Biblical Truth: Christ Jesus is not God.

[ivebeenshown]

John 1
1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2The same was in the beginning with God.
3All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

14And the Word was made 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.



Colossians 1
12Giving thanks unto the Father, which hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light:
13Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son:
14In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:
15Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:
16For 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:
17And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.



I don't see how this can be reconciled.

 

[2ducklow]

John 1
1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2The same was in the beginning with God.
3All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

14And the Word was made 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.

The Word is the Word of God which is what God says, thus the meaning of THe word was god is the same as saying What God said was god, or "what god says is god". It's the same as saying 'your words are you ivebeenshown".


Also, the word was made or became flesh means what god said or says became flesh. Not literally. god's words didn't literally turn into flesh, but figuratively what God says became flesh with the begatting of Jesus, that's what the whole verse says.

(NKJV) John 1:14 And the Word 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

the word became flesh when the Father begat Jesus, as the verse says, and not by some being named word turning into a sygot in Mary's womb.

Colossians 1
12Giving thanks unto the Father, which hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light:
13Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son:
14In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:
15Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:
16For 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:
17And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.

here is a more accurate translation of col. 1.16. the Greek word falsely translated as 'by' in the kjv is the greek word 'en' which means in.

(ASV) Colossians 1:16 for in him were all things created, in the heavens and upon the earth, things visible and things invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers; all things have been created through him, and unto him;


all things were created in , through and unto Christ, not by christ. the meaning is that everything was created because of or for Jesus, Jesus is the reason for everything that was created. Everything was created in order that God could have sons to fellowship with, sons like Jesus, not like fallen adam. that's why we are to become like Christ in every way.


as to "the image of the invisible god'' that only proves Jesus isn't god because an image of something isn't the thing it is an image of.

I don't see how this can be reconciled.

 

[ivebeenshown]

as to "the image of the invisible god'' that only proves Jesus isn't god because an image of something isn't the thing it is an image of.

27So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

If Jesus is the image of God, are we not created in the image of Jesus Christ?

John 10:30
I and my Father are one.

Mark 12:29
And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord:

Luke 2:11
For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christthe Lord.​

 

[ToxicReboMan]

ivebeenshown,

What about this passage? Do you believe that Jesus and his Heavenly Father are co-equal or do you believe that the Father is greater than Jesus? How do you understand this passage?

"You have heard Me say to you, ‘I am going away and coming back to you.’ If you loved Me, you would rejoice because I said, ‘I am going to the Father,’ for My Father is greater than I." John 14:28​

 

[2ducklow]

27So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

If Jesus is the image of God, are we not created in the image of Jesus Christ?

No we are being made in the image of Christ, we were not created in the image of Christ. Only christians are being made in the image of Christ.

Romans 12:2 And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.John 10:30


Romans 8:29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.


All men are created in the image of God, only christians are being made into the image of Christ.

I and my Father are one.

Mark 12:29
And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord:

Luke 2:11
For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christthe Lord.

scripture answers your question.

John 17:22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:


Jesus prayed that the church would be one the same way the Father and the Son are one, that is how God and Christ are one.

as to the other verse.

God is one Lord not 2 Lords. that only proves that the lord Jesus cannot be the Lord god.

 

[Der Alte]

What about this passage? Do you believe that Jesus and his Heavenly Father are co-equal or do you believe that the Father is greater than Jesus? How do you understand this passage?

"You have heard Me say to you, ‘I am going away and coming back to you.’ If you loved Me, you would rejoice because I said, ‘I am going to the Father,’ for My Father is greater than I." John 14:28

Jesus existed in one form, Philippians 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.​

 

[ToxicReboMan]

Jesus existed in one form, Philippians 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.​

What does this have to do with John 14:28? Here is a simple question in which I would not be surprised if you didn't answer it.

Is the Father greater than Jesus or are they co-equal?

 

[Evergreen48]

No! It is not my opinion it is the consensus of virtually every Greek scholar of any standing, Robertson, Vincent, Wallace, Henry, Jamieson, Faussett, and Brown, Nestle, Aland, Westcott, Hort, Metzger, Moulton, etc.

Trinitarians all. It would be very unusual if they didn't share the same opinion. There is a saying, which I have found to be true,: "Birds of the same feather always flock together". But I also agree with whoever said: "If birds of a feather flock together, they don't learn enough" .

Since you are arguing a religious position which cannot be shown to have existed before the late 19th century your opinion is irrelevant.

Michael Servetus, who was born in 1511, and died in 1553, (burnt at the stake) held a different position concerning the 'trinity doctrine'. I believe that was a bit before the late 19th century.

You haven't read Winer so why are you asking me about him? I have read a lot more than the 1-2 sentences than you copied 2d hand from another source. And you will find that Wallace and Bowman address more of Winer than the little bit you copied. But of course to do that you would have to be interested in the truth rather than cherry picking, bits and pieces which out-of-context seem to support your argument.

The primary reason for even mentioning Winer and Ellicott was to remind that there are other opinions pertaining to Sharp's rule than just Wallace or Bowman's. I don't know why you are making such a big deal out of it. Its not like I copied and pasted from their writings, or suggested a website which promotes them as you have done with Wallace and Bowman.

Either you have read Winer's work and have compared it with Bowman and Wallace's work, or you haven't. Which is it? A simple 'yes' or 'no' will suffice.

Unlike you I almost never quote a source I have not personally read first hand.

Is that a 'yes' you have read Winer's work and compared it with Bowman and Wallace's work?

Have you actually read a 1st hand translation of "Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Sprachidioms" or as I said an out-of-context copy/paste from a 2d-3d hand source? Here is a link to the original German of Winer. Ooops, I can't find any reference to Sharp!

You are not making any sense. I have already told you that I speak and read very little of the German language. Do you have a link that you could give me to an English translation of "Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Sprachidioms"?

Read my previous argument Titus 2:13, 2 Pet 1:1, and 1:11 are the same grammatical structure therefore must be interpreted in the same way. If Jesus is not God and Savior in Titus 2;13 and 2 Pet 1:1, then he is NOT Lord and Savior in 2 Pet 1;11, all three verses have the same grammatical construction.

I don't see how you arrived at that conclusion, since God (theos) is not even mentioned in 2 Peter 1:11.

Read and address my previous argument. I am talking about the grammatical construction of these three verses. You are arguing from your Theological presumptions. Do you think that both Peter and Paul got their grammar all wrong when they were writing Titus 2;13 and 2 Pet 1:1?

I don't think anyone got their grammer all wrong. It is sufficiently plain to me that none of the scripture that you have brought into view here say that Jesus is God. They all refer to him as Lord, or Lord and Saviour.

Since you are such a Bible expert and you have decided that none of the texts are reliable, then why are you lecturing me on what these unreliable texts supposedly really mean?

I am not the one claiming to be a 'Bible expert'. It would take a while to count the times on this forum that you have boasted about your expertise in the Greek language.

Have you ever read anything on the reliability of the NT texts?

As to the reliability of the New Testament texts, yes I have read material which pertains to this. But I have not read anything as to the reliability of grammatical structure of the text after it was finally translated into our English language. Have you?

The rules were not "made!" They were observed, and it did not begin with N.T. scholars. Secular scholars recorded the grammar of classical Greek long before the NT.

Well, how about Hellenistic or koine Greek that the NT was most likely written in? Did these secular scholars record anything regarding the grammatical style of this type of the Greek language?

I always thought rules had to be made before they could be observed ____ But oh well, what do I know about it anyway?

IOW you made an irrelevant argument you can't back up from scripture.

Really now, it was just a note in passing. It was not meant to as argumentative. But if you can't see the pictures that are shown in the Old Testament you are missing a great deal towards understanding the New Testament.

1 Cor. 15:24-28 tells us that after all things had been subdued unto him [Jesus], he [Jesus] would hand the kingdom back to his Father, and would be subject to him (the Father) himself. How can he still sit on the throne if he has handed the kingdom back to the Father? Do you picture him as sitting on the Father's lap on the throne or something to that effect?

I didn't write the book of Revelation. If you don't like what it says, talk to God, don't try to change it because it contradicts your assumptions/presuppositions. The lamb was in the middle of the throne and it was the throne of God and the lamb.

I didn't write the letter to the Corinthians either, and if you don't like what 1 Cor. 15:24-28 says, talk to God about that. Meantime why don't you answer the questions I asked concerning 1 Cor. 15:24-28?

Rev. 5:6. "And I beheld, and, lo, in the midst of the throne and of the four beasts, and in the midst of the elders, stood a Lamb as it had been slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God sent forth into all the earth. 7. And he came and took the book out of the right hand of him that sat upon the throne."
This does NOT say the four beasts and the elders were in the middle of throne.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .The Lamb
(Elders)(Beasts)(THRONE)(Beasts)(Elders)

May I ask how the Lamb, if he were sitting in or on the throne, could take the book out of the right hand of the one who was sitting on the throne? Next I suppose you will be telling me that the Lamb was sitting on the throne holding the book with his right hand.

You didn't even read my previous post.
Rev 11:1-2
(1) And there was given me a reed like unto a rod: and the angel stood, saying, Rise, and measure the temple of God, and the altar, and them that worship therein.
(2) But the court which is without the temple leave out, and measure it not; for it is given unto the Gentiles: and the holy city shall they tread under foot forty and two months.
John on the earth measuring the temple!
Rev 20:1-4
(1) And I saw an angel come down from heaven, having the key of the bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand.
[ . . . ]
(4) And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.
John on the earth watching an angel COME down from heaven, not "go down!"

You don't believe God can view both heaven and earth at the same time? Since it was he who called John up to where he was, I believe John saw everything he saw. I don't see why anyone in this day and age who has watched movies and television, would have trouble understanding that concept.

And Yes, I did read your post, but its not like I think I would have missed out on that much if I hadn't.

 

[ivebeenshown]

I'm sorry I am still working on your previous posts 2ducklow, but I want to gain understanding of your stance in full.

My initial question:
Is or is not the Word of God in itself God?

Your answer to my question:
The Word is the Word of God which is what God says, thus the meaning of THe word was god is the same as saying What God said was god, or "what god says is god". It's the same as saying 'your words are you ivebeenshown".

My objection to your answer: I have not yet seen a scripture making use of such an expression, so I don't know for sure that the apostle John intended it to be a metaphor. Which leads us to another question of mine, which you have answered:

My question:
Does the scripture not record Jesus saying "I and my Father are one"?

Your answer:
John 17:22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one: Jesus prayed that the church would be one the same way the Father and the Son are one, that is how God and Christ are one.

My objection to your answer:
Isaiah 9:6For 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.

I believe this verse from Isaiah is speaking of Jesus Christ, whose name will be the mighty God. There is one LORD and one mighty God.

Revelation 21:9And there came unto me one of the seven angels which had the seven vials full of the seven last plagues, and talked with me, saying, Come hither, I will shew thee the bride, the Lamb's wife.

And the church is the bride of the LORD Jesus Christ.

Ephesians 5:23
For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.

We do not become one flesh with Christ, the Church is merely one in Christ who is the authority figure, or 'head' of his 'bride'.
​

Thanks for conversing with me.

 

[2ducklow]

I'm sorry I am still working on your previous posts 2ducklow, but I want to gain understanding of your stance in full.

My initial question:
Is or is not the Word of God in itself God?

Your answer to my question:
The Word is the Word of God which is what God says, thus the meaning of THe word was god is the same as saying What God said was god, or "what god says is god". It's the same as saying 'your words are you ivebeenshown".

My objection to your answer: I have not yet seen a scripture making use of such an expression, so I don't know for sure that the apostle John intended it to be a metaphor. Which leads us to another question of mine, which you have answered:

My question:
Does the scripture not record Jesus saying "I and my Father are one"?

Your answer:
John 17:22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one: Jesus prayed that the church would be one the same way the Father and the Son are one, that is how God and Christ are one.

My objection to your answer:
Isaiah 9:6For 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.

I believe this verse from Isaiah is speaking of Jesus Christ, whose name will be the mighty God. There is one LORD and one mighty God.
​

So you're saying that you do not believe that Jesus prayed that the church would be one the same way (even as) the Father and the son because Jesus NAME shall be called the mighty god? Jesus name shall also be called the everlasting Father, do you therefore believe Jesus is the Father.? Jesus having the name of the everlasting father doesn't make him the everlasting father. I have the name of god as my own personal name but that doesn't make me God. Lots of people have god's name for their name Joshua is one of god's name which tons of people have, but none of them are God.

Revelation 21:9And there came unto me one of the seven angels which had the seven vials full of the seven last plagues, and talked with me, saying, Come hither, I will shew thee the bride, the Lamb's wife.

And the church is the bride of the LORD Jesus Christ.

no scripture says who or what the bride of Christ is directly, you are interpreting 'the bride, the lamb's wife " to mean all christians are the bride. I know of other scritpures that point to only perfected saints being the bride of Christ.

Ephesians 5:23
For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.

We do not become one flesh with Christ, the Church is merely one in Christ who is the authority figure, or 'head' of his 'bride'.

Thanks for conversing with me.

I never said we become one flesh with Christ. What I believe is that the church is to be one even as the Father and the son are one. I believe, according to scripture, that the way the church is one even as the father and the son, is by being perfected and thus having the unity of the faith that comes with perfection. Thus far no church body, and no single christian has attained perfection in my opinion.

eph. 4.11-13 says god gave us apostles preachers, pastors bible teachers to bring us to the unity of the faith. Which will happen some day, and on that day Jesus prayer that we be one even as the Fahter and the son will be fulfilled. We won't be one flesh, and God and Jesus are not one spirit/being/flesh/or person . We will on that day be one in our unity of faith, beliefs, goals, stuff like that. Same as the Father and the Son. The verse says the Father and the son are one, but it doesn't say one god as most assume the meaning is. whatever one they are is left up to us to deterimine through other scriptures.

 

[ivebeenshown]

Do you believe that we become one with the everlasting Father (which is to say we become the everlasting Father?)

I do not believe we are supposed to be called Christ as Christ is called the everlasting Father. I believe that we are supposed to be in unity of faith in Christ as Lord and Savior, or called CHRISTIAN, as Christ is called LORD. The LORD is one and the BRIDE of the LORD is one, but the BRIDE and the LORD are not one.

 

[2ducklow]

Do you believe that we become one with the everlasting Father (which is to say we become the everlasting Father?)

Becoming one with the Father and the son doesn't mean becoming the father. Just as Becoming one with other christians doesn't mean becoming other christians.

I do not believe we are supposed to be called Christ as Christ is called the everlasting Father.

the verse you quoted says 'his name shall be called the everlasting Father." It doesn't say he shall be called the everlasting father.

I believe that we are supposed to be in unity of faith in Christ as Lord and Savior, or called CHRISTIAN, as Christ is called LORD. The LORD is one and the BRIDE of the LORD is one, but the BRIDE and the LORD are not one.[/quote]


John 17:21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.

it says they may be one in us, and us is CHrist and god. If we are not to be one with God then that would mean we disagree with god. One in us, one with us, same thing to me.

 

[razzelflabben]

So you're saying that you do not believe that Jesus prayed that the church would be one the same way (even as) the Father and the son because Jesus NAME shall be called the mighty god? Jesus name shall also be called the everlasting Father, do you therefore believe Jesus is the Father.? Jesus having the name of the everlasting father doesn't make him the everlasting father. I have the name of god as my own personal name but that doesn't make me God. Lots of people have god's name for their name Joshua is one of god's name which tons of people have, but none of them are God.

no scripture says who or what the bride of Christ is directly, you are interpreting 'the bride, the lamb's wife " to mean all christians are the bride. I know of other scritpures that point to only perfected saints being the bride of Christ.

​

I never said we become one flesh with Christ. What I believe is that the church is to be one even as the Father and the son are one. I believe, according to scripture, that the way the church is one even as the father and the son, is by being perfected and thus having the unity of the faith that comes with perfection. Thus far no church body, and no single christian has attained perfection in my opinion.

eph. 4.11-13 says god gave us apostles preachers, pastors bible teachers to bring us to the unity of the faith. Which will happen some day, and on that day Jesus prayer that we be one even as the Fahter and the son will be fulfilled. We won't be one flesh, and God and Jesus are not one spirit/being/flesh/or person . We will on that day be one in our unity of faith, beliefs, goals, stuff like that. Same as the Father and the Son. The verse says the Father and the son are one, but it doesn't say one god as most assume the meaning is. whatever one they are is left up to us to deterimine through other scriptures.

how is perfect unity any more logical then trinity? It seems to me that perfect unity is without doubt less possible than trinity, especially when you consider that I am a daughter, mother and daughter all at the same time. Different roles for different purposes, but still three distinctly different "persons" and still only one person. How is that less possible that perfect unity? I am interested in your logical explanation of this.

 

[Der Alte]

Trinitarians all. It would be very unusual if they didn't share the same opinion. There is a saying, which I have found to be true,: "Birds of the same feather always flock together". But I also agree with whoever said: "If birds of a feather flock together, they don't learn enough" .

Logical fallacy, "poisoning the well." "All scholars are Trinitarians so they are automatically wrong." The Bible has been around for 2000 years so why aren't there any scholars, who are NOT Trinitarians, showing how all the Trinitarian scholars are wrong? The only people who are doing that are anonymous posters on websites like this who could not parse a Greek verb if their life depended on it. Everybody with a Strong's thinks they are a Bible expert.

Michael Servetus, who was born in 1511, and died in 1553, (burnt at the stake) held a different position concerning the 'trinity doctrine'. I believe that was a bit before the late 19th century.

A church is NOT one person! Where was Servetus' "church" between 90 AD and the 14th century? Can you show me an organized body, by any name, who believed essentially as you do between 90 AD and the late 19th century?

The primary reason for even mentioning Winer and Ellicott was to remind that there are other opinions pertaining to Sharp's rule than just Wallace or Bowman's. I don't know why you are making such a big deal out of it. Its not like I copied and pasted from their writings, or suggested a website which promotes them as you have done with Wallace and Bowman.

I know, you copy/pasted from a secondary source, NOT the primary source, Winer himself. I linked to Wallace and Bowman's own writings, so that anyone seeking truth can see what they said in context. As I said 1-2 second hand sentences DOES not disprove Sharp. Winer's unsupported opinion means diddly!

Either you have read Winer's work and have compared it with Bowman and Wallace's work, or you haven't. Which is it? A simple 'yes' or 'no' will suffice.

Is that a 'yes' you have read Winer's work and compared it with Bowman and Wallace's work?

I have read Winer's complete discussion of Sharp, NOT everything he ever wrote. I have Winer's grammar, in English, what part do you want to discuss?

You are not making any sense. I have already told you that I speak and read very little of the German language. Do you have a link that you could give me to an English translation of "Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Sprachidioms"?

You ever hear of google?
A grammar of the New Testament diction, intended as an introduction to the critical study of the Greek New Testament; : Winer, Georg Benedikt, 1789-1858 : Free Download & Streaming : Internet Archive

I don't see how you arrived at that conclusion, since God (theos) is not even mentioned in 2 Peter 1:11.

Both passages are a Sharp's TSKS construction, definite article T, Substantive, S, Greek kai K, substantive S.

2 Pe 1:1 σιμων πετρος δουλος και αποστολος ιησου χριστου τοις ισοτιμον ημιν λαχουσιν πιστιν εν δικαιοσυνη του [T] θεου [S] ημων και [K] σωτηρος ημων ιησου [S] χριστου

2Pe 1:11 ουτως γαρ πλουσιως επιχορηγηθησεται υμιν η εισοδος εις την αιωνιον βασιλειαν του [T] κυριου [S] ημων και [K] σωτηρος [S] ιησου χριστου​

Since, in Greek, the grammatical construction is the same, in both passages, if Jesus is not God and Savior in 1 Pet 1:1 then he is not Lord and Savior in 1:11.

I don't think anyone got their grammer all wrong. It is sufficiently plain to me that none of the scripture that you have brought into view here say that Jesus is God. They all refer to him as Lord, or Lord and Saviour.

[/QUOTE]

Since you likely could not parse a Greek verb if your life depended on it what you think is "plain" to you is completely irrelevant.

I am not the one claiming to be a 'Bible expert'. It would take a while to count the times on this forum that you have boasted about your expertise in the Greek language.

Times I have boasted about anything? ZERO! ZIP! NADA! I simply stated fact. I started learning to speak Greek the year that Elvis and I were in Germany and studied both Biblical languages at the graduate level 2 decades later. This says nothing about final standing, I could have failed the courses. I didn't! Or I could have aced the courses. I didn't. I'm usually right there in the middle of the bell curve.

As to the reliability of the New Testament texts, yes I have read material which pertains to this. But I have not read anything as to the reliability of grammatical structure of the text after it was finally translated into our English language. Have you?

I was not talking about the "grammatical structure of the text after it was finally translated into our English language." Which is totally irrelevant. The Granville Sharp rule is a Greek grammar rule. Winer and Ellicott whom you quoted are Greek grammarians.

Well, how about Hellenistic or koine Greek that the NT was most likely written in? Did these secular scholars record anything regarding the grammatical style of this type of the Greek language?

Why don't you so some studying on this topic since you are throwing around opinions on it?

I always thought rules had to be made before they could be observed ____ But oh well, what do I know about it anyway?

Yes, what do you know about it? Grammatical rules are not imposed from outside but are formed as the usage develops. Perhaps you should study something before forming opinions about the rules concerning it.

I didn't write the letter to the Corinthians either, and if you don't like what 1 Cor. 15:24-28 says, talk to God about that. Meantime why don't you answer the questions I asked concerning 1 Cor. 15:24-28?

I don't have a problem with any scripture. All scripture can be harmonized. And that does not mean rejecting what a passage says because it contradicts a teaching someone has been intensely indoctrinate with.

May I ask how the Lamb, if he were sitting in or on the throne, could take the book out of the right hand of the one who was sitting on the throne? Next I suppose you will be telling me that the Lamb was sitting on the throne holding the book with his left hand.

There is a book in the Bible which discusses this, called Revelation. You might try reading it and get the chronology straight.

You don't believe God can view both heaven and earth at the same time? Since it was he who called John up to where he was, I believe John saw everything he saw. I don't see why anyone in this day and age who has watched movies and television, would have trouble understanding that concept.

And Yes, I did read your post, but its not like I think I would have missed out on that much if I hadn't.

What you "believe" about John is irrelevant! Please show me where Revelation says John saw everything that God saw from his vantage point? And please tell me how John, a man, can take a reed and measure the temple on earth, while in heaven?

 

[Der Alte]

Jesus existed in one form, Philippians 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.​

What does this have to do with John 14:28? Here is a simple question in which I would not be surprised if you didn't answer it.

Is the Father greater than Jesus or are they co-equal?

Please read my post which you quoted paying particular attention to the discussion of the word "equal."

Phi 2:6-10
(6) Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
(7) But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:​

All of Jesus' earthly ministry occurred between vs. 7 and 8 including John 14:28.

"You have heard Me say to you, ‘I am going away and coming back to you.’ If you loved Me, you would rejoice because I said, ‘I am going to the Father,’ for My Father is greater than I." John 14:28​

(8)And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of 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, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;​

 

[Blueberry2010]

To be clear, neither Jesus himself nor the later writings of the apostles mention or argue in favor of the Trinity. Jesus most frequently refers to God as his Father (as any of us would), and although John reports Jesus as saying that "I and the Father are one.", within the context, it should be clear that Jesus is saying that he is acting according to will of God (the Father). In addition, immediately preceding the Great Commission, Jesus says all power on heaven and earth has been given to me. To me this indicates that God has given Jesus the power to excercise His (God's) will but that Jesus himself is not actually God (though the all power statement would seem to elevate his status above that of even Moses and Elijah).

 

[Blueberry2010]

Neither Jesus himself nor the later writings of the apostles mention or argue in favor of the Trinity. Jesus most frequently refers to God as his Father (as any of us would), and although John reports Jesus as saying that "I and the Father are one.", within the context, it should be clear that Jesus is saying that he is acting according to will of God (the Father). There are passages to support Jesus status of the son of man and the son of God, but that does not make him God. Immediately preceding the Great Commission, Jesus says all power on heaven and earth has been given to me. This indicates that God has given Jesus the power to exercise His (God's) will but that Jesus himself is not actually God (though the all power statement would seem to elevate his status above that of even Moses and Elijah).

 

[Mathetes the kerux]

Hello A New Dawn,


Contrary to popular belief, Jesus never actually claimed to be God, ever.

The purpose of John's gospel was not to show that Jesus is God. It was to show that Jesus is the Messiah, the unique son of God. If the former were the case then it would have been stated plainly in John's reason for writing his gospel (Jn 20:30-31). In fact, Christ Jesus made it clear on numerous occasions that what he did he did not do on his own authority but rather by the authority of God. Jesus was given authority by God to do his Father's will. If Jesus were God then he would have never needed to be given any authority as he would have already had it.

Those verses in which you believe that Jesus is claiming to be God are usually misconstrued because of the reader's bias even before opening the book.

No doubt, the truth certainly has a shock value in this world of man-made tradition/doctrine.





P.S. I see that you are a pastor. God Bless you and your congregation.

Guess u missed 8:58

oops

 

[Mathetes the kerux]

Neither Jesus himself nor the later writings of the apostles mention or argue in favor of the Trinity. Jesus most frequently refers to God as his Father (as any of us would), and although John reports Jesus as saying that "I and the Father are one.", within the context, it should be clear that Jesus is saying that he is acting according to will of God (the Father). There are passages to support Jesus status of the son of man and the son of God, but that does not make him God. Immediately preceding the Great Commission, Jesus says all power on heaven and earth has been given to me. This indicates that God has given Jesus the power to exercise His (God's) will but that Jesus himself is not actually God (though the all power statement would seem to elevate his status above that of even Moses and Elijah).

FYI "son of man" doesnt refer to His humanity, but to the identiy of Messiah . . . Son of Man being an OT messianic figure.

 

[Mathetes the kerux]

*excerpt* Hope you don't mind. This addresses perfectly those passages that you have presented. There are even further explanations at the link if you are interested.

------------------

BiblicalUnitarian.com - Content

"Trinitarians argue that this verse states that Jesus said he was the “I am” (i.e., the Yahweh of the Old Testament), so he must be God. This is just not the case. Saying “I am” does not make a person God. The man born blind that Jesus healed was not claiming to be God, and he said “I am the man,” and the Greek reads exactly like Jesus’ statement, i.e., “I am.” The fact that the exact same phrase is translated two different ways, one as “I am” and the other as “I am the man,” is one reason it is so hard for the average Christian to get the truth from just reading the Bible as it has been translated into English. Most Bible translators are Trinitarian, and their bias appears in various places in their translation, this being a common one. Paul also used the same phrase of himself when he said that he wished all men were as “I am” (Acts 26:29). Thus, we conclude that saying “I am” did not make Paul, the man born blind or Christ into God."

---------------

Except that NEVER does the author of those other texts place the tense in contrast to genesthai.

Usually the non Trin arguements totally leave this out . . . probably because it is a deal breaker and basically crushes the uninformed arguement that you responded with.