Biblical Truth: Christ Jesus is not God.

[PattyOfurniture]

I believe we were all born into a sinful 'atmosphere' which exhibits examples which is natural for us to follow. But I do not believe we were born sinners. We were no different than Jesus in that respect. We, as well as Jesus who had a fleshly nature the same as we, were born with a propensity toward sinning. The only way that Jesus was different from the rest of us was that He overcame all of those temptations that came as as the result of being born into this sinful 'atmosphere' where wickedness and ungodliness reigned.

Hebrews 2: 17. "Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people. 18. For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted."

Hebrews 4:14 "Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession. 15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin."



Yes, that is correct. As already explained, I do not believe we are born sinners.


No, I do not see it that way, for we are born of God also, but still sin. I do not believe it is the man who is born of God who sins. It is the old man obeying the fleshly desires that sins. When we are born of God, or born from above, another man (mind) comes into existence. The new man (mind), or the man (mind) who is born of God 'inhabits' our fleshly identity until such time as there is no more fleshly body or identity, and then it moves into the spiritual body which has been prepared for it/him /her, whatever the case may be.

If it were impossible for Jesus to sin, that would show God to be unjust, as He would be judging us by someone who had an advantage that we did not have.

Awesomeness!@Evergreen48 (Love it)

 

[Mathetes the kerux]

with all due respect,Not only does Paul call Jesus the First "Born" of all "creation",he(Paul) calls Jesus an "image" of God,an "IMAGE",maybe you need to drop your traditions and do a bit of "study"

With all due respect, the scriptures ALSO call David the first born of God . . . so no dice.

Perhaps proof texting wouldnt be very smart for one who just delegated studying to someone else. Hmm glass houses and stones comes to mind . . ..

 

[Mathetes the kerux]

Der Alter,
Not only do your "37 NT verses which refer or address Jesus as God" NOT DO SO,they repeatedly call Jesus the "IMAGE" or "Son of God" only,what am i missing here?

Titus 2:13
13 looking for the blessed hope and theappearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus,
NASU

Gransville sharp rule bro.

 

[razzelflabben]

I meant to reply to this earlier, and I did expect that I was foolish, did not copy my writing, and ultimately lost my response, so I’ll have to start afresh. Here goes. My new responses are in bold. By the way my message seems to be unloved by this website because apparently I am not distinguished enough to have links inserted so I apologize if something is missing/looks weird.

I agree, and I argue that Jesus is more than a man.

I totally agree with this statement, thus Jesus was fully man and fully God. In fact, if He wasn't more than man, He couldn't have done what He did.

You probably won’t agree, but in terms of human sacrifice I don’t know that a man being completely spotless would be required for salvation. The lamb offered for sacrifice on Yom Kippur certainly was not truly spotless—but it was the best thing available. So if Jesus were the greatest and most blameless man to have ever lived, I hold that his sacrifice could possibly have been sufficient. In actuality you may argue that Jesus is blameless, but I am arguing that for him to be completely blameless might not have been an absolute requirement according to the available prophecy.

blameless here would mean without sin, which would mean holding to the entire law, never breaking the law. So what law do you think Jesus broke that made Him less than blameless, when we are told He obeyed the entire law.

　
Yes, I agree.
　
(not saying the HS and Jesus are one, but rather logically looking at non trinitarianism) If the HS could exist in God, why not the son as well?
I’ll agree that it is possible, but I don’t think it is required.

Possible though means that you don't just make excuses (talking non trinitarians in general not you specifically) It means you listen, learn, and consider the possible. Just like the above, it means that you consider the possible that Jesus was fully man and fully God and that satisfies the problem of blameless, so look deeper from there and see if it is indeed consistent with scripture.

If the son exists in God why couldn't a God allow Him to come to earth as a man? Logically it doesn't follow that Jesus could not be God. That is the point

He can, and I argue that he did though my description of Jesus’ deity is different from yours.

does this mean you believe deity of Jesus, just a different deity? I'm confused now.

I argue that nature and being are separate. I’ll grant you that Jesus has the nature of God (Philippians passage you quoted is a great supporting text)

so if the nature, what makes you assume He was not God. No other man has or will according to scripture have this nature, how then was Jesus able to have it and still not be God. If His glory is beyond what man can contain, it would take a God/man to contain His nature would it not?

　

I might be missing something, but I am unaware of an instance when Jesus claimed to be fully God and fully man. Please quote the text supporting that statement and that may well dispel my position entirely.

you have been shown many scriptures that show Jesus claim to be God and many scriptures where He claimed to be man, that pretty much leaves us as fully man and fully God. Whether you believe the scripture or not is a different matter.

　
　
Your statement is perfectly logical. However, your huge chunk of himself statement seems to also logically allow that at least while walking the face of the earth, the humanity of Jesus at least partially diminishes his deity.

not really diminished His deity as limited His glory...look at it this way, my personhood is not diminished by my being on the forum, but the full extent of my personality is diminished here. Similarly, deity was not diminished by Jesus being here, but the glory of that deity was.

in one of my files I have passages for each of these, if you want them, I'll see if I can locate them. Let me know.

Please do if it’s not too much trouble. Because of my position, I don’t know if I fully agree with statements 3 and 4. I fully agree with the rest of them, and they are all completely logical assuming Christ is divine.


Good response. That was actually a bit of a trick question. God is all powerful and can allow his essence of Himself directly to be seen by men. If all things are not possible with God (excluding sins against his Godly nature of course), how can he really be God? By the way the last question is only rhetorical.
　
We’ll have to agree to disagree on this one. I don’t find it necessary to believe Jesus is God to believe in Jesus. Why do you believe it is required that one believe in the divinity of Jesus to believe in Jesus as stipulated by John 3:16. You may find other texts compelling you to believe in the Trinity, but in the context of John 3:16 is that really required?

because if you don't believe that Jesus was God in flesh form, how do you know what you are believing in? In order for the salvation described in scripture to be fulfilled, it was necessary for God to show us how to live. He did this by becoming a man and living a blameless life before us. If you don't believe this, then your belief in Jesus is, 1. a belief in the power of man over the power of God. 2. a belief that dismisses the need for God and thus a love for Him. 3. a belief that dismisses the love of God for a lost world. 4. a belief that dismisses the salvation offered and the sacrifice of that offer. etc. IOW's it isn't scriptural at all, and it like any other religion out there that seeks to live for self by oppressing others.

　
Thank you very much as well. It has been a very rewarding and enlightening experience for me and hopefully you as well.
　

　

I'm still learning but I still don't understand all of what you are saying

 

[2ducklow]

I believe we were all born into a sinful 'atmosphere' which exhibits examples which is natural for us to follow. But I do not believe we were born sinners. We were no different than Jesus in that respect. We, as well as Jesus who had a fleshly nature the same as we, were born with a propensity toward sinning. The only way that Jesus was different from the rest of us was that He overcame all of those temptations that came as as the result of being born into this sinful 'atmosphere' where wickedness and ungodliness reigned.

Hebrews 2: 17. "Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people. 18. For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted."

Hebrews 4:14 "Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession. 15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin."



Yes, that is correct. As already explained, I do not believe we are born sinners.


No, I do not see it that way, for we are born of God also, but still sin. I do not believe it is the man who is born of God who sins. It is the old man obeying the fleshly desires that sins. When we are born of God, or born from above, another man (mind) comes into existence. The new man (mind), or the man (mind) who is born of God 'inhabits' our fleshly identity until such time as there is no more fleshly body or identity, and then it moves into the spiritual body which has been prepared for it/him /her, whatever the case may be.

If it were impossible for Jesus to sin, that would show God to be unjust, as He would be judging us by someone who had an advantage that we did not have.

ok, thanks for the clairification, I disagree but won't go into it as that would be another topic.

 

[PattyOfurniture]

Titus 2:13
13 looking for the blessed hope and theappearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus,
NASU

Gransville sharp rule bro.

its "Granville" Bro,and as U know its been disputed by trinitarian scholars concerning especially this verse in the past.not to mention the funny business of the comma being placed after "saviour" by trinitarian translators of the past and(kai..LOL)the fact Paul separates God and Jesus as 2 distinct beings only a few verses earlier.
as far as the theme of this verse i'll stick with ‘For the Son of Man is going to come in the glory of his Father with his
holy angels’ (Matt. 16:27)
Mucho Blessings

 

[Evergreen48]

ok, thanks for the clairification, I disagree but won't go into it as that would be another topic.

 

[razzelflabben]

We have the same ability.

you keep saying this, but lack evidence to prove it. How if I have the ability can I not do it? How about Paul? He couldn't either, in fact, scripture says that any man that claims to be able to is a liar without truth. So is scripture lieing to us, or is this a fallacy you have concocted to make yourself feel better about your opinion.

That is the wrong question. The right question would be: why don't I use the same ability and succeed? And that is a question only you can answer. Besides yourself, only God knows what is in your heart and mind. But personally, I believe that a good place for anyone to start would be admitting to self and God that they are entirely without excuse for breaking his holy laws, and approach the 'throne of grace' and through Jesus Christ our Lord and Savior, ask for forgiveness and cleansing.

I know lots and lots and lots of people who do just that, and still fall prey to temptation. In fact, scripture says that anyone who claims they are without sin is a liar and without truth. How do you reconcile that verse with your theology?

See above.

No, we do not have the authority to forgive sin, for we are sinners ourselves. Jesus was given authority from God to forgive sins here on earth because he was perfectly obedient to the Father and was worthy.

actually, the passage said that only God has the authority to forgive sin, but at least this explains your denial of the trinity, thanks.

Jesus made his own self different from 'other billions upon billions of people' in the world. And those billions upon billions of people could most certainly have been without sin if they had been in the same close and perfect harmony with God as Jesus was.

a claim that scripture says labels one a liar without truth. So how do you reconcile the passage with your ideas?

Matthew 17: 18. "And Jesus rebuked the devil; and he departed out of him: and the child was cured from that very hour. 19. Then came the disciples to Jesus apart, and said, Why could not we cast him out? 20. And Jesus said unto them, Because of your unbelief: for verily I say unto you, If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible unto you. 21. Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting."

have you ever seen "mountains" move from in front of you? I have, it's amazing, and still I sin, and scripture says I do. IOW's I can have the faith to move "mountains" and still not be without sin. How was Jesus able to if He was just a man?

Matthew 4:1 "Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil. 2. And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward an hungred. 3. And when the tempter came to him, he said, If thou be the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread. 4. But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.
5. Then the devil taketh him up into the holy city, and setteth him on a pinnacle of the temple,

6. And saith unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down: for it is written, He shall give his angels charge concerning thee: and in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone.

7. Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.

8. Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them; 9. And saith unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me. 10. Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve. 11. Then the devil leaveth him, and, behold, angels came and ministered unto him."

Read the scriptures posted very carefully and thoughtfully. For in them you will find your answer as to why Jesus was different from every other human being that has resided, does reside, and will reside upon the face of this earth.

because HE claimed to be God and the claim was truth...that is pretty easy, look at the highlight.

This particular comment does not deserve an answer.

I believe I have already covered what the difference was between Jesus and all the rest of us, and there
is no secret involved. Jesus made it plain that if we obey the commandments (the ten) we would be rightful heirs of the kingdom of heaven.

well your first misunderstanding of scripture is Jesus understanding of the law He would have understood the law to be the OT law.

May I ask which ones of the 'ten' do you find impossible to obey?

First, that is my business, but secondly it isn't so much the 10 but the total law as well as the thoughts of my heart. consider for example, adultery, scripture says if you even lust after a woman you have committed adultery. If you call your brother a fool you are guilty of murder....etc. I am guilty of impure thoughts, I am guilty of lashing out in anger at others, I am human after all.

I have explained the difference between Jesus and the rest of us. So, once again I would ask where it is found in the scripture that we are not able to be sinless.

Showed this many times over, but I still don't understand what you think made Jesus able to do what no one else can and why HE wasn't called a liar by God but we are. What sets Him apart, above the law of claiming to be without sin? [/quote]

I've already explained what was 'different' about Jesus". And you would have to be more specific about the 'above passages'. Which ones are you referring to?

Sorry I came across as 'accusing you falsely'. I did not mean to do that. [/quote] no problem, moving forward.

My original comment was:
"There is a vast difference between 'could Not' and 'would Not'. And we are guilty, guilty, guilty! Because we could have but did not."

We try, we seek God, we have faith, we believe, we try some more, but still, we fail and scripture says we will and scripture says if we claim otherwise we are liars. So why wasn't Jesus held to the same law of liar?

To which you replied: "see above, I'm anxious for your response."

I am assuming that by 'see above' you were referring to your comment of: "In Christ we are capable, without Christ we are not.", which does not seem to me to be related to the comment that I had made.

So, do you agree or disagree that there is a difference between 'could not' and 'would not', and do you agree or disagree that what proves us to be guilty is that we could have obeyed all his holy laws, but would not and did not?

I believe that there is a difference between could not and would not, but that scripture is pretty clear that we "could not" I also believe that Jesus would have been bound to the same law and as the only one possible of obeying had more going for Him than just being a man, that meaning fully God fully man. As to our obedience, I think that most people do not even try with have their beings, but that some do and they still fall because they are only human. When we come to Christ, if we allow the HS to empower us and convict us and put forth the effort, we can be without sin thereafter. But again, it is God who does it in us, not us doing it on our own.

Scripture says that the Christians in Corinth to whom Paul wrote had the mind of Christ to teach them.

1 Cor. 2: "14. But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. 15.But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man. 16. For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ."

Do you believe that Christ is risen from the dead and has descended to where he sits at the right hand of God his Father where he makes intercession for us? If you do, then that would answer your question.

descended seems a bad choice of word here...but I am trying to understand you. How is my belief helping me grasp your concept? I do believe Jesus was raised from the dead, is sitting on the right hand of God, makes intercession for us, etc. But that is because He is God in the form of a man, not despite it.

1 Cor. 15: "45.And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit. 46. Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual. 47. The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven."

Jesus told Nicodemus that he must be born from above. So whose mind do you think is the one which is born from above?

I have no idea what you are asking, this confirms that Jesus was God, not man.

What are you 'sacrificing to have it'? And yes, I believe I have answered your question.

I give God my all, including but not limited to my my family What does that have to do with the deity of Jesus?

The scripture does not say that 'any man making the claim is a liar'. The scripture says "If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us." I am sure you know that Jesus was not included in the 'we'. The 'we' in that verse was referring to John himself, and those to whom he wrote the letter.

so this verse only applies to John and those with him at that time....wow....that is like one of the longest stretches I have heard so far.

The analogy I gave was to illustrate the point that God bein a just and a fair God, does not judge us for things that we are unable to avoid doing. You completely ignored the very valid point that I made, and went off in another direction about something that had absolutely nothing to do with the comment I had made.

According to scripture, we are able to be without sin, the problem is we do that through the Lord Jesus Christ, not apart from Him. I was basing my comment on what scripture says as it relates to what you said, if scripture is not your authority, I aplogize for assuming you were using it that way. I should have known better than to make such assumptions especially from a non trinitarian.

Also, you have not replied to several of my comments which are pertinent to this discussion. When I have time I will go back through and repost them for your consideration and reply.

awesome, I don't like to miss anything important.

From the above comment on down in your post you have addressed comments that 2ducklow made to me, so it would be hard for me to reply to them, but I am replying to 2duck concerning them.


I am sorry I have taken so long to answer you, but a close neighbor in our little community here where I live passed away 2 days ago, and everything has been kind of hectic and 'up in the air' since then. So if I have not covered all of your comments that concern me, please feel free to repost and I will get back to you as soon as things here settle back down to normal.

No problem, we lost our son, a bit over 3 months ago, I know the chaos well.

 

[razzelflabben]

I believe we were all born into a sinful 'atmosphere' which exhibits examples which is natural for us to follow. But I do not believe we were born sinners. We were no different than Jesus in that respect. We, as well as Jesus who had a fleshly nature the same as we, were born with a propensity toward sinning. The only way that Jesus was different from the rest of us was that He overcame all of those temptations that came as as the result of being born into this sinful 'atmosphere' where wickedness and ungodliness reigned.

the question is how, how was He able to overcome what no other human could? You keep saying He was able to overcome but you don't say how He was able to. Here's the thing, I would give up pretty much anything to honor my Lord by not sinning, in fact, I can't think of anything I would withhold. So what was His secret? How, if Jesus was not God, could He be without sin? .

Hebrews 2: 17. "Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people. 18. For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted."

Again, referring to His deity, so I see nothing that tells us HE did this as nothing more than a man.

Hebrews 4:14 "Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession. 15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin."

Again, referring to His deity, so I see nothing that tells us HE did this as nothing more than a man.

Yes, that is correct. As already explained, I do not believe we are born sinners.


No, I do not see it that way, for we are born of God also, but still sin. I do not believe it is the man who is born of God who sins. It is the old man obeying the fleshly desires that sins. When we are born of God, or born from above, another man (mind) comes into existence. The new man (mind), or the man (mind) who is born of God 'inhabits' our fleshly identity until such time as there is no more fleshly body or identity, and then it moves into the spiritual body which has been prepared for it/him /her, whatever the case may be.

If it were impossible for Jesus to sin, that would show God to be unjust, as He would be judging us by someone who had an advantage that we did not have.

We were judged according to the law before Jesus ever came to this earth. So what of them...?

The problem is this, I am trying to grasp the concept that anyone could read the bible, much less study it and still think that Jesus was not God. On some points, I understand where you might be getting some of your ideas, but on other ideas, it is still a mystery. One of the biggest mysteries to me is how you or anyone else thinks that Jesus could be a man alone and still be without sin, especially since the bible is clear that all men sin. If I can get some kind of understanding on this, I will be satisfied the discussion has succeeded. I won't agree with you, to me scripture is too clear on this issue to not believe, but I'm not interested in agreeing or disagreeing, I am interested in understanding.

 

[Nemo Neem]

"Christ is the exact likeness of the unseen God. He existed before God made anything at all, and, in fact, Christ Himself is the Creator who made everything in heaven and earth, the things we can see and the things we can't...." (Colossians 1:15 - 16)

 

[nChrist]

Der Alter,
Not only do your "37 NT verses which refer or address Jesus as God" NOT DO SO,they repeatedly call Jesus the "IMAGE" or "Son of God" only,what am i missing here?

You just forgot to read the Scriptures posted. I had heard there was a branch of the SDA that rejects God The Son - Jesus Christ. Now I've met one.

I'm taking a break from you guys. Start trying to answer the 62 portions of Scripture posted by Der Alter. I'll be back when you start trying. It will be real interesting watching the ATTEMPT.

 

[Mathetes the kerux]

its "Granville" Bro,and as U know its been disputed by trinitarian scholars concerning especially this verse in the past.not to mention the funny business of the comma being placed after "saviour" by trinitarian translators of the past and(kai..LOL)the fact Paul separates God and Jesus as 2 distinct beings only a few verses earlier.
as far as the theme of this verse i'll stick with ‘For the Son of Man is going to come in the glory of his Father with his
holy angels’ (Matt. 16:27)
Mucho Blessings

its "Granville" Bro,and as U know its been disputed by trinitarian scholars concerning especially this verse in the past.

It is "you" sis (not "U")

and I am aware of the rule having exceptions. But only per context. Problem is that it is the epiphaneian/epiphanea (revealing) which is never said of the Father but only of the Son at His second advent. So, no dice, it applies.

Epiphany seals the deal. Sorry. The Father doesnt come here . . . the Son does . . . and that is the immediate context of the verse with antecedants. My point stands

 

[PattyOfurniture]

It is "you" sis (not "U")

and I am aware of the rule having exceptions. But only per context. Problem is that it is the epiphaneian/epiphanea (revealing) which is never said of the Father but only of the Son at His second advent. So, no dice, it applies.

Epiphany seals the deal. Sorry. The Father doesnt come here . . . the Son does . . . and that is the immediate context of the verse with antecedants. My point stands

Thank you for making my point LOL

 

[PattyOfurniture]

357Magnum, make your best case to me in an attempt to defend a pagan triune-god please.afterwards we can include the others,thanx Bro

 

[PattyOfurniture]

You just forgot to read the Scriptures posted. I had heard there was a branch of the SDA that rejects God The Son - Jesus Christ. Now I've met one.

I'm taking a break from you guys. Start trying to answer the 62 portions of Scripture posted by Der Alter. I'll be back when you start trying. It will be real interesting watching the ATTEMPT.

BTW Brother,the SDA rightly so started out non-trinitarian,so calling it a "branch" was of interest to me.and better yet i noticed you didnt answer him concerning Jesus being called an "IMAGE" of God.we both know an "image" of something isnt of the same substance of what it replicates just sayin'
God Bless you

 

[Der Alte]

357Magnum, make your best case to me in an attempt to defend a pagan triune-god please.afterwards we can include the others,thanx Bro

Since you seem fond of challenges I have one for you. I have been a Christian for a number of decades and have been at this forum for almost 10 years. Many, many people have made the accusation that the Triune god is pagan. I have been asking for a long, long time for any credible, verifiable, historical evidence for a trinity, or even a triad of of gods, in any society which could have influenced the early church, ca. 90 AD through 300 AD? I have never seen any such evidence. By this I mean something written at or near the time of the events in question, by participants or direct eyewitnesses. There were no computers or internet in the 1st thru 3rd centuries so the standard copy/paste from anti-trinitarians-я-us.com©, or a clone, is NOT evidence.

I'll give you a little help. Most people who make the accusation claim that the Trinity is from Babylon. We have, in our Bibles, four books which were written in/from Babble-on; Daniel, Ezra, Ezekiel, and Nehemiah. All 4 mention the gods of Babble-on. But there is NO, ZERO, NONE mention of a trinity or a triad of deities.

My second challenge is show me credible, verifiable, historical evidence for any organized group of believers, by any name, which believed and practiced as you do, between 90 AD, when the NT was completed and the late 19th century when virtually all anti-trinitarian religious groups came into existence, e.g. JW, LDS, SDA, UU, OP, WWCG, anti-Trin MJ, kristadelfian, etc?

 

[Der Alte]

its "Granville" Bro,and as U know its been disputed by trinitarian scholars concerning especially this verse in the past.not to mention the funny business of the comma being placed after "saviour" by trinitarian translators of the past and(kai..LOL)the fact Paul separates God and Jesus as 2 distinct beings only a few verses earlier.

If you are going to make assertions about "Trinitarian scholars" disputing something, how about posting some evidence? I can link to to a 50+ page article by Daniel Wallace, Greek professor at DTS, and a 40+ page article by Rob Bowman which discuss in detail all of the arguments presented against Sharp.

The comma in the verse is irrelevant.

What is your point about Paul? Shall I show you the passage in Acts where Paul persecuted Christians even assisted in stoning them? My point is Paul was guided by the holy spirit and he changed his beliefs.

as far as the theme of this verse i'll stick with ‘For the Son of Man is going to come in the glory of his Father with his
holy angels’ (Matt. 16:27)
Mucho Blessings

Wonder how it is that modern Bible readers claim to have it right, with virtually no knowledge of the Greek, and the early church all of whom spoke and read Greek somehow got it wrong?

Clement Of Alexandria [A.D. 153-217] The Stromata Or Miscellanies Book 6

The Spirit calls the Lord Himself a child, thus prophesying by Esaias: “Lo, to us a child has been born, to us a son has been given, on whose own shoulder the government shall be; and His name has been called the Angel of great Counsel.” Who, then, is this infant child? He according to whose image we are made little children. By the same prophet is declared His greatness: “Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace; that He might fulfill His discipline: and of His peace there shall be no end.” O the great God! O the perfect child! The Son in the Father, and the Father in the Son.

Clement Of Alexandria [A.D. 153-193-217] Exhortation To The Heathen
Chapter 1

This Word, then, the Christ, the cause of both our being at first (for He was in God) and of our well-being, this very Word has now appeared as man, He alone being both, both God and man — the Author of all blessings to us; by whom we, being taught to live well, are sent on our way to life eternal. For, according to that inspired apostle of the Lord, “the grace of God which bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men, teaching us, that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world; looking for the blessed hope, and appearing of the glory of the great God and our Savior Jesus Christ. ”

This is the New Song, the manifestation of the Word that was in the beginning, and before the beginning. The Savior, who existed before, has in recent days appeared. He, who is in Him that truly is, has appeared; for the Word, who “was with God,” and by whom all things were created, has appeared as our Teacher.

Fragments From The Lost Writings Of Irenaeus [A.D. 120-202.]

1 I adjure thee, who shalt transcribe this book, by our Lord Jesus Christ, and by His glorious appearing, when He comes to judge the living and the dead, that thou compare what thou hast transcribed, and be careful to set it right according to this copy from which thou hast transcribed; also, that thou in like manner copy down this adjuration, and insert it in the transcript.

Origen Against Celsus Book VI [A.D. 185-254]

But seeing that we have answered to the best of our ability the charges brought by Celsus against the Jews and their doctrine, let us proceed to consider what follows, and to prove that it is no empty boast on our part when we make a profession of knowing the great God, and that we have not been led away by any juggling tricks of Moses (as Celsus imagines), or even of our own Savior Jesus; but that for a good end we listen to the God who speaks in Moses, and have accepted Jesus, whom he testifies to be God, as the Son of God, in hope of receiving the best rewards if we regulate our lives according to His word.

Hippolytus - [A.D. 170-236] The Extant Works And Fragments.

67. These things, then, I have set shortly before thee, O Theophilus, drawing them from Scripture itself, in order that, maintaining in faith what is written, and anticipating the things that are to be, thou mayest keep thyself void of offense both toward God and toward men, “looking for that blessed hope and appearing of our God and Savior,” when, having raised the saints among us, He will rejoice with them, glorifying the Father. To Him be the glory unto the endless ages of the ages. Amen.​

 

[PattyOfurniture]

Since you seem fond of challenges I have one for you. I have been a Christian for a number of decades and have been at this forum for almost 10 years. Many, many people have made the accusation that the Triune god is pagan. I have been asking for a long, long time for any credible, verifiable, historical evidence for a trinity, or even a triad of of gods, in any society which could have influenced the early church, ca. 90 AD through 300 AD? I have never seen any such evidence. By this I mean something written at or near the time of the events in question, by participants or direct eyewitnesses. There were no computers or internet in the 1st thru 3rd centuries so the standard copy/paste from anti-trinitarians-я-us.com©, or a clone, is NOT evidence.

I'll give you a little help. Most people who make the accusation claim that the Trinity is from Babylon. We have, in our Bibles, four books which were written in/from Babble-on; Daniel, Ezra, Ezekiel, and Nehemiah. All 4 mention the gods of Babble-on. But there is NO, ZERO, NONE mention of a trinity or a triad of deities.

My second challenge is show me credible, verifiable, historical evidence for any organized group of believers, by any name, which believed and practiced as you do, between 90 AD, when the NT was completed and the late 19th century when virtually all anti-trinitarian religious groups came into existence, e.g. JW, LDS, SDA, UU, OP, WWCG, anti-Trin MJ, kristadelfian, etc?

youre kidding right?! LOL youre saying that no People(s) were polytheistic(such as yourself apparently) between 90-300 ad(which influenced the faith)?? and even funnier that no People(s)<Christians> were non-trinitarian between 90 ad -"late 19th century"???? rephrase the question please before i have to copy and paste all the proofs 1/2 the Night LOOOL Thank you

 

[PattyOfurniture]

Der Alter, the fact there was even a Council at Nicaea and someone named Arius and the fact that anyone above 12 yrs old knows the Greco-Roman Religious beliefs were Polytheistic makes your question kinda mind-numbing....LOL justsayin'

 

[Der Alte]

with all due respect,Not only does Paul call Jesus the First "Born" of all "creation",he(Paul) calls Jesus an "image" of God,an "IMAGE",maybe you need to drop your traditions and do a bit of "study"

"Firstborn" does not necessarily mean the one born first in chronological order, God even called the nation Israel his firstborn and Israel was not the first nation and it was not even born.

Exodus 4:22 And thou shalt say unto Pharaoh, Thus saith the LORD, Israel is my son, even my firstborn:

Deut 25:6 And it shall be, that the firstborn which she beareth shall succeed in the name of his brother which is dead, that his name be not put out of Israel.​

The second born takes the place of the firstborn who dies.

1 Chronicles 26:10 Also Hosah, of the children of Merari, had sons; Simri the chief, (for though he was not the firstborn, yet his father made him the chief

Psalms 89:27 Also I will make him [David] my firstborn, higher than the kings of the earth​

Another son was given the place of the firstborn, 1 Ch 26:10. David was not the firstborn but God called him that.

Jeremiah 31:9 They shall come with weeping, and with supplications will I lead them: I will cause them to walk by the rivers of waters in a straight way, wherein they shall not stumble: for I am a father to Israel, and Ephraim is my firstborn.​

God calls the tribe of Ephraim his firstborn. Ephraim was not the first tribe and was not born as a tribe.