John 8:58 and Trinitarians.

[Der Alte]

show us the scripture that says directly "Jesus is god." it aint there. it's your opinon, and to be fair, you shouldn't care what you think .

Mat 1:23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.

Isa 9:6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

Luk 7:16 And there came a fear on all: and they glorified God, saying, That a great prophet is risen up among us; and, That God hath visited his people.[of Jesus]

Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.[ . . . ]
Joh 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

Joh 1:14 And the Word [who was God] became flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

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

Joh 10:33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.

Joh 5:18 Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God.

Joh 8:58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am. [Ex 3:14]

John 12:41 These things said Esaias, when he saw his glory, and spake of him. [OT vs. which refers to YHWH applied to Jesus]

Joh 14:9 Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?

Act 20:28 Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he [God] hath purchased with his own blood.

Rom 9:5 Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.

Col 1:14 In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:
15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:
16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:

Heb 1:8 But unto the Son he [God] saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.
9 Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.
10 And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands:
11 They shall perish; but thou remainest; and they all shall wax old as doth a garment;
12 And as a vesture shalt thou fold them up, and they shall be changed: but thou art the same, and thy years shall not fail.

Phi 2:6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:

1 Tim 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

1 Tim 6:15 Which in his times he shall shew, who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords;

Tit 2:13 Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ [Sharp's rule, 1 person!];
14 Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works.

2 Pet 1:1 Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ [Sharp's rule, 1 person!]:

1 John 5:20 And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This [the son Jesus Christ] is the true God, and eternal life.

Rev 17:14 These shall make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb shall overcome them: for he is Lord of lords, and King of kings: and they that are with him are called, and chosen, and faithful.

Rev 19:16 And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS.
​

 

[2ducklow]

Mat 1:23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.

Isa 9:6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

Luk 7:16 And there came a fear on all: and they glorified God, saying, That a great prophet is risen up among us; and, That God hath visited his people.[of Jesus]

Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.[ . . . ]
Joh 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

Joh 1:14 And the Word [who was God] became flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

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

Joh 10:33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.

Joh 5:18 Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God.

Joh 8:58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am. [Ex 3:14]

John 12:41 These things said Esaias, when he saw his glory, and spake of him. [OT vs. which refers to YHWH applied to Jesus]

Joh 14:9 Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?

Act 20:28 Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he [God] hath purchased with his own blood.

Rom 9:5 Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.

Col 1:14 In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:
15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:
16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:

Heb 1:8 But unto the Son he [God] saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.
9 Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.
10 And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands:
11 They shall perish; but thou remainest; and they all shall wax old as doth a garment;
12 And as a vesture shalt thou fold them up, and they shall be changed: but thou art the same, and thy years shall not fail.

Phi 2:6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:

1 Tim 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

1 Tim 6:15 Which in his times he shall shew, who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords;

Tit 2:13 Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ [Sharp's rule, 1 person!];
14 Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works.

2 Pet 1:1 Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ [Sharp's rule, 1 person!]:

1 John 5:20 And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This [the son Jesus Christ] is the true God, and eternal life.

Rev 17:14 These shall make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb shall overcome them: for he is Lord of lords, and King of kings: and they that are with him are called, and chosen, and faithful.

Rev 19:16 And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS.

none of the words you put in red say Jesus is god. . I'm not sure if you are capable of seeing that the words "Jesus is god" is nowhere in any scripture. it is only your opinon , and a rather strange one at that, that the words you put in red are the words "Jesus is god." you are making it very hard to believe that you were ever a professor of anything when you cannot even see that the words "Jesus is god" is nowhere in any scripture.

 

[Der Alte]

none of the words in red are the words "Jesus is god" and several of them are spurious or interpolations of scripture, sor bad translations.are you capable of understanding that the words "Jesus is god" are not in red anywhere above?

None of your arguments or objections mean anything, all you are doing is saying "I'm right and you're! Am too! Nuh Huh!" All the highlighted scripture either say directly that Jesus is God, or refer to him as God. NO, ZERO, NONE are bad translations, spurious, or interpolations. Your diatribe against Sharp's rule is meaningless. Real anti-Trinitarian scholars have tried for over 100 years but none have ever disproved it. FYI Sharp examined every occurrence of a TSKS clause, definite article The+Substantive+Kai+Substantive in the N.T. The great number of non-Christologically significant occurrences prove the Christologically significant verses, such as 2 pet 1:1, Tit 2:13, Matt 28:19, etc.

If Jesus is not God in 2 Peter 1:1

2 Pet 1:1 Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ​

Then he is not Lord and Savior in vs. 11. The same construction in both vss.

2Pe 1:11 For so an entrance shall be ministered unto you abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.​

 

[2ducklow]

None of your arguments or objections mean anything, all you are doing is saying "I'm right and you're! Am too! Nuh Huh!"

this kind of talk is really very childish der alter. we both are too old for that.

All the highlighted scripture either say directly that Jesus is God, or refer to him as God.

so what you're saying is words like "god with us'" directly state "Jesus is god." my counter argument would be that words like "God with us" directly state "God with us."

NO, ZERO, NONE are bad translations, spurious, or interpolations.

as a matter of fact practically every scripture used to supprot the doctrine of the trinity or that Jesus is god are bad translations, spurious, interpolations, or extremely faulty logic (such as image means is, something that is in something else is the thing it is in,essence means god, nature means god,) name a scripture in support of trinity and it will be one of these aforementioned things.
I can easily show it. here in the quote below you will find a trinitarian admitting that translations are always attempting to put Jesus is god into a translation wrognly.

In the Bible, therefore, it is the humanity of Jesus Christ that is prominent, whether as the perfect man in true relationship with his God, or as the exalted man at God's right hand. Because of this, much scope is available to anyone disposed to refute his deity. So likewise, some feel too little stress is found in Scripture on Christ's deity, a defect supposedly they are always trying to remedy.

{with bad translations, sharps rule, spurious scripture, interpolations of scripture etc. etc. etc. 2dl}

http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cach...pet.+1.1+sharps+rule&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

Your diatribe against Sharp's rule is meaningless. Real anti-Trinitarian scholars have tried for over 100 years but none have ever disproved it.

then you are aware that not all scholars accept it's validity.

FYI Sharp examined every occurrence of a TSKS clause, definite article The+Substantive+Kai+Substantive in the N.T. The great number of non-Christologically significant occurrences prove the Christologically significant verses, such as 2 pet 1:1, Tit 2:13, Matt 28:19, etc.

If Jesus is not God in 2 Peter 1:1

2 Pet 1:1 Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ
​

Then he is not Lord and Savior in vs. 11. The same construction in both vss.

2Pe 1:11 For so an entrance shall be ministered unto you abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.
​

your argument would only be valid if 2 pet. 1.1 said our god and savior Jesus christ, but it doesn't. andthe construction isn't the same. therefore, 2 pet. 1.1 falls under two headings, faulty logic (which you use) and the false translations that some bibles have of our god and savior.

Thus 2 Pet.1.1. reads dikaiosunE toutheou EmOn kai sOtEros iEsou christou. As theou and sOtEros are not directly linked by kai, then not even Granville Sharp applies. There can be no question but that God is our Saviour, but Peter is not saying so here. The proper translation is - "righteousness of our God and (of) the Saviour Jesus Christ"; the "of" being required for the sense in English. In contradistinction 2 Pet.1.2. has - epignOsei tou theou kai iEsou tou kuriou EmOn. In a similar way this should read - "knowledge (of) God and (of) Jesus our Lord".

http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cacheqG5GQxhdksJ:mauricelloyd.me.uk/onegod.htm+2+pet.+1.1+sharps+rule&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us




sharps rule doesn't prove anything with respect to titus 2.13, see quote. titus 2.13 falls under the heading of faulty translation, such as darby or kjv.

A verse that always comes up for comnent in any reference work on the syntax of N.T.Greek is Titus 2.13.. The New World NT of 1951 even has a lengthy Appendix on this one verse. That Greek portion to be considered is - prosdechomenoi tEn makarian elpida kai epipaneian tEs doxEs tou megalou theou kai sOtEros EmOn iEsou christou. There is no question but that the first kai, is an Explicative, but the absence of the Article after the second one leaves it uncertain. By analogy with 2 Peter 1.2. above the EmOn governs only sOtEros, which could read, "a Saviour of us"; and as also in 2 Peter 1.1. the three final nouns are Genitive, and here relate to epiphaneian. A suitable rendering of this would be - "awaiting the blessed expectation, namely, the forthshining of the great God's glory and of our Saviour Jesus Christ". This form of the last phrase accords with that of Sharpe, Alford, Moffatt and Philips. The several versions that here read "our God" are making an interpretation, not a translation.

http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cach...us+2.13+sharps+rule&cd=10&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

Seems we've stumbled on some usefull stuff here.

matthew 28.19 is bogus. tons of evidence that it is, but you of course say there is no evidence. but one has to decide what the evidence indicates for themselves, you solved the problem by saying any evidence that disagrees with your conclusion that mattehw 28.19 is valid is not evidence. very convienient.

matthew 28.19 falls under the heading of spurious scripture.

you wanna know what the real grammar rule is? the real rule is that if everyone knows who the subject is, there is no need for a definite article. if it is unclear who the subject is ,then a definite article is needed. such as, t The car and the train ran good. the car and John ran good. the car and the man ran good. the car and the house ran good. the car and the god ran good (assuming one is refering to one of many gods. the car and god ran good (assuming one is talking about the one and only true god, aka, God the Father.) voila. a grammar rule for everyday speech. sharps rule is unapplyable so it isn't a grammar rule. one can't know sharps rule and figure out all the exceptions and make a decision as to whether to put a the in or not. that is ludicrous. Very few scholars have it down pat, so it isn't a grammar rule that is workable, so it isn't a grammar rule. my rule, is workable, and is how it's done. I know this cause i been speakin english fer some 60 years. (assuming i said da da around 8 months or so.) Nope, hate to bust your bubble but sharps rule is phoney as a 3 dollar bill.
​

 

[Der Alte]

this kind of talk is really very childish der alter. we both are too old for that.

so what you're saying is words like "god with us'" directly state "Jesus is god." my counter argument would be that words like "God with us" directly state "God with us." as a matter of fact [Saying 'matter of fact" repeatedly does NOT make anything a fact!] practically every scripture used to supprot the doctrine of the trinity or that Jesus is god are bad translations, spurious, interpolations, or extremely faulty logic (such as image means is, something that is in something else is the thing it is in,essence means god, nature means god,) name a scripture in support of trinity and it will be one of these aforementioned things.

Endlessly repeating the same empty arguments and assertions over and over and over does NOT make them true.

I can easily show it. here in the quote below you will find a trinitarian admitting that translations are always attempting to put Jesus is god into a translation wrognly.

One Lord and One God

then you are aware that not all scholars accept it's validity.

I did NOT see any Trinitarian admitting anything. I saw a quote at a hazardous waste dump site which claimed that it was quoting someone.

your argument would only be valid if 2 pet. 1.1 said our god and savior Jesus christ, but it doesn't. andthe construction isn't the same. therefore, 2 pet. 1.1 falls under two headings, faulty logic (which you use) and the false translations that some bibles have of our god and savior.

sharps rule doesn't prove anything with respect to titus 2.13, see quote. titus 2.13 falls under the heading of faulty translation, such as darby or kjv.

Random quotes from godhaters-я-us.com© are NOT evidence. Show me something from a scholar who has studied Greek at the graduate level, has been published, and peer reviewed. It ain't happening!

matthew 28.19 is bogus. tons of evidence that it is, but you of course say there is no evidence. but one has to decide what the evidence indicates for themselves, you solved the problem by saying any evidence that disagrees with your conclusion that mattehw 28.19 is valid is not evidence. very convienient.

matthew 28.19 falls under the heading of spurious scripture.

you wanna know what the real grammar rule is? the real rule is that if everyone knows who the subject is, there is no need for a definite article. if it is unclear who the subject is ,then a definite article is needed. such as, t The car and the train ran good. the car and John ran good. the car and the man ran good. the car and the house ran good. the car and the god ran good (assuming one is refering to one of many gods. the car and god ran good (assuming one is talking about the one and only true god, aka, God the Father.) voila. a grammar rule for everyday speech. sharps rule is unapplyable so it isn't a grammar rule. one can't know sharps rule and figure out all the exceptions and make a decision as to whether to put a the in or not. that is ludicrous. Very few scholars have it down pat, so it isn't a grammar rule that is workable, so it isn't a grammar rule. my rule, is workable, and is how it's done. I know this cause i been speakin english fer some 60 years. (assuming i said da da around 8 months or so.) Nope, hate to bust your bubble but sharps rule is phoney as a 3 dollar bill.

When you have spent 3-4 years earning a MA/ThM, with graduate level Greek, and another 3-4 years earning a PhD/ThD, also with graduate level Greek, have published something relating to Greek interpretation and/or exegesis, and have been peer reviewed, then your opinion about Biblical Greek grammar, might have some weight.

As for Matthew 28:19 there is NO, ZERO, NONE credible, verifiable, historical evidence that the traditional wording is anything but genuine. Even Bart Ehrman, an atheist professor at UNC, and David Bernard a well known oneness proponent agrees.

Matthew 28:19
This verse records the words of Jesus just before His ascension: "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." How do we reconcile this verse with all the later references to baptism in the name of Jesus, such as Acts 2:38? There are several views one could take.

Powered by Google Docs.

thanks for your note. The reasons people like Petersen have suspected that Matthew 28:19-20 were ont [sic] original are (1) the verses sound like they embrace the later doctrine of the trinity and (2) they are not found in Eusebius’s quotations. Most scholars have not been convinced, however, primarily because the verses are found in every solitary manuscript of Matthew, whether Greek, Latin, or …. any other ancient language, and are cited by yet other church fathers. Most interpreters think that the later doctrine of the trinity is not necessarily implied by the verses, but that they are simply read that way by people who know about the trinity. But in any event, most textual scholars think that the verses are almost certainly original to matthew. Hope this helps,
– Bart Ehrman

L. Ray Smith and Matthew 28:19 Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth​

If there was credible, verifiable, historical evidence that Matt 28:19 was spurious these two guys would know it. The fact is that the only people making that claim are unknowns posting their anonymous arguments online

 

[2ducklow]

As for Matthew 28:19 there is NO, ZERO, NONE credible, verifiable, historical evidence that the traditional wording is anything but genuine. Even Bart Ehrman, an atheist professor at UNC, and David Bernard a well known oneness proponent agrees.

Matthew 28:19
​

This verse records the words of Jesus just before His ascension: "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." How do we reconcile this verse with all the later references to baptism in the name of Jesus, such as Acts 2:38? There are several views one could take.

Powered by Google Docs.

thanks for your note. The reasons people like Petersen have suspected that Matthew 28:19-20 were ont [sic] original are (1) the verses sound like they embrace the later doctrine of the trinity and (2) they are not found in Eusebius’s quotations. Most scholars have not been convinced, however, primarily because the verses are found in every solitary manuscript of Matthew, whether Greek, Latin, or …. any other ancient language, and are cited by yet other church fathers. Most interpreters think that the later doctrine of the trinity is not necessarily implied by the verses, but that they are simply read that way by people who know about the trinity. But in any event, most textual scholars think that the verses are almost certainly original to matthew. Hope this helps,
– Bart Ehrman

L. Ray Smith and Matthew 28:19 Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth
​

If there was credible, verifiable, historical evidence that Matt 28:19 was spurious these two guys would know it. The fact is that the only people making that claim are unknowns posting their anonymous arguments online

here ya go.

HASTINGS ENCY. RELIGION AND ETHICS
"The cumulative evidence of these three lines of criticism (Textual Criticism, Literary Criticism, and Historical Criticism) is thus distinctly against the view that Matthew 28:19 (in the AV) represents the exact words of Christ" [Art. Baptism: Early Christians].
DR. PEAKE
"The command to baptize into the threefold name is a late doctrinal expansion. Instead of the words, 'baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost' we should probably read simply-'into my name" [Bible Commentary, p. 723.
F. WHITELEY in THE TESTIMONY
"There is the 'triune' baptismal formula, which may prove a very broken reed when thoroughly investigated, but ... we may leave it for separate treatment. The thoughtful may well ponder, meantime, why one cannot find one single instance in Acts or the Epistles of the words ever being used at any of the many baptism recorded, notwithstanding Christ's (seemingly) explicit command at the end of Matthew's Gospel" [The Testimony (Oct. 1959) p. 351. Art. Back to Babylon (4).
WILLIAMS R.R.
"The command to baptize in Matthew 28:19 is thought to show the influence of a developed doctrine of God verging on Trinitarianism. Early baptism was in the name of Christ. The association of this Trinitarian conception with baptism suggest that baptism itself was felt to be an experience with a Trinitarian reference" [Theological Workbook of the Bible, p. 29].
DEAN STANLEY
"Doubtless the more comprehensive form in which baptism is now everywhere administered in the threefold name... soon superseded the simpler form of that in the Name of the Lord Jesus only" [Christian Institutions].
E.K. in the FRATERNAL VISITOR
"The striking contrast and the illogical internal coherence of the passage... lead to a presumption of an intentional corruption in the interest of the Trinity. In ancient Christian times a tendency of certain parties to corrupt the text of the New Testament was certainly often imputed. This increases our doubt almost to a decisive certainty concerning the genuineness of the passage."
Art. The Question of the Trinity and Matthew 28:19. 1924, pp. 147-151, trans from the Christadelphian Monatshefte.
DR. ROBERT YOUNG
In his Literal Translation of the Bible Dr. Robert Young places the triune name in Ma. 28:19 in parentheses, thus indicating the words to be of doubtful authenticity.
JAMES MARTINEAU
"The very account which tells us that at last, after his resurrection, he commissioned his disciples to go and baptize among all nations, betrays itself by speaking in the Triniitarian language of the next century, and compels us to see in it the ecclesiastical editor, and not the evangelist, much less the Founder Himself" [Seat of Authority, 1905, p. 568].
BLACK'S BIBLE DICTIONARY
"The Trinitarian formula (Matthew 28:19) was a late addition by some reverent Christian mind."
ENCY. RELIGION AND ETHICS
"The obvious explanation of the silence of the New Testament on the triune name, and the use of another formula in Acts and Paul, is that this other formula was the earlier, and that the triune formula is a later addition."
PROF. HARNACK
Dismisses the text almost contemptuously as being "no word of the Lord" [History of Dogma )German edn. i 68). F. WHITELEY
in
THE TESTIMONY
"Clerical conscience much troubled (see Comp. Bible App. 185) that apostles and epistles never once employ 'the Triune Name' of Matthew 28:19. Even Trinitarians, knowing Trinity idea was being resisted by Church in 4th century, admit (e.g. Peake) 'the command to baptize with the threefold name is a late doctrinal expansion,' but prior to oldest yet known Ms. (4th Century). (Its sole counterpart, 1 John 5:7 is a proved interpolation). Eusebius (A.D. 264-340) denounces the Triune form as spurious, Matthew's actual writing having been 'in my name'." [Footnotes to Art: Baptism (5) in The Testimony, Aug., 1958].

[URL="http://jesus-messiah.com/apologetics...tthew2819.html"]http://jesus-messiah.com/apologetics...tthew2819.html
[/URL]

According to the Biblical historian Dr. C. R. Gregory:

The Greek manuscripts of the text of the New Testament were often altered by the scribes, who put into them the readings which were familiar to them, and which they held to be the right readings.
These quotations also show the early heretical beginning of Trine immersion at a time when the doctrine of the Trinity was being formulated, and how the "New Testament" writings were changed to conform to the syncretized practice.

In the case just examined (Matt. 28:19), it is to be noticed that not a single manuscript or ancient version has preserved to us the true reading. But that is not surprising, for as Dr. C.R.Gregory, one of the greatest of our textual critics, reminds us:'The Greek Manuscripts of the text of the New Testament were often altered by scribes, who put into them the readings which were familiar to them, and which they held to be the right readings. '(Canon and Text of the N.T. 1907, pg. 424). "These facts speak for themselves. Our Greek texts, not only of the Gospels, but of the Epistles as well, have been revised and interpolated by orthodox copyists. We can trace their perversions of the text in a few cases, with the aid of patristic citations and ancient versions. But there must remain many passages which have been so corrected, but where we cannot today expose the fraud. It was necessary to emphasize this point, because Dr. Wescott and Hort used to aver that there is no evidence of merely doctrinal changed having been made in the text of the New Testament. This is just the opposite of the truth, and such distinguished scholars as Alfred Loisy, J. Wellhausen, Eberhard Nestle, Adolf Harnack, to mention only four names, do not scruple to recognize the fact. " While this is perfectly true, nevertheless, "there are a number of reasons why we can feel confident about the general reliability of our translations. "- Peter Watkins, in an excellent article 'Bridging the Gap' in The Christadelphian, January, 1962, pp. 4-8.

Codex B. (Vaticanus) would be the best of all existing manuscripts. .. if it were completely preserved, less damaged, (less) corrected, more easily legible, and not altered by a later hand in more than two thousand places. Eusebius therefore, is not without ground for accusing the adherents of Athanasius and of the newly arisen doctrine of the Trinity of falsifying the Bible more than once. - Fraternal Visitor 1924, page 148, translation from Christadelphian Monatshefte.

http://english.sdaglobal.org/research/mt2819.htm

Looks like i've found some more usefull stuff here.

looks like another one bites the dust. then too, I got the catholic bible that says in a foot note that they made up matthew 28.19, well word to that effect. I've posted it before in here.

 

[2ducklow]

Endlessly repeating the same empty arguments and assertions over and over and over does NOT make them true.


I did NOT see any Trinitarian admitting anything. I saw a quote at a hazardous waste dump site which claimed that it was quoting someone.


Random quotes from godhaters-я-us.com© are NOT evidence. Show me something from a scholar who has studied Greek at the graduate level, has been published, and peer reviewed. It ain't happening!



When you have spent 3-4 years earning a MA/ThM, with graduate level Greek, and another 3-4 years earning a PhD/ThD, also with graduate level Greek, have published something relating to Greek interpretation and/or exegesis, and have been peer reviewed, then your opinion about Biblical Greek grammar, might have some weight.

There are problems with the Granville Sharp “Rule.” First, it is impossible to prove that it was a rule of grammar at the time of the Apostle Paul. Nigel Turner, a Trinitarian, writes:

Unfortunately, at this period of Greek we cannot be sure that such a rule is really decisive. Sometimes the definite article is not repeated even when there is a clear separation in idea. [1]
​

Buzzard writes about Titus 2:13, also supposedly an example of the Granville Sharp rule:

A wide range of grammarians and Biblical scholars have recognized that the absence of the definite article before “our Savior Jesus Christ” is quite inadequate to establish the Trinitarian claim that Jesus is here called ‘the great God’ (p. 130).
​

http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache...e+sharp's+rule+valid&cd=6&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

and here, he explains what I was saying except more accurately and more articulately.

It appears by comparing the rule with its exceptions and limitations that it in fact amounts to nothing more than this: that when substantives, adjectives, or particles are connected together by a copulative or copulative, if the first have the article, it is to be omitted before those which follow, when they relate to the same person or thing; and it is to be inserted, when they relate to different persons or things, EXCEPT when this fact is sufficiently determined by some other circumstance. The same rule exists respecting the use of the definite article in English.
The principle of exception just stated is evidently that which runs through all the limitations and exceptions that Middleton has laid down and exemplified, and is in itself perfectly reasonable. When, from any other circumstance, it may be clearly understood that different persons or things are spoken of, then the insertion of omissions of the article is a matter of indifference


Norton makes some great points and shows the irrelevance of the Granville Sharp Rule in “proving” the Trinity. Because no ambiguity between Christ and God would arise in the minds of the readers due to the omission of the article, it can be omitted without a problem. Likewise, there was no need for a second article in Matthew 21:12 in the phrase, “all the [ones] selling and buying,” or in Ephesians 2:20 in the phrase, “the apostles and prophets,” because no one would ever think that “sold” and “bought” meant the same thing, or that “apostles” and “prophets” were somehow the same office. This same is true all over the Bible. There is no need for a second article if no confusion would arise without it. The “rule” therefore begs the question. It can be made to apply only if it can be shown that an ambiguity would have arisen in the minds of the first century readers between Christ and God. Because the whole of Scripture clearly shows the difference between Christ and God, and that difference would have been in the minds of the believers, the Granville Sharp “Rule” is not a valid reason to make Christ God.

http://www.biblicalunitarian.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=38

in other words, sharps rule is invalid, it is theology not a grammar rule.
​

 

[Der Alte]

here ya go

HASTINGS ENCY. RELIGION AND ETHICS
"The cumulative evidence of these three lines of criticism (Textual Criticism, Literary Criticism, and Historical Criticism) is thus distinctly against the view that Matthew 28:19 (in the AV) represents the exact words of Christ" [Art. Baptism: Early Christians].

DR. PEAKE
"The command to baptize into the threefold name is a late doctrinal expansion. Instead of the words, 'baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost' we should probably ["Probably" is NOT historical evidence!] read simply-'into my name" [Bible Commentary, p. 723.

F. WHITELEY in THE TESTIMONY
"There is the 'triune' baptismal formula, which may prove [Speculation!] a very broken reed when thoroughly investigated, but ... we may leave it for separate treatment. The thoughtful may well ponder, meantime, why one cannot find one single instance in Acts or the Epistles of the words ever being used at any of the many baptism recorded, [Logical fallacy, "Argument from silence!] notwithstanding Christ's (seemingly) explicit command at the end of Matthew's Gospel" [The Testimony (Oct. 1959) p. 351. Art. Back to Babylon (4).

WILLIAMS R.R.
"The command to baptize in Matthew 28:19 is thought to show [Speculation!] the influence of a developed doctrine of God verging on Trinitarianism. Early baptism was in the name of Christ. The association of this Trinitarian conception with baptism suggest [Speculation!] that baptism itself was felt to be [Speculation!] an experience with a Trinitarian reference" [Theological Workbook of the Bible, p. 29].

Maybe, could be possibly, seems to be, etc.

DEAN STANLEY
"Doubtless the more comprehensive form in which baptism is now everywhere administered in the threefold name... soon superseded the simpler form of that in the Name of the Lord Jesus only" [Christian Institutions].

Doubtless [speculation] the more comprehensive form in which Baptism is now everywhere administered in the threefold name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, soon superseded the simpler form of that in the name of the Lord Jesus only. But the earlier use points out clearly how, along with the all-embracing love of the Universal Father, and the all-penetrating presence of the Eternal Spirit, the historical, personal, gracious, endearing form of the Founder of the Faith was, the first and leading thought that was planted in the mind of the early Christians as they rose out of the font of their first immersion to enter on their new and difficult course.

Christian institutions; essays on ecclesiastical subjects​

E.K. in the FRATERNAL VISITOR
"The striking contrast and the illogical internal coherence of the passage... lead to a presumption of an intentional corruption in the interest of the Trinity. In ancient Christian times a tendency of certain parties to corrupt the text of the New Testament was certainly often imputed. This increases our doubt almost to a decisive certainty concerning the genuineness of the passage."
Art. The Question of the Trinity and Matthew 28:19. 1924, pp. 147-151, trans from the Christadelphian Monatshefte.

The Christadelphian Monatshefte was destroyed in WWII, source cannot be confirmed.

DR. ROBERT YOUNG
In his Literal Translation of the Bible Dr. Robert Young places the triune name in Ma. 28:19 in parentheses, thus indicating the words to be of doubtful authenticity.

Young may or may not have meant "doubtful authenticity."

JAMES MARTINEAU
"The very account which tells us that at last, after his resurrection, he commissioned his disciples to go and baptize among all nations, betrays itself by speaking in the Triniitarian language of the next century, and compels us to see in it the ecclesiastical editor, and not the evangelist, much less the Founder Himself" [Seat of Authority, 1905, p. 568].

Anti-Trinitarian assumption.

BLACK'S BIBLE DICTIONARY
"The Trinitarian formula (Matthew 28:19) was a late addition by some reverent Christian mind."

NO, ZERO, NONE evidence!

ENCY. RELIGION AND ETHICS
"The obvious explanation of the silence of the New Testament on the triune name, and the use of another formula in Acts and Paul, is that this other formula was the earlier, and that the triune formula is a later addition."

Speculation!

PROF. HARNACK
Dismisses the text almost contemptuously as being "no word of the Lord" [History of Dogma )German edn. i 68). F. WHITELEY

2d-3d hand quote. And it does not occur in the vol 1-7. at this link Browse by Author (H) | Christian Classics Ethereal Library]Here!

[size]in THE TESTIMONY
"Clerical conscience much troubled (see Comp. Bible App. 185) that apostles and epistles never once employ 'the Triune Name' of Matthew 28:19. Even Trinitarians, knowing Trinity idea was being resisted by Church in 4th century, admit (e.g. Peake) 'the command to baptize with the threefold name is a late doctrinal expansion,' but prior to oldest yet known Ms. (4th Century). (Its sole counterpart, 1 John 5:7 is a proved interpolation). Eusebius (A.D. 264-340) denounces the Triune form as spurious, [A blatant lie!] Matthew's actual writing having been 'in my name'." [Footnotes to Art: Baptism (5) in The Testimony, Aug., 1958].[/SIZE]

Quoting other 20th century apologists is NOT credible, verifiable, historical evidence.

And you still cannot grasp why this post is a bunch of rubbish. I just quoted a well known oneness apologist, David Bernard, and a published atheist college professor, Bart Ehrman, neither of whom quoted any of this. If any of this nonsense was true or reliable both of these guys would have quoted it. They both would love to find credible, verifiable, historical evidence which supports their arguments.

What we got here is the standard copy/paste from godhaters-я-us.com© A piece of this, a piece of that misquoted, quoted out-of-context. The funny thing is I just refuted this same copy/paste at another forum about 20 minutes before you posted it here.

First thing. Have you ever actually read any of these sources in this copy/paste? Do you know what they actually say in context? No, because there are blatant errors you would known about if you had ever seen the soruces. For example,

WILLIAMS R.R.
"The command to baptize in Matthew 28:19 is thought to show the influence of a developed doctrine of God verging on Trinitarianism. Early baptism was in the name of Christ. The association of this Trinitarian conception with baptism suggest that baptism itself was felt to be an experience with a Trinitarian reference" [Theological Workbook of the Bible, p. 29].​

There ain't no such thing! The only place the title, "Theological Workbook of the Bible" appears is in this same copy/paste at a dozen or so anti-Trinitarian websites. There is no other reference to this book.

 

[2ducklow]

["Probably" is NOT historical evidence!]

.HE is referring to the Eusebian texts which are historical evidence, He is saying that in his opinon probably the Eusebian version is the correct one.

[Speculation!]

["Argument from silence!]

no it is internal evidence. The internal evidence that the triune bapstimal formula contradicts numerous scriptures on baptism, ‘baptism in jesus name, whatsoever you do do all in the name of the lord Jesus , there is no other name whereby we must be saved (Jesus). .

[Speculation!]

it is a fact that trinity doctrine developed. So not speculation.

[Speculation!][Speculation!]

all you have done is avoided the internal evidence.

[speculation]

not much of a speculation. It’s a fact from numeroussources that baptism was always in the name of Jesus originally. Only later did they put the triune formula in the bible. Aka, matthew 28.19.

Quoting other 20th century apologists is NOT credible, verifiable, historical evidence.

And you still cannot grasp why this post is a bunch of rubbish. I just quoted a well known oneness apologist, David Bernard, and a published atheist college professor, Bart Ehrman, neither of whom quoted any of this. If any of this nonsense was true or reliable both of these guys would have quoted it. They both would love to find credible, verifiable, historical evidence which supports their arguments.

I don't find the reasoning that because 2 people, (no matter what their qualifications are,) said something it has to be true.

What we got here is the standard copy/paste from godhaters-я-us.com© A piece of this, a piece of that misquoted, quoted out-of-context. The funny thing is I just refuted this same copy/paste at another forum about 20 minutes before you posted it here.

This is evidence to me that trinity cannot be true. Trinity and inquisition go hand in hand. you have just expoused a form of inquisition by refering to us non trinitarians as godhaters. TRinty at it's very inception is linked to inquisition at the council of nicea. God is not the author of the inquistion, trinity is.

First thing. Have you ever actually read any of these sources in this copy/paste? Do you know what they actually say in context? No, because there are blatant errors you would known about if you had ever seen the soruces. For example,

WILLIAMS R.R.
​

"The command to baptize in Matthew 28:19 is thought to show the influence of a developed doctrine of God verging on Trinitarianism. Early baptism was in the name of Christ. The association of this Trinitarian conception with baptism suggest that baptism itself was felt to be an experience with a Trinitarian reference" [Theological Workbook of the Bible, p. 29].
​

There ain't no such thing! The only place the title, "Theological Workbook of the Bible" appears is in this same copy/paste at a dozen or so anti-Trinitarian websites. There is no other reference to this book.

Even if your reasoning that it's a llie cause you can't find the source, were true, it still wouldn't mattter because the things Williams says are true and stated by multiple other sources.

 

[Der Alte]

and here, he explains what I was saying except more accurately and more articulately.

in other words, sharps rule is invalid, it is theology not a grammar rule.

Standard copy/paste from a random website. None of the people quoted are shown to be Greek scholars recognized in the field, by other Greek scholars. This proves absolutely nothing about Sharp's rule. Just amateur anti-Trinitarians taking potshots at the real scholars.

 

[2ducklow]

Standard copy/paste from a random website. None of the people quoted are shown to be Greek scholars recognized in the field, by other Greek scholars. This proves absolutely nothing about Sharp's rule. Just amateur anti-Trinitarians taking potshots at the real scholars.

in other words you have no credible rebutal for anything my source said. Who a person is doesn't determine if what he says is or isn't the truth. you haven't learned this principle yet. BAscially you only argue that who speaks determines what the truth is. I argue what is said determines whether it is true or not. Big big difference between us. you want to argue about who says it, I want to argue over what is said. there is no meeting of the eye between us. that's a bit of a hyperbole, but not by much.

the guy i quoted countered numerous thngs your scholars said much better than I could have. you just in effect are saying he is wrong cause of who he is. Probably you can't defend your scholars statements . Or perhaps you don't understand what they are talking about. I do.

 

[Der Alte]

in other words you have no credible rebutal for anything my source said. Who a person is doesn't determine if what he says is or isn't the truth. you haven't learned this principle yet. BAscially you only argue that who speaks determines what the truth is. I argue what is said determines whether it is true or not. Big big difference between us. you want to argue about who says it, I want to argue over what is said. there is no meeting of the eye between us. that's a bit of a hyperbole, but not by much.

the guy i quoted countered numerous thngs your scholars said much better than I could have. you just in effect are saying he is wrong cause of who he is. Probably you can't defend your scholars statements . Or perhaps you don't understand what they are talking about. I do.

Of course, you found a unitarian website which posted some arguments that you agree with so you have no choice but to try to defend them. If any of those guys ever publish a book, or paper, on Greek grammar or exegesis which is peer reviewed by knowledgeable scholars in the field let me know. I do not seek or take medical, tax, financial, accounting, etc. advice from random websites. The willy-nilly opinions and scribblings of every anti-Trinitarian who owns a computer does NOT merit discussion.

 

[2ducklow]

Of course, you found a unitarian website which posted some arguments that you agree with so you have no choice but to try to defend them. If any of those guys ever publish a book, or paper, on Greek grammar or exegesis which is peer reviewed by knowledgeable scholars in the field let me know. I do not seek or take medical, tax, financial, accounting, etc. advice from random websites. The willy-nilly opinions and scribblings of every anti-Trinitarian who owns a computer does NOT merit discussion.

well if you can't defend what you believe I guess, "the source is no good" is a good way to avoid it.

 

[Der Alte]

you say the source is no good, I say what they say is no good. we have reached an impasse. what your scholars say is no good as proved by logic. what my source says is no good cause they aren't on your A+ list. thats where we stand as I see it.

The difference is you google the internet, desperately, trying to find something, anything, from any random website, which supports your assumptions/presuppositions. I sincerely doubt that you have ever read a text by any peer recognized scholar on any Biblical subject. I read and cite the same accredited Bible scholars that are regularly read and taught in colleges, universities, seminaries, etc., scholars who have acquired the necessary education, and have "stood and delivered," as it were, earning their PhDs and ThDs, who have published, and been reviewed and recognized in their field, much the same as a MD or JD.

What you call "logic" translates to me as anything, by anybody, from anywhere, any random website, that supports your assumptions/presuppositions, whether the theology of that source agrees with yours or not. Such as the unitarian website you quoted from.

 

[2ducklow]

The difference is you google the internet, desperately, trying to find something, anything, from any random website, which supports your assumptions/presuppositions. [/qutoe] this is partially true, since most all bible scholars have imbibed the poison that 3 is one, they spew out continually the most bizzare illogical statements imaginable. I don't hold scholars any where near the high esteem that you place on them. I place the esteem on them that one deserves who imbibes the poison that 3 is one.

I sincerely doubt that you have ever read a text by any peer recognized scholar on any Biblical subject. I read and cite the same accredited Bible scholars that are regularly read and taught in colleges, universities, seminaries, etc., scholars who have acquired the necessary education, and have "stood and delivered," as it were, earning their PhDs and ThDs, who have published, and been reviewed and recognized in their field, much the same as a MD or JD.

What you call "logic" translates to me as anything, by anybody, from anywhere, any random website, that supports your assumptions/presuppositions, whether the theology of that source agrees with yours or not. Such as the unitarian website you quoted from.

with you it's who said it. with me it's what did they say.

 

[Der Alte]

The difference is you google the internet, desperately, trying to find something, anything, from any random website, which supports your assumptions/presuppositions. I sincerely doubt that you have ever read a text by any peer recognized scholar on any Biblical subject. I read and cite the same accredited Bible scholars that are regularly read and taught in colleges, universities, seminaries, etc., scholars who have acquired the necessary education, and have "stood and delivered," as it were, earning their PhDs and ThDs, who have published, and been reviewed and recognized in their field, much the same as a MD or JD.

What you call "logic" translates to me as anything, by anybody, from anywhere, any random website, that supports your assumptions/presuppositions, whether the theology of that source agrees with yours or not. Such as the unitarian website you quoted from.

with you it's who said it. with me it's what did they say.

That is what I said. You try to find people who will tell you what you want to hear. Since you don't have the scholastic qualifications, your only yardstick is what you already believe.

 

[2ducklow]

That is what I said. You try to find people who will tell you what you want to hear. Since you don't have the scholastic qualifications, your only yardstick is what you already believe.

partly true. but since most christians are trinitarians, or oneness (oneness to me is just another better form of triniity in that it eliminates the logical problem of 3 is one.) most christian scholars are trinitarian/oneness. so you have more sources available than do I. if the situation were reversed, then most scholars would be saying what the unitarian cite i quoted is saying and you would have the difficulty in finding someone who believes with your beliefs.

My only yardstick is not what I already believe. But it is a yardstick, and should be. for I have proven to myself that what I beleive is true. I occaisonally have to modify my beliefs as I research more and more. (I'm certainly not a scholar but i do the best I can with what I got.)

Really now, everyone trys and find something on the internet to back up what they believe. once someone has examined an issue and come to a conclusion as to what the facts indicate, his mind is usually made up at that point. you've come to the conclusion that trinity does not mean 3 is one. I have come to the conclusion taht trinity means 3 is one. so for each of us that is not a topic of consideration, and that basic belief permiates into everything else we believe about the bible.

 

[Der Alte]

The difference is you google the internet, desperately, trying to find something, anything, from any random website, which supports your assumptions/presuppositions.

this is partially true, since most all bible scholars have imbibed the poison that 3 is one, they spew out continually the most bizzare illogical statements imaginable. I don't hold scholars any where near the high esteem that you place on them. I place the esteem on them that one deserves who imbibes the poison that 3 is one.

Logical fallacy -Description of Poisoning the Well

This sort of "reasoning" involves trying to discredit what a person might later claim by presenting unfavorable information (be it true or false) about the person. This "argument" has the following form:

1. Unfavorable information (be it true or false) about person A is presented.
2. Therefore any claims person A makes will be false.

This sort of "reasoning" is obviously fallacious. The person making such an attack is hoping that the unfavorable information will bias listeners against the person in question and hence that they will reject any claims he might make. However, merely presenting unfavorable information about a person (even if it is true) hardly counts as evidence against the claims he/she might make. This is especially clear when Poisoning the Well is looked at as a form of ad Homimem in which the attack is made prior to the person even making the claim or claims. The following example clearly shows that this sort of "reasoning" is quite poor.​

You commit this fallacy in two ways, scholars who believe in the Trinity are wrong about everything, people who don't believe in the Trinity are right about most other things.

Also you commit this logical fallacy.

Description of Appeal to Authority

An Appeal to Authority is a fallacy with the following form:

1. Person A is (claimed to be) an authority on subject S.
2. Person A makes claim C about subject S.
3. Therefore, C is true.

This fallacy is committed when the person in question is not a legitimate authority on the subject. More formally, if person A is not qualified to make reliable claims in subject S, then the argument will be fallacious.

This sort of reasoning is fallacious when the person in question is not an expert. In such cases the reasoning is flawed because the fact that an unqualified person makes a claim does not provide any justification for the claim. The claim could be true, but the fact that an unqualified person made the claim does not provide any rational reason to accept the claim as true.

When a person falls prey to this fallacy, they are accepting a claim as true without there being adequate evidence to do so. More specifically, the person is accepting the claim because they erroneously believe that the person making the claim is a legitimate expert and hence that the claim is reasonable to accept. Since people have a tendency to believe authorities (and there are, in fact, good reasons to accept some claims made by authorities) this fallacy is a fairly common one.

Since this sort of reasoning is fallacious only when the person is not a legitimate authority in a particular context, it is necessary to provide some acceptable standards of assessment. The following standards are widely accepted:​

​

​

 

[marcusampe]

on this topic der Alter wrote:
"And in the Trinity none is before or after another; none is greater or less than another, but all three Persons are co-eternal together and co-equal. So that in all things, as is aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshipped."

but when the one is not greater than the other why is written in the Holy Bible: Ye heard how I said to you, I go away, and I come unto you. If ye loved me, ye would have rejoiced, because I go unto the Father: for the Father is greater than I. (John 14:28?

 

[Der Alte]

on this topic der Alter wrote:
"And in the Trinity none is before or after another; none is greater or less than another, but all three Persons are co-eternal together and co-equal. So that in all things, as is aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshipped."

but when the one is not greater than the other why is written in the Holy Bible: Ye heard how I said to you, I go away, and I come unto you. If ye loved me, ye would have rejoiced, because I go unto the Father: for the Father is greater than I. (John 14:28?

I have found that it is necessary to have a thorough knowledge of scripture if one intends to discuss them.

Jesus existed in one form, Philp 2, vs. 6, but took upon himself another form, vs. 7.

What was Jesus’ form before? If he was literally, actually a man afterward what was he literally, actually before?

Philippians 2:6-11 6. Who, being [continual existence] in the form [μορφη] of God, thought it not robbery [something to be grasped] to be equal with God:

(Greek Interlinear) Philippians 2:6-11 ος {WHO,} εν {IN [THE]} μορφη {FORM} θεου {OF GOD} υπαρχων {SUBSISTING,} ουχ {NOT} αρπαγμον {RAPINE} ηγησατο το {ESTEEMED IT} ειναι {TO BE} ισα{EQUAL} θεω {WITH GOD;}​

The verb ειναι, translated ”to be,” which appears to be a future tense in English, is a present active infinitive, not a future tense. “Being equal with god,” was a, then, present reality not something considered and rejected.

7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him[self] the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:​

Jesus’ earthly ministry occurred between verses, 7 and 8. Where the one who was equal with God, vs. 6, the one who, acting upon himself, became flesh, cf. John 1:14, made himself of no reputation, vs. 7, Heb 2:17, took upon himself the form of a servant, and was in the likeness of men. After which God, not merely exalted him, but “highly exalted” him, and glorified him with the same glory he had with the Father before the world existed (John 17:5)

It was here where all the things anti-Trinitarians cannot comprehend happened, e.g. “If Jesus was God, why didn’t he know the hour of his return?” etc., etc., etc.

8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.​

How does a mere human being, “become obedient unto death?” All mankind is appointed to death, no humbling involved! Heb 9:27. Did the criminals who were crucified with Jesus also humble themselves unto death on the cross?

9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:
10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, [cf. יהוה/YHWH, Isa 45:23] of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;
11 And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, [cf. יהוה/YHWH, Isa 45:23] to the glory of God the Father.​