Trinity question

[Simonline]

I might add that If GOD did not invent the triangle, there would be no triangles... Everything that exists, exists because of GOD and not in spite of GOD.

You miss the point. Having 'invented' the triangle as something having only three sides (tri - three) you cannot then make a 'four-sided triangle'. It cannot be done (even by God). If something is four-sided then it is a quadrangle (quad - four) but it cannot (by definition) be a 'four-sided triangle'. Humans may not be able to do everything that can be done (whilst God can) but even God cannot do that which cannot be done at all. Thus God cannot do 'whatever he wants'. Even God has to play by the rules of the reality, both that he is, and that he has created if that reality is to have any objective meaning whatsoever. The alternative is absolute meaningless chaos?!

Simonline.

 

[The Gregorian]

wow, I didn't realize this thread was still going... I'll try to catch up real quick:

When are you going to start reading the Scriptures in their proper context (namely, the whole of the rest of the Scriptures and not just a few isolated verses) so that you will get the correct understanding?

Exactly my point. based on a multitude of scripture we know that God is unchanging... agreed? and based on a multitude of scripture, Jesus repeatedly says "The Father is greater than I." Therefore, without changing, the father is always greater than the son. It's been said many times that this is only while he was on earth... but if he goes back to heaven to BECOME God... that's pretty important, why did he never say that? Why did he, instead, say he was going to sit at the right hand of his Father, instead? Sitting at the right hand of someone indicates that you're not actually that person.

The verse says that there is ONE God and that the Father is God, BUT IT DOES NOT SAY THAT ONLY THE FATHER IS GOD - YOU ARE READING THAT INTO THIS PASSAGE BECAUSE THAT IS YOUR THEOLOGICAL PRESUPPOSITION. We know from other parts of the Scriptures (Jn.1:1; 10:30-33 for example)

Is that not how you're reading John 1:1? True, it shows the word as a spiritual being, translated as "god" but why does john use a hebrew word here which is NEVER used to discribe the Father? Why did he use one word to discribe the Father, then a seperate word to discribe the word? If the word WAS the father, why not use the same word? The reason english speakers have a hard time with this verse, is that english doesn't have enough words to discribe things. Hebrew has how many words that are all translated to 'love?' simply because we don't have enough words to discribe the different kinds?

God is not limited to the One Person of the Father.

Then why does corinthians specifically say "There is for us only one God, the Father..." That's a pretty 'to the point' statement. Also if the Son is the Father... why does that verse go on to say discribe what the son's role is, seperate from the fathers saying 'there is only one Lord, Jesus'... therefore, the Son is not 'God' and the Father is not the lesser title of 'lord.'

Just because every single verse in the Bible that makes reference to God does not happen to include a full theological explanation of the Trinity does not mean that the Trinity is not Biblical.

no... it's not just "not every verse" it's "no verses." The word "trinity" is NEVER in the bible. Jesus NEVER says he's God... he never says he's equal to God... he never says he ever will be equal to God.... he specifically says God is GREATER than him and he will eventually sit at God's side... he DIRECTLY said he WASN'T his Father... and never said he was... therefore... he isn't.

As I keep saying (but people keep ignoring me) the Trinity is the doctrine formulated by the early church to encapsulate ALL (not just isolated 'proof-texts') that the Bible declares concerning the Nature of God. We cannot ignore those parts of the Scriptures that do not 'fit' with our theological presuppositions. If the Judeo-Christian Scriptures are the Word of God (2Tim.3:16-17; Heb.4:12-13) and there is conflict between what the Scriptures teach and what we 'believe', guess which one has to change?!

So you admit that the trinity was simply formulated by church leaders, in spite of what the bible says... yet you ask the rhetorical question of "if my priest says one thing and the bible says another, one has to change" Are you honestly suggesting the priest has more authority than what Jesus specifically said? A priest is NOTHING more than someone who lives life based on the bible... and teaches people about the bible... if he teaches something specifically opposed to the book which his faith is based on... he's... wrong. If you BASE a faith on a book... but disagree with the book upon which your faith is based... I'm not the only one that sees the contradiction am I?

No where in the Scriptures does the Messiah declare 'I am God's Son' (and I defy you to prove me wrong on this point?!) What you obviously don't know is that the first century Jews did not come from Lancashire.

/end defyance with john 20:17

[font=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]Jesus said to her, Do not put your hand on me, for I have not gone up to the Father: but go to my brothers and say to them, I go up to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.

Jesus is specifically calling his God his Father... which is the Father... which is his God... you can't be equal to your God... Jesus specifically calls the father his "God" therefore not him... how many ways does he have to say it?


here's the part I like:


[/font]

So, when the Messiah says 'I and my Father are One' (Jn.10:30) he is actually saying "I am also God (not 'a god' but THE God). He is declaring himself to be the same Being, the same essence as that of his Father

lol... "I and my Father are one" = 'I am God' then? Here's your context, keep reading in a:

[font=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]20 My prayer is not for them only, but for all who will have faith in me through their word; 21 May they all be one! Even as you, Father, are in me and I am in you, so let them be in us, so that all men may come to have faith that you sent me. 22 And the glory which you have given to me I have given to them, so that they may be one even as we are one; 23 I in them, and you in me, so that they may be made completely one, and so that it may become clear to all men that you have sent me and that they are loved by you as I am loved by you.

[/font]

too much to underline here, Yes... he says he is one with the Father... but here he asks that ALL those with faith in him be one with them... So if "being one with the father" means Jesus IS his Father, that means we ARE eachother, and we ARE God... I do NOT have the nerve to claim to be God, therefore I assume this means that I'm not LITTERALLY God... however having faith, I am "one" with the Father and Son, just as they are one with eachother... they aren't interchangable.. but they are one, like a married couple is one... not litterally one person... a husband is not interchangable with his wife... but they are 'one'

 

[The Gregorian]

I like to keep things simple:

1: Does Jesus/his Father share one body?

no, he's said to sit at the right hand of God... therefore they're seperate bodies. Also, note the baptism, while Jesus is on earth, God is in heaven saying he approves of Jesus, therefore The Father didn't come to earth to become Jesus.

2: Do they share one will?

[font=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]But of that day and hour no one has knowledge, not even the angels in heaven, or the Son, but the Father only.

While the Son is in heaven, the Father knows at least one thing that the Son does not know... therefore they have seperate minds.

3: Are they equal?

J

[/font][font=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]esus said to her, Do not put your hand on me, for I have not gone up to the Father: but go to my brothers and say to them, I go up to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.

The Father is Jesus' God... you can't be equal to your God.

4: Do they share the same role?

[/font][font=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]

There is for us only one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we are for him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and we have our being through him.

The Father is 'God,' Jesus is 'Lord' There is only one person of each title and they do not share titles, therefore are not the same person.

So... if they have seperate bodies, seperate minds, are not equal, and each play a seperate role in life... how are they still 'the same?'
[/font]

 

[Der Alte]

[SIZE=-1]I like to keep things simple:

1: Does Jesus/his share one body?

no, he's said to sit at the right hand of God... therefore they're seperate bodies. Also, note the baptism, while Jesus is on earth, God is in heaven saying he approves of Jesus, therefore The Father didn't come to earth to become Jesus.[/SIZE]

I like to keep things simple too. This is the standard anti-Trinitarians-Я-Us, "Here is one question/one verse that completely, totally, absolutely, destroys the doctrine of the Trinity, and no Trinitarian can answer it." All you have done is put several of these "questions" in one place. And OBTW that is a very poor substitute for discussion of scripture.

There is one throne in heaven, there is one on the throne, but Jesus is, present tense, "set down with my Father in his throne."

Rev 3:21 To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.

Rev 4:2 And immediately I was in the spirit: and, behold, a throne was set in heaven, and [one] sat on the throne.​

I think the problem is thinking of God as just a super, king sized, human being. But God's thoughts and His ways are far above ours.
[bible]isaiah 55:8-9[/bible]

 

[MarkT]

The problem with the proponents of the Trinity concept is that they don't have the spiritual gifts to see this for what it is; inspired wisdom.

In that sense, it is building on the foundation the Apostles laid, the understanding that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of God. This is a man's work and the Day will reveal it and the fire will test it and if it doesn't survive then the man will suffer a loss.

But when someone says this concept defines Christianity, I have to step in. Don't let anybody tell you this concept defines Christianity. It doesn't.

Are you a follower of the man who wrote it or are you a follower of Jesus Christ? Were you baptised in his name or in the name of Jesus Christ?

Let's look at Paul's letter to the Corinthians

11 For it has been reported to me by Chlo'e's people that there is quarreling among you, my brethren. 12 What I mean is that each one of you says, "I belong to Paul," or "I belong to Apol'los," or "I belong to Cephas," or "I belong to Christ." 13 Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?

So everyone should have a way of discerning the truth before they begin building on another man's work.

 

[The Gregorian]

Exactly... who is/isn't God is a pretty important point... being created in his image, we should at least be able to fathom what his nature can possibly be... There's only one God: the father, yet Jesus is too, they don't share a body or a mind, yet they are "still somehow one" in a way that NO ONE can explain clearly... I sort of assume that since Jesus was sent to teach the world about his Father, he would have said... at SOME point "btw, I'm God too." or "the father is greater than I... right now, but not when I get back to heaven." or something.... but Jesus never said anything like that.

He said: "The father is greater than I." he said he was here NOT by his own will, but by the will of his Father... two seperate people being father and son is VERY understandable by humans... but being one, yet nothing, yet 3 in one in the glory of the infinite form of unity of... uhhhh... yea.

 

[BMac14]

Ok, about the verse that says there is one God, the Father and there is one Lord, the Son. What do you do about the Old Testament when it say Lord God? There is just one Lord and one God in those verses, but yet, it is both in the New Testament.

Here is the analogy that one of my profs came up with. The trinity is like Aquafresh. Each color has a function, but it is all the same product. God is one being with three different "persons." But here is where most of what I've seen is possibly a problem. You cannot try and define the trinity in a person like form. You may think that my theory would make it a 3-headed person. But how can you look at it like that? What is the being? What does it look like? There is a reason we can't fathom it. We are made in his image, but that does not mean a physical image. God is not of flesh and bone. We are made in his likeness in the way we are. We love in a likeness to God. We serve and worship in a likeness to God. And you suggest that God would let us clearly fathom it. But why? Just because we are created in his image? In fact, not being able to completely grasp ideas of God is what makes Him so great. We can begin to understand, but we can't totally fathom everything about God. Faith does not come easy. The problem is, you are looking at things with the preconception of what this being is. This is a being that can be everywhere at once. Try to fathom that.

 

[Der Alte]

[SIZE=-1]Exactly... who is/isn't God is a pretty important point... being created in his image, we should at least be able to fathom what his nature can possibly be... There's only one God: the father, yet Jesus is too, they don't share a body or a mind, yet they are "still somehow one" in a way that NO ONE can explain clearly... I sort of assume that since Jesus was sent to teach the world about his Father, he would have said... at SOME point "btw, I'm God too." or "the father is greater than I... right now, but not when I get back to heaven." or something.... but Jesus never said anything like that.[/SIZE]

What would have happened if Jesus had said, "I am God?" Considering that the Jewish leaders tried to stone him on more than one occasion for merely saying "I am the son of God." And they had him crucified for merely saying, "I am the Son of the Most High and you will see the Son of man seated at the right hand of power."

Paul understood that Jesus was God and Jesus assumed his rightful place after completing his mission here.

Phi 2:6 Who, being [existing] in the form [morphe'] of God, thought it not robbery being [present tense reality] equal with God:
7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him[self] the form [morphe'] of a servant, and made [himself] in the likeness of men:
8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.
9 Wherefore [for this reason] God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:​

[SIZE=-1]He said: "The father is greater than I." he said he was here NOT by his own will, but by the will of his Father...[/SIZE]

See previous answer on both these points. I also remember Jesus saying "I lay down my life, no man takes it from me." He also said something about being able to call seven legions of angels.

two seperate people being father and son is VERY understandable by humans... but being one, yet nothing, yet 3 in one in the glory of the infinite form of unity of... uhhhh... yea.

The standard, knee jerk, meaningless ramble about nonsense which has no relationship to Biblical Trinitarianism. I have NEVER encountered an anti-Trintarian who could accurately state what the doctrine fo the Trinity is or what Trintarians actually believe. It is alway this same old, same old stuff.

And OBTW I'm still waiting for you to fit my previous post into your false doctrine. Cat got your tongue?

 

[The Gregorian]

Ok, about the verse that says there is one God, the Father and there is one Lord, the Son. What do you do about the Old Testament when it say Lord God? There is just one Lord and one God in those verses, but yet, it is both in the New Testament.

Which is why I disagree with translators when they translate God's name (YHWH) into Jesus' Title of "lord". YHWH does not mean "lord" it's a name, not something that can be replaced by the title of another person.

Here is the analogy that one of my profs came up with. The trinity is like Aquafresh. Each color has a function, but it is all the same product. God is one being with three different "persons." But here is where most of what I've seen is possibly a problem. You cannot try and define the trinity in a person like form. You may think that my theory would make it a 3-headed person. But how can you look at it like that? What is the being? What does it look like? There is a reason we can't fathom it. We are made in his image, but that does not mean a physical image.

first: The aquafresh example: That's three seperately made pastes mashed together in one tube... each paste is still seperate. In that sense, I could agree.... God and his son are close like the different colors in an aquafresh tube... but they aren't the SAME being because they have different minds (that shown by the verse stating that God knows the day and the hour of the end, which the son, specifically, doesn't know).

Second: If we're made in his image, even if we don't look like him, we should at least be able to... in some way discribe SOMETHING that could let us at least imagine whether he's one person or three people, etc. The concept, itself is NOT hard to grasp:

Two traits, each either true or false, can only be joined together in four possible combinations (binary counting as 00, 01, 10, and 11)

00: The Father and Son could have seperate minds and forms. (as seen in every other form of life in nature)
01: The Father and Son could have seperate minds in the same form. (meaning three individuals inhabiting the same form)
10: The Father and Son could have the same mind, but in seperate forms.
(meaning one individual being 3 places at once)
11: The Father and Son could have the same mind and same form. (therefore the Father litterally becomes the son, and stops being the father to come to earth)

there are no other combinations for those two traits. It's perfectly acceptable for one being to be in two places at once... that's comprehendable.... but it shows that they have different minds, therefore aren't the same being... they are two different minds, in different places, therefore are seperate individuals... just like Jesus said throughout the bible. What's so hard to fathom about "trust what Jesus directly said over what a priest interprets he really meant."

What would have happened if Jesus had said, "I am God?" Considering that the Jewish leaders tried to stone him on more than one occasion for merely saying "I am the son of God." And they had him crucified for merely saying, "I am the Son of the Most High and you will see the Son of man seated at the right hand of power."

1: He could have said it at some point during the time he was being executed... what are they going to do? stone him more?
2: He could have said it at some point in private to the apostles, they certainly wouldn't have stoned him.
3: He could have said it directly TO the jews... yes, they started to stone him when he said he was the son of God, because they thought that meant he WAS a diety... they stopped because he specifically explained to him that he was SENT by his diety, and therefore is not one. Which is also point 4: He could have... not specifically said he wasn't one.

As for your scripture there... that's pretty bad... copied over from crosswalk.com:
[quote Philippians 2:6][font=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]6 To whom, though himself in the form of God, it did not seem that to take for oneself was to be like God;[/quote]

Yes... if you change "like" to "equal" it does show paul equating Jesus to God... but he was simply saying while he was in heaven, Jesus was in the same form as God (because Jesus was ALSO a spiritual being... LIKE God). This does not mean he is EQUAL to God. Like and equal are not the same.

I'm a human, you're a human... I am in a like form as you.... but I am not you.

[/font]See previous answer on both these points. I also remember Jesus saying "I lay down my life, no man takes it from me." He also said something about being able to call seven legions of angels.

Yes... he was SENT to lay down his life. being the son of God he is much more powerful than any man... no man could kill him, were he to honestly resist... yet because he was sent by his father, he laid down his own life. And yes, he could have called secen legions of angels... which proves he's not God. God doesn't need to call angels or anyone... were anyone to threaten him, he could simply stop allowing that person to exist.

Also... Jesus died and was ressurected... he didn't just play dead. If he just let them poke him and he played dead in a tomb, that sacrifice wouldn't mean much at all... he had to actually die. God cannot die, therefore because Jesus died, he cannot be God.

The standard, knee jerk, meaningless ramble about nonsense which has no relationship to Biblical Trinitarianism. I have NEVER encountered an anti-Trintarian who could accurately state what the doctrine fo the Trinity is or what Trintarians actually believe. It is alway this same old, same old stuff.

nore, have I ever encountered a trinitarian who could accurately state the nature of the trinity.... in fact, they say one thing... I show them a verse... they say "ohh... uhhh... well, what I meant was..." I show them another verse... and they inescapably cop out to "well they are all seperate... but yet, one."

Let's compare, I'll state my belief of the relationship between God and his Son, and you give a similarly short, and clear discription of the trinity. Ready? Here I go:

Jesus is God's son.

Now, sum up what the trinity is, and I'll bet you MANY trinitarians will disagree with you.

And OBTW I'm still waiting for you to fit my previous post into your false doctrine. Cat got your tongue?

I saw no challange, please reask any question I didn't respond to.

 

[The Gregorian]

Was this what you were referring to?

I like to keep things simple too. This is the standard anti-Trinitarians-Я-Us, "Here is one question/one verse that completely, totally, absolutely, destroys the doctrine of the Trinity, and no Trinitarian can answer it." All you have done is put several of these "questions" in one place. And OBTW that is a very poor substitute for discussion of scripture.

There is one throne in heaven, there is one on the throne, but Jesus is, present tense, "set down with my Father in his throne."

Rev 3:21 To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.

Rev 4:2 And immediately I was in the spirit: and, behold, a throne was set in heaven, and [one] sat on the throne.​

1st: Just want to point out the flame... I'm not reporting it... but remember that I'm not taking that exit, so if I say anything that pushes your buttons, I'd expect you not to go mod-crying... and if you do, be prepared for me to point this out in responce.

2nd: Rev 3:21 ... here Jesus is inviting people to sit with him in his Father's thrown... i.e. aparently it's big enough for multiple people=just because he's sitting in a chair, doesn't mean he's God. Notice, he still calls it his Father's thrown, not his own... even while he's in heaven. -1 arguement for the son being "God incarnate on earth" then becoming God again in heaven... because even while IN heaven, he differentiates himself from his Father.

Rev. 4:2 .... what is that even saying? Someone had a vision of God's thrown while he is still on it. You don't expect either of the two to always just sit around, do you?

well... I'll respond with your verses with a simple:

[font=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]Keep in mind how I said to you, I go away and come to you again. If you had love for me you would be glad, because I am going to the Father: for the Father is greater than I.

Note: 'I am going to the father' not 'to become' or 'overtake' or anything like that. He is going TO his father=he is not the person he is going to.

also the simple statement "the Father is greater than I"
[/font]

 

[BMac14]

Which is why I disagree with translators when they translate God's name (YHWH) into Jesus' Title of "lord". YHWH does not mean "lord" it's a name, not something that can be replaced by the title of another person.




first: The aquafresh example: That's three seperately made pastes mashed together in one tube... each paste is still seperate. In that sense, I could agree.... God and his son are close like the different colors in an aquafresh tube... but they aren't the SAME being because they have different minds (that shown by the verse stating that God knows the day and the hour of the end, which the son, specifically, doesn't know).

Second: If we're made in his image, even if we don't look like him, we should at least be able to... in some way discribe SOMETHING that could let us at least imagine whether he's one person or three people, etc. The concept, itself is NOT hard to grasp:

Two traits, each either true or false, can only be joined together in four possible combinations (binary counting as 00, 01, 10, and 11)

00: The Father and Son could have seperate minds and forms. (as seen in every other form of life in nature)
01: The Father and Son could have seperate minds in the same form. (meaning three individuals inhabiting the same form)
10: The Father and Son could have the same mind, but in seperate forms.
(meaning one individual being 3 places at once)
11: The Father and Son could have the same mind and same form. (therefore the Father litterally becomes the son, and stops being the father to come to earth)

there are no other combinations for those two traits. It's perfectly acceptable for one being to be in two places at once... that's comprehendable.... but it shows that they have different minds, therefore aren't the same being... they are two different minds, in different places, therefore are seperate individuals... just like Jesus said throughout the bible. What's so hard to fathom about "trust what Jesus directly said over what a priest interprets he really meant."

Actually, the Aquafresh example has to be looked at a certain way. To be Aquafresh, there has to be green, red, and white. The green, red, and white all together is Aquafresh toothpaste. One substance called Aquafresh. Taking away one color no longer makes it Aquafresh. However, all 3 different colors have job. That is how the analogy works.

Also, you say it is fathomable to know of a being in two different places, but that means there are two different minds. Then explain to me how the Holy Spirit can be multiple places at the same time. Does that mean the Holy Spirit has multiple minds? Or that there are multiple Holy Spirits?

And I still don't understand why you must insist that we can conceive something just because we are made in there likeness. Why? Because we are imperfect. We can only think on a certain level. We may be a likeness, but the likeness is so small compared to God Himself. Can you truly conceive of their being no time? Can you truly conceive of knowing everything? Can you really conceive of being everywhere at once? Can you truly conceive of the full love, mercy, and grace God gives to us?

 

[Der Alte]

. . .[SIZE=-1]1st: Just want to point out the flame... I'm not reporting it... but remember that I'm not taking that exit, so if I say anything that pushes your buttons, I'd expect you not to go mod-crying... and if you do, be prepared for me to point this out in responce[/SIZE]. . .

Nope, no flame in that post. A flame is when someone insults another person, criticizing the content of posts is permissible. But any time you think I have flamed, report me, because I will certainly report people who flame me.

[SIZE=-1]2nd: Rev 3:21 ... here Jesus is inviting people to sit with him in his Father's thrown... i.e. aparently it's big enough for multiple people=just because he's sitting in a chair, doesn't mean he's God. Notice, he still calls it his Father's thrown, not his own... even while he's in heaven. -1 arguement for the son being "God incarnate on earth" then becoming God again in heaven... because even while IN heaven, he differentiates himself from his Father[/SIZE].

There is ONE throne in heaven, there is ONE on the throne and Jesus is set down, present tense, with the Father.

[SIZE=-1]Note: 'I am going to the father' not 'to become' or 'overtake' or anything like that. He is going TO his father=he is not the person he is going to[/SIZE].

That's right ONE God, three distinct persona.

[SIZE=-1]also the simple statement "the Father is greater than I"[/SIZE]

Rodney J. Decker M.Div., Th.M., Th.D., Assoc. Professor of New Testament Baptist Bible Seminary,

II. Key Christological questions
When and how did Christ exist in "the morfhv" [MORFH] of God?
Was Christ "equal" with God; did he not desire to e "equal with God"; did Christ remain "equal with God" or forfeit his equality with God?
Of what, if anything, did Christ "empty himself" (kenovw [KENOW])? How did the human oJmoivwma/sch'ma/morfhvv [hOMOIWMA/SCHMA/MORFH] affect Christ's person/nature? Does Christ still possess a human oJmoivwma/sch'ma/morfhvv [hOMOIWMA/SCHMA/MORFH]?
III. Key meaning of key words
A. The meaning of morfhv [MORFH] ("form")
1. Meaning based on classical Greek philosophy: "attributes"
Lightfoot is a classic example of those who base the meaning of morfhv [MORFH] on Greek philosophy. He explains that it refers to "the specific character" (129); that "morfhv [MORFH] must apply to the attributes of the Godhead" (132). "In Gk philosophical literature, morfhv [MORFH] acquires a fixed and central place in the thought of Aristotle. For him the term becomes equal to a thing's essence (oujsiva) [OUSIA] or nature (fuvsi") [FUSIS]."{1}

For years I tried . . . to maintain the view of Lightfoot that Paul here uses morfhv [MORFH] with the sense it had acquired in Greek philosophy, particularly Aristotelian, and which Murray speaks of as "existence form . . . the sum of those characterizing qualities that make a thing the precise thing that it is." Lightfoot wrote: "though morfhv [MORFH] is not the same as fuvsi" [FUSIS] or oujsiva [OUSIA], yet the possession of the morfhv [MORFH] involves participation in the oujsiva [OUSIA] also for morfhv [MORFH] implies not the external accidents but the essential attributes." But I have had to conclude that there is really very little evidence to support the conclusion that Paul uses morfhv [MORFH] in such a philosophical sense here and that my determination to hold on to that interpretation was really rooted in its attractiveness theologically.{2}

2. Meaning based on the LXX: "visible form"
A much more likely context in which to understand morfhv [MORFH] is biblical Greek. Phil. 2:6, 7 are the only two occurrences of morfhv [MORFH] in the NT{3}, so there is no NT context that will help. Instead the LXX text must be used. There are four uses there: Judg. 8:18; Job 4:16; Isa. 44:13; Dan. 3:19.{4} Although this does not represent a large number of uses,{5} it does provide a consistent picture of the use of morfhv [MORFH]. In each instance the word refers to the visible form of the individual so described, not to his essential attributes. "Meager though the biblical evidence is, it is sufficient to make a prima facie case for the reference to a visible manifestation."{6}

B. The meaning of i[so" [ISOS] ("equal")
The best parallel with the use of i[so" in reference to Jesus is John 5:17-18.{7}

Joh 5:17 [SIZE=+1]ο δε ιησους απεκρινατο αυτοις ο πατηρ μου εως αρτι εργαζεται καγω εργαζομαι[/SIZE]
Joh 5:18 [SIZE=+1]δια τουτο ουν μαλλον εζητουν αυτον οι ιουδαιοι αποκτειναι οτι ου μονον ελυεν το σαββατον αλλα και πατερα ιδιον ελεγεν τον θεον ισον εαυτον ποιων τω θεω[/SIZE]

[Note, the exact same word in this verse as in Php 2:6. DA]

Augustine comments to the effect that the Jews understand what the Arians [and their descendants the J.W.s!] cannot seem to grasp: that Jesus claimed to be truly God. "In 5:18 i[so" [ISOS] expresses . . . the equality of dignity, will and nature which the later term oJmoouvsio" [hOMOOUSIOS] was designed to defend. . . . it denotes an equality which is both essential and perfect." (TDNT 3:353). "At Phil. 2:6 the i[sa has all the significance of the concept of equality in Jn. 5:18" (Ibid.). The theological questions raised by Phil. 2 "can be answered only in light of the i[sa ei\nai qew'/ [ISA EINAI QEWi]. Christ was and is equal to God by nature. This equality is a possession which He can neither renounce nor lose" (ibid.).

http://faculty.bbc.edu/rdecker/rd_ken.htm

G2470 [SIZE=+1]ισος[/SIZE] isos
Thayer Definition:
1) equal, in quantity or quality​

Did the Jews try to kill Jesus because he was trying to make himself "like" God? Anyone can find a version, somewhere, that will support just about any view. Look around the JWs did it, the LDS did it.

Joh 5:18 Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself [SIZE=+1]equal[/SIZE] with God.​

 

[pentecostal]

i am by no means justifying the Trinity because I am a oneness believer. I haven't read all the post on this thread but from reading the thread starters first post it appears that he doesn't consider the man Jesus to be God. Let me point out a scripture to you bro.
1 Timothy 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, recieved up into glory.

Also,
John 10:30 I and my Father are one.

Also,
Colossians 2:9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

Also,
Revalations 1:8 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and whichwas and which is to come, the Almighty. (Jesus speaking)

Also,
Revalations 1:11-17

Matthew 28:18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, all power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.

 

[buddy mack]

i am by no means justifying the Trinity because I am a oneness believer. I haven't read all the post on this thread but from reading the thread starters first post it appears that he doesn't consider the man Jesus to be God. Let me point out a scripture to you bro.
1 Timothy 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, recieved up into glory.

Also,
John 10:30 I and my Father are one.

Also,
Colossians 2:9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

Also,
Revalations 1:8 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and whichwas and which is to come, the Almighty. (Jesus speaking)

Also,
Revalations 1:11-17

Matthew 28:18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, all power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.

i am not goin to take up this debate with a ventriqulist

 

[The Gregorian]

Also, you say it is fathomable to know of a being in two different places, but that means there are two different minds. Then explain to me how the Holy Spirit can be multiple places at the same time. Does that mean the Holy Spirit has multiple minds? Or that there are multiple Holy Spirits?

No... I can accept someone of one mind being in multiple places... God being everywhere, and whatnot... by 'different minds' I'm referring to the scripture saying something along the lines of 'no one knows the day or the hour, not even the son, only the father.' I quoted it a few posts back. that's what makes me believe they have seperate minds, because the father knows at least something that the son doesn't know.

I don't understand what constitutes them as being 'one' if they have seperate minds, seperate bodies, and one is greater than the other. At least beyond the 'one' used to discribe a husband and wife in the bible (it says the two would become 'one' ... this doesn't mean you physically become your wife... you just stop being two individuals and become one married couple... composed of the same two individuals you started out as.) In this way, there could be only 'one god' and both indivudals (father and son) could still be it, if 'god' is just a union between the two (or three)... but in that case, while Jesus was dead, the father was not god... and that isn't something I want to suggest.

And I still don't understand why you must insist that we can conceive something just because we are made in there likeness. Why? Because we are imperfect. We can only think on a certain level. We may be a likeness, but the likeness is so small compared to God Himself. Can you truly conceive of their being no time? Can you truly conceive of knowing everything? Can you really conceive of being everywhere at once? Can you truly conceive of the full love, mercy, and grace God gives to us?

If we're made in his image and he sent his son down for 30+ years to teach us about him... I'd just think at SOME point he'd mention "by the way... I am the father in human form" or "My father and I will be equal after I'm ressurected into heaven" or "I will become god again after I'm raised." or SOMETHING along those lines... give us some hint to that... but he specifically said "the father's greater than I." that he'd go sit in a submissive position to his father after he was raised (sitting at his right hand), etc. If we're in his image, we should be able to at least fathom who he is.

And, yes, I can conceive him being everywhere at once. That's fully explainable, that's completely possible. That's easy to understand. I can completely imagine the idea of him being eternal... the concept of him 'never being created' and having no beginning is aparently hard for some people, but that's easy to accept if you think about it.... every other part of God that has been explained for us is pretty simple if you think about it.... but the idea that "my son is me, but less than me, and with a different mind and body, yet the same as me" goes against every other example in reality.

 

[The Gregorian]

There is ONE throne in heaven, there is ONE on the throne and Jesus is set down, present tense, with the Father.

Where does it say there is only one throne in heaven? Where, in the bible, does it specify that the throne is a seat where only one can sit? The verse YOU quoted showed Jesus inviting humans to sit with him, does that mean all those who go to heaven and sit with him are God?

Augustine comments to the effect that the Jews understand what the Arians [and their descendants the J.W.s!] cannot seem to grasp: that Jesus claimed to be truly God. "In 5:18 i[so" [ISOS] expresses . . . the equality of dignity, will and nature which the later term oJmoouvsio" [hOMOOUSIOS] was designed to defend. . . . it denotes an equality which is both essential and perfect." (TDNT 3:353).

Lots of words don't constitute a lucid arguement. You claim Jesus claims to be truly God... where... IN THE BIBLE does he say this? I'm not familiar with TDNT 3:353 as a verse in the bible.

Did the Jews try to kill Jesus because he was trying to make himself "like" God? Anyone can find a version, somewhere, that will support just about any view. Look around the JWs did it, the LDS did it.

Joh 5:18 Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself [size=+1]equal[/size] with God.​

​

Yes... that's what the jews ASSUMED... Jesus CORRECTED them. Here's another explanation:

Der Alter.... Do you have a Father? I assume yes. Are you litterally your father? I assume no. Claiming someone is your FATHER does not mean you are claiming to BE that person. Likewise... Jesus claimed to be god's SON... some jews thought that meant he was as powerful as God, therefore God's equal, and went to stone him... he corrected them stating that he was SENT by God, NOT by himself... that the father was greater than he was... hearing him say that he WASN'T equal to God made them NOT stone him.

easy enough?

 

[The Gregorian]

the thread starters first post it appears that he doesn't consider the man Jesus to be God. Let me point out a scripture to you bro

Correct, I believe what Jesus said. He is God's son.

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

that's a pretty funny translation

every translation I'm comparing says things along the lines of:

16 And without argument, great is the secret of religion: He who was seen in the flesh, who was given God's approval in the spirit, was seen by the angels, of whom the good news was given among the nations, in whom the world had faith, who was taken up in glory.

And most certainly, the mystery of godliness is great: He was manifested in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen by angels, preached among the Gentiles, believed on in the world, taken up in glory.

Either way, I'm assuming you're using the new KJV... read the footnote next to where the word 'god' appears there:NU-Text reads Who.

That's a blatent mistranslation.

But, for a second, let's assume it isn't one. If Jesus is the Father manifest in human form, then that means while Jesus was on earth, there was no God (other than him). That means during his baptism, the Father didn't really say "this is my son, the beloved, whom I have approved." That means ALL the times Jesus was praying to his Father, He was really praying to himself. That means when he said he came, not from his own will, but from the will of his father, he was blatently lying... That means before he was executed, and he was praying in Mark 14:36:

And he said, Abba, Father, all things are possible to you; take away this cup from me: but even so let not my pleasure, but yours be done.

he was asking himself what his own will was... etc.

The idea of Jesus "being God incarnate in human flesh" is not only illogical... but blasphamy according to Simonline... ask him.

Also,
John 10:30 I and my Father are one.
[/uote]

Read further down the chapter. It also says 'let them all be one, even as you and I are one.' Jesus is asking his father to let all ofhis fathers to be 'one' with them just as they are one with eachother. 'One,' in this case, doesn't mean that they are the same person but 'one' as in a married couple... remember the bible says that men would go taking wives and they would become 'one flesh'... however when we get married... we become one team... but not one actual two headed person.

Colossians 2:9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

read the surrounding verses:

8 Take care that no one takes you away by force, through man's wisdom and deceit, going after the beliefs of men and the theories of the world, and not after Christ: 9 For in him all the wealth of God's being has a living form, 10 And you are complete in him, who is the head of all rule and authority:

this isn't talking about Jesus being in a godhead... it's talking about PEOPLE living their lives in a holy way, aka, living in rightousness, aka, living in the wealth of God's being. This is because you're being guided by God (and company), therefore you live in his "wealth."

Revalations 1:8 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and whichwas and which is to come, the Almighty. (Jesus speaking)

read the context:

6 And has made us to be a kingdom and priests to his God and Father; to him let glory and power be given for ever and ever. So be it. 7 See, he comes with the clouds, and every eye will see him, and those by whom he was wounded; and all the tribes of the earth will be sorrowing because of him. Yes, so be it. 8 I am the First and the Last, says the Lord God who is and was and is to come, the Ruler of all.

Yes... they were talking about Jesus... about how... while he was in heaven, he has made a kingdom and priests for his God and Father (note while in heaven he isn't God, his father is his God.) But look at the verse closely:

it says what Jesus is doing: making priests and a kingdom for his Father; for him let theire be glory, etc. It's talking about Jesus wanting glory to be to God, etc. The last part is God talking, not Jesus. I'll change the subjects for the illustration:

I am going shopping to by something for my wife. I got her flowers and a book; let her enjoy these flowers and not be mad at me for not doing the dishes. She is a good person and doesn't look fat in that dress. yes, so be it. "thank you for the flowers."

That would be the wife, that I just spent the last few verses explining, talking.

The section starts out saying what Jesus is doing for the Father, then it discribes the Father, then the Father speaks.

Matthew 28:18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, all power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.

Yes, his Father granted him authority over many things. He can grant anyone this authority. note: Jesus never said "I am the source" of any of the miricals he did... he specified that his Father allowed him to do all the things he accomplished. Yes... he had great power... granted to him by his father.

You don't "grant" yourself powers, therefore he isn't the person who granted himself the powers (God). Therefore he isn't God.... rather, God's son.

 

[BMac14]

I still believe they are one being perhaps the 3 persons can best be summed up with the word 3 minds if you want. Three different functions, one mind for each.

And I know you can conceive of some of these things, but can you "completely" conceive of something that transcends time or the other things I mentioned? I highly doubt it because we have never experienced nor will we come close to experiencing it here on Earth.

The idea of Jesus "being God incarnate in human flesh" is not only illogical... but blasphamy according to Simonline... ask him.

[\Quote]

Why is this illogical? I've seen you say that if Jesus was God incarnate, then God didn't exist during then. But yet, you say God can be everywhere at once. Plus, with reference to the trinity, I think it makes plenty of since. The Father would still be in Heaven, while the Son does His job on Earth. To you it is illogical, while to me it is logical. And by the way, I could care less that Simonline think it is blasphamy.

 

[Der Alte]

. . .[SIZE=-1]nore, have I ever encountered a trinitarian who could accurately state the nature of the trinity.... in fact, they say one thing... I show them a verse... they say "ohh... uhhh... well, what I meant was..." I show them another verse... and they inescapably cop out to "well they are all seperate... but yet, one."

Let's compare, I'll state my belief of the relationship between God and his Son, and you give a similarly short, and clear discription of the trinity. Ready? Here I go:

Jesus is God's son.

Now, sum up what the trinity is, and I'll bet you MANY trinitarians will disagree with you[/SIZE]. . .

I have already provided definitions for the Trinity, several times, on this forum, here is a link to the most recent. Go there and respond, or copy one or more definitions here, and give it your best shot.

http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=15838640&postcount=402

But you have already stated what you are going to do and I really have no interest in playing that game. I prefer a reasoned discussion of scripture, instead of, “Here is one verse/question that utterly, completely, absolutely, totally, destroys the doctrine of the Trinity. And no Trinitarian can answer it.” That type of argument will always fail.

Why not save us both a lot of time by doing some homework first? This is how it is going to go down, you will post one or more out-of-context proof texts, and because there is no need for me to reinvent the wheel, I will go to one of my sources, and respond. These sources have addressed virtually every anti-Trinitarian objection/proof text ever conceived, you have absolutely nothing new. All your arguments have been addressed years and years before. My two primary sources are, Christian Think Tank, online, and The Trinity: Evidence and Issues, Robert Morey, unfortunately, not online.

I googled on, “Antitrinitarian proof texts refuted,” and found several more sources, these two appear to be very comprehensive, “Reachout Trust” and “Lazarus Unbound”

[size=-1]Jesus is God's son.[/size]

Jesus is God!

Robertson's Word Pictures of the New Testament – John 1:18
No man hath seen God at any time ([size=+1]θεον ουδεις εωρακεν πωποτε[/size]/theon oudeis eoraken popote). "God no one has ever seen." Perfect active indicative of [size=+1]οραω[/size]/horaōw. Seen with the human physical eye, John means. God is invisible (Exodus 33:20; Deuteronomy 4:12). Paul calls God [size=+1]αορατος[/size]/aoratos ( Colossians 1:15; 1 Timothy 1:17). John repeats the idea in John 5:37; John 6:46. And yet in John 14:7 Jesus claims that the one who sees him has seen the Father as here. The only begotten Son ([size=+1]ο μονογενης υιος[/size]/o monogenhs uios. This is the reading of the Textus Receptus and is intelligible after [size=+1]ως μονογενους παρα πατρος[/size]/os monogenous para patros in verse John 14. But the best old Greek manuscripts (Aleph B C L) read [size=+1]μονογενης θεος[/size]/monogenes theos (God only begotten) which is undoubtedly the true text. Probably some scribe changed it to [size=+1]ο μονογενης υιος[/size]/o monogenes uios to obviate the blunt statement of the deity of Christ and to make it like John 3:16. But there is an inner harmony in the reading of the old uncials. The Logos is plainly called [size=+1]θεος[/size]/theos in verse John 1. The Incarnation is stated in verse John 14, where he is also termed [size=+1]μονογενης[/size]/monogenes. He was that before the Incarnation. So he is "God only begotten,"

Nestle-Aland 26 -Joh 1:18 [size=+1]θεον ουδεις εωρακεν πωποτε· μονογενης θεος ο ων εις τον κολπον του πατρος εκεινος εξηγησατο.[/size]

ASV CEV ISV NIV RSVA Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word [size=+1]was[/size] God.

CEV Joh 1:18 No one has ever seen God. The only Son, who is truly God and is closest to the Father, has shown us what God is like.

ISV Joh 1:18 No one has ever seen God. The unique God, who is close to the Father's side, has revealed him.

NIV Joh 1:18 No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father's side, has made him known.

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

Jesus referred to as Yahweh.

Ro 10:13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord [[size=+1]יהוה[/size]] shall be saved. [Joel 2:32]

Joh 20:28 Thomas said to him [Jesus], "My Lord and my God!"
[Gk: the God of me and the Lord of me.]

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

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

Robertson - Of our God and Saviour Jesus Christ - 2 Pet 1:1 ([size=+1]του θεου ημων και σωτηρος ημων ιησου χριστου[/size]/tou theou hēmōn kai sōtēros Iēsou Christou). So the one article ([size=+1]του[/size]/tou) with [size=+1][/size]θεου/theou and [size=+1]σωτηρος[/size]/sōtēros requires precisely as with [size=+1]του κυριου ημων και σωτηρος ιησου χριστου[/size]/tou kuriou hēmōn kai sōtēros Iēsou Christou (of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ), one person, not two, in 2Pe 1:11 as in 2Pe 2:20; 2Pe 3:2, 2Pe 3:18. So in 1Pe_1:3 we have [size=+1]ο θεος και πατηρ[/size]/ho theos kai patēr (the God and Father), one person, not two. The grammar is uniform and inevitable (Robertson, Grammar, p. 786), as even Schmiedel (Winer-Schmiedel, Grammatik, p. 158) admits: “Grammar demands that one person be meant.”

Addressed to the Son,

Heb 1:10 And, Thou, Lord, [[size=+1]יהוה[/size]] in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands: [Ps. 102:25]​

 

[Der Alte]

In response to another Gregorian post, this thread, which I don't feel like looking up. Does John in Revelation portray Jesus as God or a person distinct from God?

Rev 1: 7 Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him [size=+1]*[/size] and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen.
8 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty. • • •​

[size=+1]*[/size] vs. 7, When was God, “the Almighty,” ever pierced?

10 I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day, and heard behind me a great voice, as of a trumpet,
11 Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last[size=+1]*[/size]: and, What thou seest, write in a book, and send it unto the seven churches which are in Asia; unto Ephesus, and unto Smyrna, and unto Pergamos, and unto Thyatira, and unto Sardis, and unto Philadelphia, and unto Laodicea. • • •​

[size=+1]*[/size] vs. 11, 17. How many “the first” and “the last” can there be, cf. Isa 44:6?

17 And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as dead. And he laid his right hand upon me, saying unto me, Fear not; I am the first and the last:[size=+1]*[/size]
18 I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore,[size=+1]*[/size] Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.​

[size=+1]*[/size] vs. 17, “the first and the last” was dead but is alive for evermore.

Rev 21:5 And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true and faithful.
6 And he said unto me, It is done. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely.[size=+1]*[/size]
7 He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son.

John 4:10 Jesus answered and said unto her, If thou knewest the gift of God, and who it is that saith to thee, Give me to drink; thou wouldest have asked of him, and he would have given thee living water [size=+1]*[/size].
• • •
13 Jesus answered and said unto her, Whosoever drinketh of this water shall thirst again:
14 But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life[size=+1]*[/size].

John 7:38 He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water. [size=+1]*[/size]​

Rev 22:13 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last*. [*cf. Isa 44:6]
14 Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.
15 For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie.
16 I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.​

The Alpha and Omega, the first and the last, the Almighty, who was pierced, who was dead but is alive for evermore, who gives the water of life, He, i.e. one, that sat on the throne said, “I will be his God.” cf. Deut 4:35, 39; Isa 43:10-11, 44:6, 8; 40:25, 45:5, 6, 21-22; 46:5,9.

I referred to one of these passages, above, but they are a matched set and I didn't want to break up the set.

Deu 4:35 Unto thee it was shewed, that thou mightest know that the LORD [[size=+1]יהוה[/size]] he is God; there is none else beside him.

Deu 4:39 Know therefore this day, and consider it in thine heart, that the LORD [[size=+1]יהוה[/size]] he is God in heaven above, and upon the earth beneath: there is none else.

Isa 43:10 Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, [[size=+1]יהוה[/size]] and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.
11 I, even I, am the LORD; [[size=+1]יהוה[/size]] and beside me there is no saviour.

Isa 44:6 Thus saith the LORD [[size=+1]יהוה[/size]] the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD [[size=+1]יהוה[/size]] of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.

Isa 44:8 Fear ye not, neither be afraid: have not I told thee from that time, and have declared it? ye are even my witnesses. Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any.

Isa 45:5 I am the LORD, [[size=+1]יהוה[/size]] and there is none else, there is no God beside me: I girded thee, though thou hast not known me:
6 That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that there is none beside me. I am the LORD, [[size=+1]יהוה[/size]] and there is none else.[/b]

Isa 45:21 Tell ye, and bring them near; yea, let them take counsel together: who hath declared this from ancient time? who hath told it from that time? have not I the LORD? [[size=+1]יהוה[/size]] and there is no God else beside me; a just God and a Saviour; there is none beside me.
22 Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else.

Isa 40:25 To whom then will ye liken me, or shall I be equal? saith the Holy One.

Isa 46:5 To whom will ye liken me, and make me equal, and compare me, that we may be like?

Isa 46:9 Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me,​

Paul said Jesus was equal to or like God, Philp 2:6.