• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.

Biblical Truth: Christ Jesus is not God.

Status
Not open for further replies.
S

Superfast

Guest
Wrong. John 1:3 and 8:58 BOTH ascribe UNCREATEDNESS and ETERNALITY to Jesus.

That makes Him equal and of the same nature and essence.
So you don't believe that is your interpretation but rather those verses say that.? Some trinitarians would say that your above interrpretation of those 2 verses is the only possible interpretation so therefore God the Father, Jesus and the Holy spirit are 3 (something it varies) that are the one god. any alternate interpretation offered is pretty much scoffed at as being silly. Like the word couldn't possibly be what the word is everywhere else in the bible namely what god says either orally or in scripture. that would be silly to believe the the word was the written and spoken word of god in john 1 correct? Cause anyone saying anything like "your words are you" would be saying something silly right? well you have to say that otherwise you can't say that your interpretation is the only possible one right?
Mathetes said:
Further, passages like Thomas' exclamation attribute "o theos" to Jesus which is the TITLE: THE GOD (using the definite article) . . . which makes Him equal.
And I assume that you do not consider that an interpretation but rather it to be what it says ? If I say to you "O my god, I'll never convince you" does that mean I have called you god?
Mathetes said:
as for the personhood of the Father . . . that is just silly. He speaks, He has a will, etc. The attributes of personhood are His (not meaning He is human, but that He is selfaware and demonstrates the qualities of personality) all over the Scripture.
So you're saying some verse says god the Father is a person?

It's not silly because you trinitarians for the most part say a belief in the trinity is absolutely necessary for salvation, and you define trinity as consisting of 3 persons, and God the Father is one person of God.

So you have a salvation doctrine not stated in the scripture and defined with the term person that also isn't in the bible. That fact detracts greatly from the veracity of the Trinity doctrine for god in my opinon would not require us to believe the trinity doctrine to be saved and never even mention it, and never even mention that god the Father was a person.

god never said trinity, person of God, god the son, god the holy spirit, triunity, cosubstantial, yet according to trinitarians if we don't believe these things we are unsaved. That does not compute in my book.

There is a problem for the trinity concept if one says that God has a personality. If God has a personality, then he is a person, If god is a person made up of 3 persons, they you have either a contradiction or polythiesm, or nonsense, depending on how you interpret 3 persons are one person. but then no trinity explanation is ever required to make any kind of sense.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Der Alte

This is me about 1 yr. old. when FDR was president
Site Supporter
Aug 21, 2003
29,123
6,150
EST
✟1,148,291.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
So you don't believe that is your interpretation but rather those verses say that.? Some trinitarians would say that your above interrpretation of those 2 verses is the only possible interpretation so therefore God the Father, Jesus and the Holy spirit are 3 (something it varies) that are the one god. any alternate interpretation offered is pretty much scoffed at as being silly. Like the word couldn't possibly be what the word is everywhere else in the bible namely what god says either orally or in scripture. that would be silly to believe the the word was the written and spoken word of god in john 1 correct? Cause anyone saying anything like "your words are you" would be saying something silly right? well you have to say that otherwise you can't say that your interpretation is the only possible one right? And I assume that you do not consider that an interpretation but rather it to be what it says ? If I say to you "O my god, I'll never convince you" does that mean I have called you god?
So you're saying some verse says god the Father is a person?

Problem with your "interpretation", Thomas did NOT say "O my god!" There is a specific way to write that in Greek and it does not occur in John 20:28! What Thomas said was "The Lord of me and the God of me." Second problem, you have to establish if there was such an exclamation in first century Greek! Not just assume it because it exists in English! Third, it is very, very unlikely that a devout Jew, OBTW Thomas was a Jew, would use "God" as an exclamation. And if he did Jesus would surely have corrected him instead of blessing him, vs. 29.

Was Jesus a person? There is no verse in the Bible which says Jesus is a person, therefore he must not be.

As for your rambling discussion of "The Word." Is there any occurrence of the same context as John 1;1-14 anywhere in the NT?

So you have a salvation doctrine not stated in the scripture and defined with the term person that also isn't in the bible. That fact detracts greatly from the veracity of the Trinity doctrine for god in my opinon would not require us to believe the trinity doctrine to be saved and never even mention it, and never even mention that god the Father was a person.

god never said trinity, person of God, god the son, god the holy spirit, triunity, cosubstantial, yet according to trinitarians if we don't believe these things we are unsaved. That does not compute in my book.

Logical fallacy, "argument from silence." The words "Theology,""hermeneutics,""soteriology," and many other words which are valid for Bible discussion are not in the Bible. Your "opinion" in the absence of evidence is irrelevant.
 
Upvote 0

nChrist

AKA: Tom - Saved By Grace Through Faith
Site Supporter
Mar 21, 2003
21,119
17,842
Oklahoma, USA
✟924,660.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
For those who deny God The Father, God The Son, and God The Holy Spirit - what do you call your religion or church?

 
Upvote 0

Mathetes the kerux

Tales of a Twice Born Man
Aug 1, 2004
6,619
286
47
Santa Rosa CA
Visit site
✟8,217.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
So you don't believe that is your interpretation but rather those verses say that.? Some trinitarians would say that your above interrpretation of those 2 verses is the only possible interpretation so therefore God the Father, Jesus and the Holy spirit are 3 (something it varies) that are the one god. any alternate interpretation offered is pretty much scoffed at as being silly. Like the word couldn't possibly be what the word is everywhere else in the bible namely what god says either orally or in scripture. that would be silly to believe the the word was the written and spoken word of god in john 1 correct? Cause anyone saying anything like "your words are you" would be saying something silly right? well you have to say that otherwise you can't say that your interpretation is the only possible one right? And I assume that you do not consider that an interpretation but rather it to be what it says ? If I say to you "O my god, I'll never convince you" does that mean I have called you god?
So you're saying some verse says god the Father is a person?

It's not silly because you trinitarians for the most part say a belief in the trinity is absolutely necessary for salvation, and you define trinity as consisting of 3 persons, and God the Father is one person of God.

So you have a salvation doctrine not stated in the scripture and defined with the term person that also isn't in the bible. That fact detracts greatly from the veracity of the Trinity doctrine for god in my opinon would not require us to believe the trinity doctrine to be saved and never even mention it, and never even mention that god the Father was a person.

god never said trinity, person of God, god the son, god the holy spirit, triunity, cosubstantial, yet according to trinitarians if we don't believe these things we are unsaved. That does not compute in my book.

There is a problem for the trinity concept if one says that God has a personality. If God has a personality, then he is a person, If god is a person made up of 3 persons, they you have either a contradiction or polythiesm, or nonsense, depending on how you interpret 3 persons are one person.

So you don't believe that is your interpretation but rather those verses say that.?

Well 1:3 cant be any clearer

John 1:3
3 All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being.
NASU

The latter statement is the clincher. ANYTHING that can be said to have a beginning does so APART FROM HIM. Anything that can be in the category of having been GENERATED is so THROUGH HIM and apart from Him this category (something that "has come into being") DOESNT EXIST.

He is NOT PART OF THE CATEGORY OF THINGS THAT HAVE COME INTO BEING. For that category IS IN HIM not he in it. IOW, He is not only creator, HE IS UNCREATED.

Further, the tense of John 8:58 in the Koine places the generation of Abraham (with the word genesthai in the aorist) as over and against the "am" ness of Christ (with the word eimi in the present tense).

This word play, in the Greek and by its tenses, MEANS ETERNALITY. Abraham had a beginning and I DONT. He could have used the imperfect tense emen to stress that he merely existed before Abraham w/ no clear connection to eternal existence. He could have used first person aorist with egenomen, to say that before Abraham was generated I had a beginning (something similiar to Arianism where Jesus exists before Abraham but still is created in some sense). But he did none of these, he placed eimi (which by itself really means nothing special, hence the blind man also says ego eimi) alongside genesthai, which refers to created existence, MAKING A CLEAR CLAIM TO ETERNALITY, UNCREATEDNESS. He IS. John 8:58 is the SELF CLAIM OF JESUS TO THE STATEMENT OF JOHN in 1:3.

It has nothing to do with interpretation by INTENT of the author. Someone wants to believe John is wrong, OK . . . John didnt write it, sure . . . but someone cannot claim that the Bible itself doesnt teach it . . . IT DOES.

The connection to Ex 3:14 is NOT that the LXX uses the same greek, tho it does in the FIRST statment of "I Am" (it doesnt in the second, it is "o on" or the being), BUT IN THE CLAIM OF THE PERSON WHO SPEAKS (YHWH) to being ETERNAL HIMSELF. Jesus claims the SAME QUALITY.


Some trinitarians would say that your above interrpretation of those 2 verses is the only possible interpretation so therefore God the Father, Jesus and the Holy spirit are 3 (something it varies) that are the one god. any alternate interpretation offered is pretty much scoffed at as being silly. Like the word couldn't possibly be what the word is everywhere else in the bible namely what god says either orally or in scripture. that would be silly to believe the the word was the written and spoken word of god in john 1 correct?

U r correct, it is not the Bible or letters that is the subject of 1:1 but the person of Christ in 1:14 per antecedant usage.

But there really is no other interpretation that is tenable in the Greek. Greek is rather precise as to what it says of itself.

Say I say the word "fly" to u, what do I mean?

1. Bug
2. to soar through the air
3. my zipper
4. A slang term for a goodlooking lady (man she is fly)
5. a fishing lure
6. To go really fast (we were flying down the road)

What determines meaning? Context and intent of the author determined by context.

So if I say to you "I was down by the water with my rod and reel and my fly got stuck"

well it really can mean only two things, my zipper as I was fishing, or my lure.

Say I ADD to the statement "I was down by the water with my rod and reel and my fly got stuck. It took me a few minutes to get the hook undone from the tree it was stuck in and then I could fish"

well the rule of antecedant take the "it" that was stuck in the tree and qualifies the term as refering to the "fly" and now we see THAT ONLY ONE OPTION REMAINS AS TO WHAT THE WORD MEANS. It is a fishing lure.

Same principles work with biblical interpretation. In both cases, the CLEAR meaning of the author (meaning being found in the intent of the author) is that JESUS IS ETERNAL.

If I say to you "O my god, I'll never convince you" does that mean I have called you god?

Of course your not. You are using a catch phrase to confer exclamation. I hope ur not trying to make this be the same as Thomas' statement ^_^ if u are I can deal rather easily with dismissing that.

So you're saying some verse says god the Father is a person?

I am saying that within the scope of the entirety of scripture, it can be demonstrated per a proper systematic, interpreting scripture by its whole scope, that the "being" called "father" as refering to "God" can be shown to demonstrate the qualities of personality. Thereby it is proper to say "He is a person" or "He has a personhood"

It's not silly because you trinitarians for the most part say a belief in the trinity is absolutely necessary for salvation, and you define trinity as consisting of 3 persons, and God the Father is one person of God.

It is silly because generally it is not the personhood of the Father at which people balk, it is the deity of the Son and the personhood of the Spirit. The personhood of the FATHER is OVERWHELMING so much so that I dont kno of ONE person in the history of biblical theology who has questioned the personhood of the Father.

So you have a salvation doctrine not stated in the scripture and defined with the term person that also isn't in the bible. That fact detracts greatly from the veracity of the Trinity doctrine for god in my opinon would not require us to believe the trinity doctrine to be saved and never even mention it, and never even mention that god the Father was a person.

1. The term omnipotent is not in the bible either but we find the CONCEPT of all powerful EVERYWHERE . . . no dice. BAD ARGUEMENT.
2. 2 John states QUITE clearly that orthodoxy in understanding the relationship between the Father and the Son is ESSENTIAL TO SALVATION

this doesnt mean it IS trinity (tho I believe it is) but IF Trinity IS true, then Trinity IS essential for salvation. What ever the TRUTH is about the relationship between the Father and the Son, CORRECT understanding of it IS NECESSARY FOR SALVATION. Hence IT IS A SALVIFIC ISSUE.

2 John 9-11
9 Anyone who goes too far and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God; the one who abides in the teaching, he has both the Father and the Son. 10 If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house, and do not give him a greeting; 11 for the one who gives him a greeting participates in his evil deeds.
NASU

god never said trinity, person of God, god the son, god the holy spirit, triunity, cosubstantial, yet according to trinitarians if we don't believe these things we are unsaved. That does not compute in my book.

Again, not having said these things means nothing. They are terms to express concepts that ARE in the bible . . . God never said the word car either or computer yet I am sure u travel on wheels and use a PC to interact with this site. BAD ARGUEMENT.

There is a problem for the trinity concept if one says that God has a personality. If God has a personality, then he is a person, If god is a person made up of 3 persons, they you have either a contradiction or polythiesm, or nonsense, depending on how you interpret 3 persons are one person

This is a form of false logic called a false dilemma. Ur creating a problem where there is none.

1. Being a person DOESNT PRECLUDE ONE FROM BEING GOD. We derrive personality FROM GOD, not the other way around. He is the FIRST BEING with personality . . . personhood is NOT UNIQUE TO HUMANS. IOW, being a person, or having personhood or being personal DOESNT MEAN ONE IS HUMAN. There is NO problem with God having personhood.
2. I have recently found a great parallel of Trinity in reality. I dont like metaphors of Trinity because all of them fail at some point. Clover, water, egg, etc. The problems with them, take water for example, is that they are not all three distinct AND the same AT THE SAME TIME. When water is steam, its molecular make up is the same as water as liquid or solid, but it is NOT STEAM LIQUID SOLID AND H20 AT THE SAME TIME.
However, I recently came across something called the "triple point" of water. It is a principle in thermodynamics in which the pressure and temp of a substance that can have three phases (in this case gas solid and liquid) exist in "thermodynamic equilibrium."
This means that the reason that "three persons of the same substance is illogical and, really, results in three gods" IS FALSE. U may not grasp it, but it is a REALITY as seen EVEN IN OUR OWN REALM. :thumbsup:

Cheers!:)

MTK
 
Upvote 0

ToxicReboMan

Always Hungry for Truth
May 19, 2005
1,040
84
42
Texas
✟1,619.00
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Single
Okay, I asked this before and got no response so I'll try it one more time. If Jesus was the son of God, and Mary, His mother was human, wouldn't that make Him both man and God?

Using this logic wouldn't that also make Jesus apart of a polytheistic "godhead"? You see, one can take that wherever one wants to take it.

If Jesus is God then he can't be a human like you and me. He would then have to be some other type of cross breed of human.

Jesus is the perfect sacrifice because he was a human just like you and me and yet never sinned. If Jesus wasn't truly a finite human like you and me then his sacrifice would not have atoned for the sins of mankind. It took a perfect life of a human for mankind to be reconciled to God. It is actually more amazing that Christ did what he did as a man and not as God. This gives more glory to God because we all know and believe that God is capable of living a perfect life. But what of a man? This gives glory to God because it shows that God is not a liar and that it is possible to be holy just as God is holy.


Think about this...The wages of sin is death. Did Enoch die? No. Enoch never tasted death. But what of the wages of sin? Very interesting indeed...

God had plans for Enoch and it wasn't for him to die. God also had plans for Jesus of Nazareth that he should be His Christ and die for the world.
 
Upvote 0

ToxicReboMan

Always Hungry for Truth
May 19, 2005
1,040
84
42
Texas
✟1,619.00
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Single
I have no problems with that verse. The object here is not for Jesus to compare His nature with that of the Father but His condition. John 14 makes that clear.

Tell me, is Jesus perfect?

Notice that I will directly answer your question. ;)

Yes. Jesus is indeed perfect in the sense that he lived a perfectly sinless life. He lived a life of pure love. He followed the will of God perfectly.
 
Upvote 0

ToxicReboMan

Always Hungry for Truth
May 19, 2005
1,040
84
42
Texas
✟1,619.00
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Single
So did you sorta equate what the early church christian writers said with correct theology or something when you were a trinitarian? (I refuse to call them fathers because the bible prohibits us from calling anyman Father (in a spiritual sense))
Seems some in here do.

Yeah, I don't really like referring to them as Early Church Fathers as it can really give the wrong impression on how they are viewed or should be viewed. Maybe we should return the favor and call them the ECHs..

Early Church Heretics :D
 
Upvote 0

Der Alte

This is me about 1 yr. old. when FDR was president
Site Supporter
Aug 21, 2003
29,123
6,150
EST
✟1,148,291.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Using this logic wouldn't that also make Jesus apart of a polytheistic "godhead"? You see, one can take that wherever one wants to take it.

If Jesus is God then he can't be a human like you and me. He would then have to be some other type of cross breed of human.

The word "Godhead" in scripture is a variation of the word "Godhood!"

Since Jesus IS God, God can do anything he wants to do any way he wants to do it, any time or place he wants to do it and is not restricted by what we puny humans think.
Isa 55:9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are My ways higher than your ways, and My thoughts [higher] than your thoughts.

Eph 3:20 Now unto him that is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think, according to the power that worketh in us,​
Jesus is the perfect sacrifice because he was a human just like you and me and yet never sinned. If Jesus wasn't truly a finite human like you and me then his sacrifice would not have atoned for the sins of mankind. It took a perfect life of a human for mankind to be reconciled to God. It is actually more amazing that Christ did what he did as a man and not as God. This gives more glory to God because we all know and believe that God is capable of living a perfect life. But what of a man? This gives glory to God because it shows that God is not a liar and that it is possible to be holy just as God is holy.
JPS Psa 49:7-9
(7) (49:8)
No man can by any means redeem his brother, nor give to God a ransom for him--
(8) (49:9) For too costly is the redemption of their soul, and must be let alone for ever--
(9) (49:10) That he should still live alway, that he should not see the pit.​

Think about this...The wages of sin is death. Did Enoch die? No. Enoch never tasted death. But what of the wages of sin? Very interesting indeed...

God had plans for Enoch and it wasn't for him to die. God also had plans for Jesus of Nazareth that he should be His Christ and die for the world.

What does Enoch have to do with anything?
 
Upvote 0

Der Alte

This is me about 1 yr. old. when FDR was president
Site Supporter
Aug 21, 2003
29,123
6,150
EST
✟1,148,291.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Yeah, I don't really like referring to them as Early Church Fathers as it can really give the wrong impression on how they are viewed or should be viewed. Maybe we should return the favor and call them the ECHs..

Early Church Heretics

Yes, all post 19th century false religious groups, JW, LDS, SDA, UU, OP, anti-Trin MJ, WWCG, kristadelfian, etc. hate the history of the early church. They would have us believe that the church that Jesus built disappeared from the earth for 2000 years until the guy who founded their religion, Joseph Smith, Charles Russell, Ellen White, R.E. McAlister, John Thomas, Herbert Armstrong, etc. "rediscovered" it in the late 19th century.
 
Upvote 0

ToxicReboMan

Always Hungry for Truth
May 19, 2005
1,040
84
42
Texas
✟1,619.00
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Single
Yes, all post 19th century false religious groups, JW, LDS, SDA, UU, OP, anti-Trin MJ, WWCG, kristadelfian, etc. hate the history of the early church. They would have us believe that the church that Jesus built disappeared from the earth for 2000 years until the guy who founded their religion, Joseph Smith, Charles Russell, Ellen White, R.E. McAlister, John Thomas, Herbert Armstrong, etc. "rediscovered" it in the late 19th century.


You to seem to conveniently forget to mention Michael Servetus, Arius, Eusebius of Nicodemia and Eusebius of Caesarea among others...

You also seem to forget that it was the trinitarians who persecuted the non-trinitarians during the early church and during the Reformation as well. Quite evil stuff that went on. The non-trinitarians were oppressed and killed for their beliefs by other "followers of Christ". Their writings were banned and burned.
 
Upvote 0

Der Alte

This is me about 1 yr. old. when FDR was president
Site Supporter
Aug 21, 2003
29,123
6,150
EST
✟1,148,291.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
You to seem to conveniently forget to mention Michael Servetus, Arius, Eusebius of Nicodemia and Eusebius of Caesarea among others...

You also seem to forget that it was the trinitarians who persecuted the non-trinitarians during the early church and during the Reformation as well. Quite evil stuff that went on. The non-trinitarians were oppressed and killed for their beliefs by other "followers of Christ". Their writings were banned and burned.

So which one of those guys do you follow? Servetus, 1500s, where was his church for 1500 years? The other three were contemporaries. Where was their church for 300+ years? And if their beliefs were the truth how did the "true church" vanish for 1200 years?

As for the persecution, etc. NO, ZERO, NONE evidence! How could any group wipe out the church that Jesus built for hundreds of years? Jesus said that gates of hell could not prevail against his church.
 
Upvote 0

ToxicReboMan

Always Hungry for Truth
May 19, 2005
1,040
84
42
Texas
✟1,619.00
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Single
So which one of those guys do you follow? Servetus, 1500s, where was his church for 1500 years? The other three were contemporaries. Where was their church for 300+ years? And if their beliefs were the truth how did the "true church" vanish for 1200 years?

As for the persecution, etc. NO, ZERO, NONE evidence! How could any group wipe out the church that Jesus built for hundreds of years? Jesus said that gates of hell could not prevail against his church.



I'm not a follower of any of them, but I do identify with some their beliefs concerning the nature of God and His Christ. I am sympathetic toward their struggle. Now, are you a follower of Augustine or how about Thomas Aquinas? See I can do the same thing to you. The difference is I'm willing to answer the questions directly wherever they may or may not lead. You on the other hand for whatever reasons is not willing to do the same.

The true church never vanished. The kingdom of God is within.

As for the persecution of non-trinitarians by trinitarians...you are either playing ignorant or you are actually ignorant of history.
 
Upvote 0

Blueberry2010

Newbie
Sep 19, 2010
8
0
✟22,618.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Okay, I asked this before and got no response so I'll try it one more time. If Jesus was the son of God, and Mary, His mother was human, wouldn't that make Him both man and God?
Yes. My argument is that Jesus is the Messiah and the Son of God but that the Son of God is probably not a part of the God head as Trinitarians argue. Certainly, no one who reads the Bible can deny the Holy Spirit. For one, it is even mentioned when Elijah is taken up by chariots. My argument is essentially that Jesus and the Holy spirit are representations of God the Father but that they are not as united as Trinitarians would believe. Whether or not you agree, does that answer your question. Respectfully yours.
 
Upvote 0

Evergreen48

Senior Member
Aug 24, 2006
2,300
150
✟25,319.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Der Alter said:
Logical fallacy, "poisoning the well." "All scholars are Trinitarians so they are automatically wrong."

All scholars are not trinitarians. But the ones who are trinitarians are all 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?

Because they don't feel that truth needs defending. It speaks for itself.

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.

The scriptures say that Jesus was the Son of God. How does knowing how to parse a Greek verb help anyone to understand that?


Everybody with a Strong's thinks they are a Bible expert.

No, that is not true. I have a Strong's and I don't think I am a Bible expert. But I do think that I understand the scriptures as well as you do. (Actually I think I understand them better than you. ) Being able to parse a Greek verb does not make one a Bible expert either. You are proof of that.

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?
A church is not necessarily an 'organized body'. And you cannot see Christ's church with earthly eyes. It is kind of like the pictures and types in the OT in that respect. If one cannot see it on their own, it cannot be shown to them.

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.

One more time. I was not trying to disprove Sharp when I gave the quote from Winer. I was simply showing that other opinions exist besides Wallace and Bowman's.

Winer's unsupported opinion means diddly!

And so does yours.

And I believe that the poor old horse that you have been beating to death is now good and dead.
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?

But I thought you said you couldn't find any reference to Sharp in Winer's work. The following is your exact quote. (the bolding and underlining is my own)

"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! "


Whatever made you think I would like to discuss Winer's grammar? I believe you are trying to change the subject.


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

Yes, I use google quite frequently.

Your link did not take me to an English translation of Winer's "Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Sprachidioms". Do you have another I could try?

Do you read and speak the German language in addition to Greek and English?


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 ημων και [K] σωτηρος ημων ιησου χριστου

2Pe 1:11 ουτως γαρ πλουσιως επιχορηγηθησεται υμιν η εισοδος εις την αιωνιον βασιλειαν του [T] κυριου ημων και [K] σωτηρος ιησου χριστου
Since, in Greek, the grammatical construction is the same if Jesus is not God and Savior in 1 Pet 1:1 then he is not Lord and Savior in 1:11.


Yeah, sure. LOL

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.

Whether or not I, or anyone else can parse a Greek verb is irrelevant. (I know that 'presuppostion', 'assumption' and 'irrelevant' are words which belong to you almost exclusively, so I hope you won't mind that I borrowed one of them from you.)

Admittedly it is good if a student of the Bible knows the Greek language, but since the scriptures have already been translated into our language by some very learned men of the past, and there exists such things as Bible concordances and dictionaries, the student who knows the Greek language has no great advantage over the student who does not.

Times I have boasted about anything? ZERO! ZIP! NADA! I simply stated fact.

When one repeatedly gives unsolicited and voluntary information like your comment which follows, and many others before, about how well they know the Greek language, that is considered boasting.

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.

So? I remember Elvis when he wore dress shoes with no socks. As a teenager he played in a band in Memphis with one of my cousins.

But what, may I ask, has your being in Germany with Elvis got to do with this, anyway? Don't tell me you sing in German also.


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.

I believe that as well. So, as one who has been 'intensely indoctrinat[ed'] lets see you harmonize 1Cor. 15:24-28 with your 'Jesus is God' statements. I would be especially interested in hearing the harmony ring between verse 28 where it says 'when all things have been subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him that God may be all in all."

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

My chronology is straight.

Rev. 5:1" And I saw in the right hand of him that sat on the throne a book written within and on the backside sealed with seven seals."

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."

The Lamb took the book from the right hand of him that sat on the throne. If, as you claim, it was the Lamb who was sitting on the throne, how could the Lamb take the book from the Lamb who was sitting on the throne?


What you "believe" about John is irrelevant!

How did I know you would say that?

Please show me where Revelation says John saw everything that God saw from his vantage point?

The fact that God showed it to him pretty much speaks to that effect. I mean if someone shows you something you pretty much have to be looking at it from the same vantage point

And please tell me how John, a man, can take a reed and measure the temple on earth, while in heaven?

Please show me where Revelation says that the temple that he measured was on earth.

I don't know about you, but I am really getting bored with this conversation.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

nChrist

AKA: Tom - Saved By Grace Through Faith
Site Supporter
Mar 21, 2003
21,119
17,842
Oklahoma, USA
✟924,660.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
For those of you who deny God The Father, God The Son, and God The Holy Spirit - what do you call your religion or church?

Your arguments are without reason and chaotic. You're having an almost impossible time trying to make any portion of the Bible fit what you want it to fit. Why? Because what you claim isn't true and certainly isn't taught in the Holy Bible. I would hate to imagine what your commentary of John Chapter 1 would look like. In fact, you'll have an impossible time getting past John 1:1.

Everything starts to make sense when you get a beginner's grasp on the meaning of the Holy Trinity. That's in every post I make. Very little will make sense until you do start learning about the Holy Trinity. Man is a triune being: body, soul, and spirit. God is a triune Godhead: God The Father, God The Son, and God The Holy Spirit.

God The Son was made manifest in the flesh. He was God before, during, and after His incarnation in the flesh. He was fully man and fully God during His earthly ministry. God The Son existed for eternity past and will exist for eternity future. By the way, He's not in the flesh now, and He wasn't in the form of flesh before His incarnation. He was and is GOD - ONE with God The Father and God The Holy Spirit. This is what the Holy Bible boldly and clearly teaches. Without this basic understanding, you would be better off not trying to understand huge portions of the Holy Bible. Your theory doesn't and won't fit - not even close.

 
Upvote 0

nChrist

AKA: Tom - Saved By Grace Through Faith
Site Supporter
Mar 21, 2003
21,119
17,842
Oklahoma, USA
✟924,660.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Here's considerable detail about John 1:1. I have commentaries that go into much greater detail, but they are not public domain like these and I would have to get special permission to post them here. I think it would be best to keep it simple anyway since some in this thread wonder off into chaos pretty easily.

The easiest way to understand John 1:1 is to read it in context with the rest of Chapter 1. The meaning becomes obvious to most. "The Word" is God The Son - Very God - Jesus Christ - One with God The Father and God The Holy Spirit.

John 1:1 KJV In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Barnes Commentary
By Albert Barnes, 1798 - 1870


PUBLIC DOMAIN - Permission is not required to reproduce this material.

John 1:1

In the beginning - This expression is used also in Genesis 1:1. John evidently has allusion here to that place, and he means to apply to "the Word" an expression which is there applied "to God." In both places it clearly means before creation, before the world was made, when as yet there was nothing. The meaning is: that the "Word" had an existence before the world was created. This is not spoken of the man Jesus, but of that which "became" a man, or was incarnate, John 1:14. The Hebrews, by expressions like this, commonly denoted eternity. Thus. the eternity of God is described Psalms 90:2; "Before the mountains were brought forth, etc.;" and eternity is commonly expressed by the phrase, before the foundation of the world." Whatever is meant by the term "Word," it is clear that it had an existence before "creation." It is not, then, a "creature" or created being, and must be, therefore, uncreated and eternal. There is only one Being that is uncreated, and Jesus must be therefore divine. Compare the Saviour's own declarations respecting himself in the following places: John 8:58; John 17:5; John 6:62; John 3:13; John 6:46; John 8:14; John 16:28.

Was the Word - Greek, "was the λόγος Logos." This name is given to him who afterward became "flesh," or was incarnate (John 1:14 - that is, to the Messiah. Whatever is meant by it, therefore, is applicable to the Lord Jesus Christ. There have been many opinions about the reason why this name was given to the Son of God. It is unnecessary to repeat those opinions. The opinion which seems most plausible may be expressed as follows:

1. A "word" is that by which we communicate our will; by which we convey our thoughts; or by which we issue commands the medium of communication with others.

2. The Son of God may be called "the Word," because he is the medium by which God promulgates His will and issues His commandments. See Hebrews 1:1-3.

3. This term was in use before the time of John.

(a) It was used in the Aramaic translation of the Old Testament, as, "e. g.," Isaiah 45:12; "I have made the earth, and created man upon it." In the Aramaic it is, "I, 'by my word,' have made," etc. Isaiah 48:13; "mine hand also hath laid the foundation of the earth." In the Aramaic, "'By my word' I have founded the earth." And so in many other places.

(b) This term was used by the Jews as applicable to the Messiah. In their writings he was commonly known by the term "Mimra" - that is, "Word;" and no small part of the interpositions of God in defense of the Jewish nation were declared to be by "the Word of God." Thus, in their Targum on Deuteronomy 26:17-18, it is said, "Ye have appointed the word of God a king over you this day, that he may be your God."

(c) The term was used by the Jews who were scattered among the Gentiles, and especially those who were conversant with the Greek philosophy.

(d) The term was used by the followers of Plato among the Greeks, to denote the Second Person of the Trinity. The Greek term νοῦς nous or "mind," was commonly given to this second person, but it was said that this nous was "the word" or "reason" of the First Person of the Trinity. The term was therefore extensively in use among the Jews and Gentiles before John wrote his Gospel, and it was certain that it would be applied to the Second Person of the Trinity by Christians. whether converted from Judaism or Paganism. It was important, therefore, that the meaning of the term should be settled by an inspired man, and accordingly John, in the commencement of his Gospel, is at much pains to state clearly what is the true doctrine respecting the λόγος Logos, or Word. It is possible, also, that the doctrines of the Gnostics had begun to spread in the time of John. They were an Oriental sect, and held that the λόγος Logos or "Word" was one of the "Aeones" that had been created, and that this one had been united to the man Jesus. If that doctrine had begun then to prevail, it was of the more importance for John to settle the truth in regard to the rank of the Logos or Word. This he has done in such a way that there need be no doubt about its meaning.

Was with God - This expression denotes friendship or intimacy. Compare Mark 9:19. John affirms that he was "with God" in the beginning - that is, before the world was made. It implies, therefore, that he was partaker of the divine glory; that he was blessed and happy with God. It proves that he was intimately united with the Father, so as to partake of his glory and to be appropriately called by the name God. He has himself explained it. See John 17:5; "And now, O Father, glorify thou we with thine own self, with the glory which I had with thee before the world was." See also John 1:18; "No man hath seen God at any time; the only-begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him." See also John 3:13; "The Son of man, which is in heaven." Compare Philippians 2:6-7.

Was God - In the previous phrase John had said that the Word was "with God." Lest it should be supposed that he was a different and inferior being, here John states that "he was God." There is no more unequivocal declaration in the Bible than this, and there could be no stronger proof that the sacred writer meant to affirm that the Son of God was equal with the Father; because:

1. There is no doubt that by the λόγος Logos is meant Jesus Christ.

2. This is not an "attribute" or quality of God, but is a real subsistence, for it is said that the λόγος Logos was made flesh σάρξ sarx - that is, became a human being.

3. There is no variation here in the manuscripts, and critics have observed that the Greek will bear no other construction than what is expressed in our translation - that the Word "was God."

4. There is no evidence that John intended to use the word "God" in an inferior sense. It is not "the Word was a god," or "the Word was 'like God,'" but the Word "was God." He had just used the word "God" as evidently applicable to Yahweh, the true God; and it is absurd to suppose that he would in the same verse, and without any indication that he was using the word in an inferior sense, employ it to denote a being altogether inferior to the true God.

5. The name "God" is elsewhere given to him, showing that he is the supreme God. See Romans 9:5; Hebrews 1:8, Hebrews 1:10, Hebrews 1:12; 1 John 5:20; John 20:28.

The meaning of this important verse may then be thus summed up:

1. The name λόγος Logos, or Word, is given to Christ in reference to his becoming the Teacher or Instructor of mankind; the medium of communication between God and man.

2. The name was in use at the time of John, and it was his design to state the correct doctrine respecting the λόγος Logos.

3. The "Word," or λόγος Logos, existed "before creation" - of course was not a "creature," and must have been, therefore, from eternity.

4. He was "with God" - that is, he was united to him in a most intimate and close union before the creation; and, as it could not be said that God was "with himself," it follows that the λόγος Logos was in some sense distinct from God, or that there was a distinction between the Father and the Son. When we say that one is "with another," we imply that there is some sort of distinction between them.

5. Yet, lest it should be supposed that he was a "different" and "inferior" being - a creature - he affirms that he was God - that is, was equal with the Father.
This is the foundation of the doctrine of the Trinity:

1. that the second person is in some sense "distinct" from the first.

2. that he is intimately united with the first person in essence, so that there are not two or more Gods.

3. that the second person may be called by the same name; has the same attributes; performs the same works; and is entitled to the same honors with the first, and that therefore he is "the same in substance, and equal in power and glory," with God.

_________________________​

Clarke Commentary
By Adam Clarke, 1715 - 1832


PUBLIC DOMAIN - Permission is not required to reproduce this material.

John 1:1
In the beginning - That is, before any thing was formed - ere God began the great work of creation. This is the meaning of the word in Genesis 1:1, to which the evangelist evidently alludes. This phrase fully proves, in the mouth of an inspired writer, that Jesus Christ was no part of the creation, as he existed when no part of that existed; and that consequently he is no creature, as all created nature was formed by him: for without him was nothing made that is made, John 1:3. Now, as what was before creation must be eternal, and as what gave being to all things, could not have borrowed or derived its being from any thing, therefore Jesus, who was before all things and who made all things, must necessarily be the Eternal God.

Was the Word - Or, existed the Logos. This term should be left untranslated, for the very same reason why the names Jesus and Christ are left untranslated. The first I consider as proper an apellative of the Savior of the world as I do either of the two last. And as it would be highly improper to say, the Deliverer, the Anointed, instead of Jesus Christ, so I deem it improper to say, the Word, instead of the Logos. But as every appellative of the Savior of the world was descriptive of some excellence in his person, nature, or work, so the epithet Λογος, Logos, which signifies a word spoken, speech, eloquence, doctrine, reason, or the faculty of reasoning, is very properly applied to him, who is the true light which lighteth every man who cometh into the world, John 1:9; who is the fountain of all wisdom; who giveth being, life, light, knowledge, and reason, to all men; who is the grand Source of revelation, who has declared God unto mankind; who spake by the prophets, for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy, Revelation 19:10; who has illustrated life and immortality by his Gospel, 2 Timothy 1:10; and who has fully made manifest the deep mysteries which lay hidden in the bosom of the invisible God from all eternity, John 1:18.

The apostle does not borrow this mode of speech from the writings of Plato, as some have imagined: he took it from the Scriptures of the Old Testament, and from the subsequent style of the ancient Jews. It is true the Platonists make mention of the Logos in this way: - καθ’ ὁν, αει οντα, τα γενομενα εγενετο - by whom, eternally existing, all things were made. But as Plato, Pythagoras, Zeno, and others, traveled among the Jews, and conversed with them, it is reasonable to suppose that they borrowed this, with many others of their most important notions and doctrines, from them.

And the Word was God - Or, God was the Logos: therefore no subordinate being, no second to the Most High, but the supreme eternal Jehovah.

 
Upvote 0

Mathetes the kerux

Tales of a Twice Born Man
Aug 1, 2004
6,619
286
47
Santa Rosa CA
Visit site
✟8,217.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Using this logic wouldn't that also make Jesus apart of a polytheistic "godhead"? You see, one can take that wherever one wants to take it.

If Jesus is God then he can't be a human like you and me. He would then have to be some other type of cross breed of human.

Jesus is the perfect sacrifice because he was a human just like you and me and yet never sinned. If Jesus wasn't truly a finite human like you and me then his sacrifice would not have atoned for the sins of mankind. It took a perfect life of a human for mankind to be reconciled to God. It is actually more amazing that Christ did what he did as a man and not as God. This gives more glory to God because we all know and believe that God is capable of living a perfect life. But what of a man? This gives glory to God because it shows that God is not a liar and that it is possible to be holy just as God is holy.


Think about this...The wages of sin is death. Did Enoch die? No. Enoch never tasted death. But what of the wages of sin? Very interesting indeed...

God had plans for Enoch and it wasn't for him to die. God also had plans for Jesus of Nazareth that he should be His Christ and die for the world.

Hmm . . . and it takes the eternal blood of the divine to eternally sate a righteous God for sins eternal afront.

If Jesus wasn't truly a finite human like you and me then his sacrifice would not have atoned for the sins of mankind

False dilemma . . .

If Jesus is God then he can't be a human like you and me. He would then have to be some other type of cross breed of human.

False dilemma again.

Jesus only needs to be human to succeed where the first Adam failed. That is ALL . . . and having divinity AND humanity doesnt preclude ANY OF THIS. There is no problem where you are making one.
 
Upvote 0

razzelflabben

Contributor
Nov 8, 2003
25,818
2,503
65
Ohio
✟137,293.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Yes. My argument is that Jesus is the Messiah and the Son of God but that the Son of God is probably not a part of the God head as Trinitarians argue.
okay, I was told that logic governed the non trinity account, so let me ask this logical conclusion question. If Jesus is not God come in flesh form, how can He be the Messiah or the son of God? That doesn't seem to make logical sense. In addition, if Jesus is not God in human form, then how can He provide salvation for anyone? Speaking logically of course...
Certainly, no one who reads the Bible can deny the Holy Spirit.
okay, another logical quandry...if the HS is part of God, why can't Jesus be part as well? I just simply don't get the logic.
For one, it is even mentioned when Elijah is taken up by chariots. My argument is essentially that Jesus and the Holy spirit are representations of God the Father but that they are not as united as Trinitarians would believe.
meaning?
Whether or not you agree, does that answer your question. Respectfully yours.
getting closer to an answer, but still have some questions, hope you don't mind, and thanks for the answers you did provide.
 
Upvote 0

Der Alte

This is me about 1 yr. old. when FDR was president
Site Supporter
Aug 21, 2003
29,123
6,150
EST
✟1,148,291.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
All scholars are not trinitarians. But the ones who are trinitarians are all wrong.

Prove it! Still the same logical fallacy, poisoning the well, "All Trinitarians scholars are wrong." And OBTW this is a claim of expertise, i.e. "I know more than all the Trinitarian scholars and they are wrong."

Because they don't feel that truth needs defending. It speaks for itself.

Prove it! Show me credible evidence for any anti-Trinitarian Bible scholar who has written anything at all which has been peer reviewed by other Bible scholars? And that these so-called Bible scholars don't "correct the errors" of Trinitarians because they don't feel truth needs defending? I can name a few anti-Trinitarians who have written anti-Trinity polemics such as Stafford, Bernard, but zero who have made an attempt to write a lexicon or grammar to correct all the alleged errors that uninformed amateurs claim are in ALL existing lexicons and grammars.

The scriptures say that Jesus was the Son of God. How does knowing how to parse a Greek verb help anyone to understand that?

The correct interpretation of John 8:58 hinges on the tense of the verb "to be."

No, that is not true. I have a Strong's and I don't think I am a Bible expert. But I do think that I understand the scriptures as well as you do. (Actually I think I understand them better than you. ) Being able to parse a Greek verb does not make one a Bible expert either. You are proof of that.

I haven't claimed expertise in any field nor have I claimed to know more than the Bible scholars who have written the grammars and lexicons as you have.

A church is not necessarily an 'organized body'. And you cannot see Christ's church with earthly eyes. It is kind of like the pictures and types in the OT in that respect. If one cannot see it on their own, it cannot be shown to them.

Prove any of this from scripture?

One more time. I was not trying to disprove Sharp when I gave the quote from Winer. I was simply showing that other opinions exist besides Wallace and Bowman's.

Opinions, without evidence, mean diddly squat.

And so does yours.

Unlike you I have not given my opinion, I have provided evidence for my beliefs. For your unsupported opinion see your accusation that all Trinitarian scholars are wrong. And you will note that I pointed out where Winer was giving his unsupported opinion. Were you to actually read Winer his objection to Sharp's rule, although he did not name Sharp, was based on his Theological presuppositions, NOT grammar.

But I thought you said you couldn't find any reference to Sharp in Winer's work. The following is your exact quote. (the bolding and underlining is my own)

"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! "

Whatever made you think I would like to discuss Winer's grammar? I believe you are trying to change the subject.

Let me clarify I could not find any personal reference to Sharp in Winer. He does discuss the TSKS construction without naming Sharp. If you post something to support your argument you should be prepared to discuss it.

Yes, I use google quite frequently.

Your link did not take me to an English translation of Winer's "Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Sprachidioms". Do you have another I could try?

Click the link and look at the window on the left, "View the Book" There are several options "Read online" download as PDF, etc. Pay particular attention to page 142.

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

Do you read and speak the German language in addition to Greek and English?

As a matter of fact I do. I learned to speak German on my own when I was about 12. I also speak Korean and some Viet Namese. I read Hebrew too.

Yeah, sure. LOL

This is about on the level of "Neener, neener, neener, I'm right and you're wrong! Am too! Nuh Huh!"

Admittedly it is good if a student of the Bible knows the Greek language, but since the scriptures have already been translated into our language by some very learned men of the past, and there exists such things as Bible concordances and dictionaries, the student who knows the Greek language has no great advantage over the student who does not.

As I said virtually everybody with a Strong's thinks they are a Bible expert. The average person may never have any need to refer to the Greek or Hebrew unless a disciple of one of these guys comes along saying, "The church has been wrong for 2000 years, this is what the Bible really means!" Joseph Smith, LDS, Charles Russell, JW; R.E. McAlister, OP; Herbert Armstrong, WWCG; John Thomas, kristadelfian, etc.

But what, may I ask, has your being in Germany with Elvis got to do with this, anyway? Don't tell me you sing in German also.

Mentioning Elvis was a time reference. I do sing in German. e.g. I know all the words to "Muss i' Denn" recorded by Elvis as "Wooden Heart" I also know all the words to the Horst Wessell lied. The no. 1 song in Germany in 1966 was "Lieber's Kummer Lohn Sich Nicht."

I believe that as well. So, as one who has been 'intensely indoctrinat[ed'] lets see you harmonize 1Cor. 15:24-28 with your 'Jesus is God' statements. I would be especially interested in hearing the harmony ring between verse 28 where it says 'when all things have been subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him that God may be all in all."

Sorry miss, you don't get to blow off my scriptural discussion with "Yeah sure, LOL." then demand that I answer you.

My chronology is straight.

Rev. 5:1" And I saw in the right hand of him that sat on the throne a book written within and on the backside sealed with seven seals."

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."


The Lamb took the book from the right hand of him that sat on the throne. If, as you claim, it was the Lamb who was sitting on the throne, how could the Lamb take the book from the Lamb who was sitting on the throne?

As I have shown from scripture the elders and the beast were not in the middle of the throne. Now let us read a little more of the context.
Rev 5:1-7
(1)
And I saw in the right hand of him that sat on the throne a book written within and on the backside, sealed with seven seals.
(2) And I saw a strong angel proclaiming with a loud voice, Who is worthy to open the book, and to loose the seals thereof?
(3) And no man in heaven, nor in earth, neither under the earth, was able to open the book, neither to look thereon.
(4) And I wept much, because no man was found worthy to open and to read the book, neither to look thereon.
(5) And one of the elders saith unto me, Weep not: behold, the Lion of the tribe of Juda, the Root of David, hath prevailed to open the book, and to loose the seven seals thereof.
(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.​
At first there was no one worthy to open the book, then the Lion of the tribe of Juda, the Root of David, the lamb which had been slain has, past tense, prevailed to open book, vs.5 He came and took the book. Quite evidently John means the lamb who is now in the middle of the throne first came, took the book, then stood in the middle of the throne. Here is another reference to the lamb in the middle of the throne.
Rev 7:17 For the Lamb which is in the midst of the throne shall feed them, and shall lead them unto living fountains of waters: and God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes.​
So clearly John saw the lamb in the middle of the throne but he said several times there was one who sat on the throne and that the throne was God's and the lamb's.

The fact that God showed it to him pretty much speaks to that effect. I mean if someone shows you something you pretty much have to be looking at it from the same vantage point

Please show me where Revelation says that the temple that he measured was on earth.

Typical anti-Trin indoctrinated reasoning now lets look at what the scripture actually says.
Rev 11:2 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.​
There are NO gentiles and Jews in heaven, they are all children of God, Gal 3:28. If there is a temple in heaven it was never trodden underfoot by gentiles for 42 months.

I don't know about you, but I am really getting bored with this conversation

I shouldn't wonder most of your arguments take the form of "Is not! Nuh Uh!"
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.