pickle. If you are a unitarian, who is your Saviour? Is God your Saviour, or is Jesus your Saviour? If you choose Jesus as your Saviour, and you don't believe then you are violating the Bible's command that we are to acknowledge no Saviour other than God Himself. But if Jesus is not your Saviour, then what was the point of Him dying on the cross?

There is, of course, a third possibility - Jesus is God. In that case, there is no contradiction if you call both Jesus and God your saviour, because both are God. And if Jesus is God, this also means that the NT only ever calls God the Savioiur - just as the OT requires. Thus we have perfect consistency. This is, in fact, what the Bible teaches:


So unitarians, it's crunch time. Who is your Saviour?

Please read Judges 3:15 and then compare it with the grammar found around the passive verb in John 3:17 and you'll get your answer plain as day.

Tsmith:
Please read Judges 3:15 and then compare it with the grammar found around the passive verb in John 3:17 and you'll get your answer plain as day.

You have in fact proven that "yasha'" (saviour) is used for people other than God in the OT. Well done.

But your explanation falls short. You haven't explained how this harmonises with the command not to acknowledge anyone other than God as our Saviour.

The answer is obvious: Ehud (in Judges 3:15) was not a spiritual Saviour through whom eternal life was given. Ehud was a saviour who delivered Israel from the (very earthly) oppression of the Moabites. He did not save anyone from eternal death. It is only Jesus/God that saves us from eternal death.

The verse prior to John 3:17 (the famous John 3:16) makes it obvious that the saving being done in that context was to save mankind from eternal death.

So let me ask the question again (clarified slightly): who are you relying on to save you from eternal death? (I'm guessing that it's not Ehud?)

Today @ 07:15 AM post located here
Jezz:


You have in fact proven that "yasha'" (saviour) is used for people other than God in the OT. Well done.

But your explanation falls short. You haven't explained how this harmonises with the command not to acknowledge anyone other than God as our Saviour.

The answer is obvious: Ehud (in Judges 3:15) was not a spiritual Saviour through whom eternal life was given. Ehud was a saviour who delivered Israel from the (very earthly) oppression of the Moabites. He did not save anyone from eternal death. It is only Jesus/God that saves us from eternal death.

The verse prior to John 3:17 (the famous John 3:16) makes it obvious that the saving being done in that context was to save mankind from eternal death.

So let me ask the question again (clarified slightly): who are you relying on to save you from eternal death? (I'm guessing that it's not Ehud?)

The obvious context is dealing with the source of salvation as Jehovah himself calls these ones saviors himself. It does say that Jehovah is our only savior, but the fact that he brings many people forth as savior shows that it is him being the source while using other people as his agents. See, the point of John 3:17 is that Jesus' saving ability comes from God, just as it did with Ehud.

-Tony

Hi Tony

Please can you explain John 5:26 for me, Jesus says he has "life in himself" - the same phrase is used of God here also. Yes, it is given. But, if Jesus has the same "life in himself" that God does, how is that "the same as with Ehud"?

Thanks, Guy

06-27-2003 @ 01:18 PM post located here
ghbearman:

Hi Tony

Please can you explain John 5:26 for me, Jesus says he has "life in himself" - the same phrase is used of God here also. Yes, it is given. But, if Jesus has the same "life in himself" that God does, how is that "the same as with Ehud"?

Thanks, Guy

I believe the key word there is "gave."

-Tony

"gave"

"...because He is the Son of Man.

That aside, I think TS is placing too much faith in the passive verb while ignoring the fact that Christ laid down His life "..of {my} own accord.." The grace of God is said to be the grace of Christ etc.

The pertinent point being that Christ is referred to as our "ONLY Savior".

Why?

The answer is found in the fact that the Father is also referred to as "our only savior". If temporal saviors do not exclude the Father from being the ONLY Savior "..to the ends of the earth.." then it is important to note that Christ, too, is excluded from this group of temporal saviors on account of the "ONLY" clause. This is highly significant as it places Him within the divine identity. The question for TS is; What, precisely, does "only" entail?

God bless

Today @ 07:05 AM post located here
IronMetro:



"...because He is the Son of Man.

That aside, I think TS is placing too much faith in the passive verb while ignoring the fact that Christ laid down His life "..of {my} own accord.." The grace of God is said to be the grace of Christ etc.

The pertinent point being that Christ is referred to as our "ONLY Savior".

Why?

The answer is found in the fact that the Father is also referred to as "our only savior". If temporal saviors do not exclude the Father from being the ONLY Savior "..to the ends of the earth.." then it is important to note that Christ, too, is excluded from this group of temporal saviors on account of the "ONLY" clause. This is highly significant as it places Him within the divine identity. The question for TS is; What, precisely, does "only" entail?

God bless

Only in what sense.

Joh 8:41 You do the works of your father. They said to Him, We were not born of fornication; we have one father, God.

Joh 8:53 Are You greater than our father Abraham who died? And the prophets died! Whom do You make Yourself?

Just because somebody is refered to as the one or only something does not exclude another from being that same type of thing in a different sense.

-Tony

Tsmith:
Just because somebody is refered to as the one or only something does not exclude another from being that same type of thing in a different sense.

Like, for example, just because the Father is the only God, that does not exclude the Son from also being the only God but in a different sense?

Just because somebody is refered to as the one or only something does not exclude another from being that same type of thing in a different sense.

Now there's a patent example of a false dichotomy. Are you asserting that Christ is our 'only savior' in regards to something else entirely?

In an example of exclusive divine identity, YHWH declares:

Isa 45:21-23 - Declare and bring near; yea, let them consult together. Who has revealed this of old; who has told it from then? Is it not I, Jehovah? And there is no God other than Me; a just God and a Savior; there is none except Me.
Turn to Me and be saved, all the ends of the earth; for I am God, and there is no other. I have sworn by Myself, the Word has gone out of My mouth in righteousness, and shall not return, that to Me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear.

The ultimate in salvation was wrought in Christ i.e. the reconciliation of mankind to its creator. It is in this sense that Christ is our "only Savior". It is also in this sense that the Father is our 'only Savior'. Note the above. 'Savior' is modified by "all the ends of the earth." In what context does the NT place this? See Rom14:11; Phil2:8,10-11.

One of the key differences between Christ as our 'Only Savior' and the lesser "temporal saviors" of the OT is that Christ is accredited for our salvation and is exhalted for such and as such.

God bless

Today @ 04:51 AM post located here
IronMetro:



Now there's a patent example of a false dichotomy. Are you asserting that Christ is our 'only savior' in regards to something else entirely?

In an example of exclusive divine identity, YHWH declares:

Isa 45:21-23 - Declare and bring near; yea, let them consult together. Who has revealed this of old; who has told it from then? Is it not I, Jehovah? And there is no God other than Me; a just God and a Savior; there is none except Me.
Turn to Me and be saved, all the ends of the earth; for I am God, and there is no other. I have sworn by Myself, the Word has gone out of My mouth in righteousness, and shall not return, that to Me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear.

The ultimate in salvation was wrought in Christ i.e. the reconciliation of mankind to its creator. It is in this sense that Christ is our "only Savior". It is also in this sense that the Father is our 'only Savior'. Note the above. 'Savior' is modified by "all the ends of the earth." In what context does the NT place this? See Rom14:11; Phil2:8,10-11.

One of the key differences between Christ as our 'Only Savior' and the lesser "temporal saviors" of the OT is that Christ is accredited for our salvation and is exhalted for such and as such.

God bless

Not in regards to something else, but in a different sense. See, with salvation, John 3:17 clearly shows us that God is the source of the salvation that is being brought to the world and it is being done by means of Jesus. But have an act in saving, but Jehovah is the original source of it. He sent his Son. If that act had not been done, there would be no saving. Jesus gave up his life. If that act had not be done, there would be no saving. Both saved us in a different sense, but with God being the initial source of it.

Another way to look at it is this. Jesus said that only God is our Father, yet we know from Isaiah 9:6, Jesus is called Everlasting Father. Is Jesus God the Father? No he is not. But, he is now called our Everlasting Father, because of his ransom.

Tsmith:
Not in regards to something else, but in a different sense. See, with salvation, John 3:17 clearly shows us that God is the source of the salvation that is being brought to the world and it is being done by means of Jesus. But have an act in saving, but Jehovah is the original source of it. He sent his Son. If that act had not been done, there would be no saving. Jesus gave up his life. If that act had not be done, there would be no saving. Both saved us in a different sense, but with God being the initial source of it.

It seems to me that what you are saying is that God is the saviour of the world, and that he saved us using Jesus. Jesus did not save us by his own power.

Wouldn't it then be somewhat misleading to call Jesus the Saviour at all? I mean, wouldn't it be much more accurate to say "Jesus, through whom God saves"? If your position was correct, I would only ever expect to see sentences of the second type. How do you explain the presence of sentences of the second type?

Consider this example: If Jesus is merely God's representative (as you claim), and not God Himself, then it would be very confusing if the Bible thereby claimed that Jesus was God, wouldn't it?

Compare this with the Saviour statements: If Jesus is merely the vessel through which God works his saving grace, and the saving grace does not originate with Jesus himself, then it would be very misleading if the Bible claimed that Jesus was Saviour, wouldn't it?

Today @ 11:50 AM post located here
Jezz:

It seems to me that what you are saying is that God is the saviour of the world, and that he saved us using Jesus. Jesus did not save us by his own power.

Wouldn't it then be somewhat misleading to call Jesus the Saviour at all? I mean, wouldn't it be much more accurate to say "Jesus, through whom God saves"? If your position was correct, I would only ever expect to see sentences of the second type. How do you explain the presence of sentences of the second type?

Consider this example: If Jesus is merely God's representative (as you claim), and not God Himself, then it would be very confusing if the Bible thereby claimed that Jesus was God, wouldn't it?

Compare this with the Saviour statements: If Jesus is merely the vessel through which God works his saving grace, and the saving grace does not originate with Jesus himself, then it would be very misleading if the Bible claimed that Jesus was Saviour, wouldn't it?

Having studied the Bible languages, Hebrew and Greek, I noticed something very interesting about the word "Salvation" in the HOT. Every time you see the word "salvation" with a pronoun, e.g. his, our, your, etc., it is the Hebrew ישועה The Savior's name in Aramaic is ישוע, which is also the diminuative of Jehoshua or Joshua, in Hebrew. The spelling differs only by the addition of the letter "heh", in salvation, but they are pronounced exactly the same.

Today @ 02:50 AM post located here
Jezz:


It seems to me that what you are saying is that God is the saviour of the world, and that he saved us using Jesus. Jesus did not save us by his own power.

Wouldn't it then be somewhat misleading to call Jesus the Saviour at all? I mean, wouldn't it be much more accurate to say "Jesus, through whom God saves"? If your position was correct, I would only ever expect to see sentences of the second type. How do you explain the presence of sentences of the second type?

Consider this example: If Jesus is merely God's representative (as you claim), and not God Himself, then it would be very confusing if the Bible thereby claimed that Jesus was God, wouldn't it?

Compare this with the Saviour statements: If Jesus is merely the vessel through which God works his saving grace, and the saving grace does not originate with Jesus himself, then it would be very misleading if the Bible claimed that Jesus was Saviour, wouldn't it?

Actually, no. Again, we go back to the example of Ehud being called savior.

Today @ 01:16 PM post located here
OldShepherd:

Having studied the Bible languages, Hebrew and Greek, I noticed something very interesting about the word "Salvation" in the HOT. Every time you see the word "salvation" with a pronoun, e.g. his, our, your, etc., it is the Hebrew ישועה The Savior's name in Aramaic is ישוע, which is also the diminuative of Jehoshua or Joshua, in Hebrew. The spelling differs only by the addition of the letter "heh", in salvation, but they are pronounced exactly the same.

For example,

• ישועה/Yeshuah = Salvation.
  
  ישוע/Yeshua = Jesus’ name in Aramaic and Hebrew.
  
  Exd 15:2 The LORD [is] my strength and song, and he is become my salvation: [ישועה/Yeshuah] he [is] my God, and I will prepare him an habitation; my father's God, and I will exalt him.
  
  Psa 22:1 [[To the chief Musician upon Aijeleth Shahar, A Psalm of David.]] My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? [why art thou so] far from helping me [ישועה/Yeshuah], [and from] the words of my roaring?
  
  Psa 20:5 We will rejoice in thy salvation [ישועה/Yeshuah], and in the name of our God we will set up [our] banners: the LORD fulfil all thy petitions
  
  Psa 62:2 He only [is] my rock and my salvation [ישועה/Yeshuah]; [he is] my defence; I shall not be greatly moved.
  
  Isa 12:2 Behold, God [is] my salvation[ישועה/Yeshuah]; I will trust, and not be afraid: for the LORD JEHOVAH [is] my strength and [my] song; he also is become my salvation [ישועה /Yeshuah”].
  
  Isa 12:3 Therefore with joy shall ye draw water out of the wells of salvation [ישועה/Yeshuah].
  
  Jhn 4:10 Jesus [ישוע/Yeshua] answered and said unto her, If thou knewest the gift of God, and who it is that saith to thee, Give me to drink; thou wouldest have asked of him, and he would have given thee living water.
  
  Isa 49:6 And he said, It is a light thing that thou shouldest be my servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob, and to restore the preserved of Israel: I will also give thee for a light to the Gentiles, that thou mayest be my salvation [ישועה/Yeshuah] unto the end of the earth.
  
  Act 13:47 For so hath the Lord commanded us, [saying], I have set thee [ישוע/Yeshua] to be a light of the Gentiles, that thou shouldest be for salvation unto the ends of the earth.

This is too simple, go read Obadiah 1:21 and Nehemiah 9:27, guess what Hebrew word is used there for "saviors"? Same one as in Isaiah 43:11 only in plural since it is "saviors."

I can call a lifeguard my "savior" if I would be drowning and he saves me. But I know in reality that YHVH is the real Savior since without YHVH allowing the lifeguard to save me, it wouldn't happen. YHVH does his saving through many servants, and thus they have the right to be titled as "saviors."

Is being called "savior" prove you are the true God? No.

Should I be surprised that Trinitarians don't know this fact? No.