trinity question

[jeffC]

Then of course we can discuss the 40 or so verses which are addressed to [SIZE=+1]יהוה[/SIZE]/YHWH” in the O.T. applied to Jesus in the N.T.

Jesus was in fact YHWH in the OT. Where in the N.T does Jesus teach that The Father He refered to was YHWH?

 

[The Gregorian]

In what way do you assume Jesus is reffered to as YHVH in the O.T? I'd really like to hear this.

You guys are really good at "when the bible says this it really means something completely different that agrees with what my pastor says" but still no direct comment.

The verse says "There is one God, The father." That is a DIRECT statement saying the father is God (theos/YHVH/adonai) the son is not (he is lord/kurios/adoni). Likewise the many times Jesus refused worship saying "the father is greater than I." Are you honestly claiming that Jesus was lying?

I believe Jesus... he is divine, he is the son of God... but he is the SON of God, not God himself. The Father is greater than the Son.

 

[Bananna]

Cool wish I could write the Greek and Hebrew instead of the transliteration.

Der Alter
I dearly would love to know what manuscript you are using for the translation of John 1:18, because it is different from The Textus Receptus.

First off being "translated to" and "being equal in meaning" is not the same. The pronunciation of a word, is even in English, qualified by the sentence structure a word is in.
I want to READ a book.
I have REaD a book.
One must translate in context.

Just because the oral traditions were not written down, did not make the Jews some how conspirators to hide the truth. God chose to use Israel to teach the Nations about himself and he still does. Because GOD cannot change what HE says he will do.

...Joh 1:18 No one has seen God [θεος] at any time; the only begotten God [θεος] who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.

And before you even think about arguing that the second θεος/theos in John 1:1 does not have the definite article. Read John 1:18, carefully, the first theos" does not have the definite article but the second one does. ....

Theon - God (Masculine acc. singular)
oudeis - not one (mas. indecl. singular)
eo'raken - to lift up/ root word halter.)
po'pote - ever yet (indec.)
o - the that (masc nom sg proclitic indeclform)
monogene's - only begotten
uios - son
o - the that
o'n - existing (pres part act masc nom sg )
eis - in/ into
ton - the/that (masc acc sg indeclform)
kolpon - bosom
tou - any one thing
patros - Father
ekenos -that person or thing
exe'ge'sato - lead out ahead, up hold, DECLARE, recount)

from the BLBKJV 1550 version.
Wescott 1881 says it is
Theon oudeis eo'raken po'pote [...]monogene's [theos] o o'n eis ton kolpn tou patros ekenos exe'ge'sato.
So instead of "THE only begotten" it is just "only begotten God"


We have seen this "only Begotten" terminology before in scriptures.

Gen 22:2 And he said, Take now thy son, thine only [son] Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of.

\Gen 22:16 And said, By myself have I sworn, saith the LORD, for because thou hast done this thing, and hast not withheld thy son, thine only [son]:

Did not Isaac have Ishmael his brother, who was also Abraham's son? Here only son means only son of faith. Hagar’s name is changed to Keturah and she has even more children by Abraham after the death of Sara, but still Isaac is considered an only son.

Jacob only recognizes the two sons of Rachel as his sons of his one wife. Though he had 12 sons and two wives and two concubines.

Yehoshuah (Jesus) is the Son of David. Does that mean that David was his direct father...? No! Scripture is not subject to ones own interpretation. Understanding must be built from the foundation up. You cannot form theology and then go to find the scriptures that prove it. You also do well to start with the Scriptures in Genesis and work your way to Revelation, rather than the other way around.

All of us are Elohim... made in image of Elohanu and He breathed into us life. With out this we would be just animals with no fellowship with THE YHVH. We are flesh and blood, but YHVH is not flesh and blood, nor can HE change. Elohim in us does not make us gods plural or even one with God. To be one with God we must be filled with His Spirit walking in Torah.

Now the word of God is living and active sharper than a two edged sword. That is TORAH. So too is the word of God in John 1:1 is that God and his Torah are on in the same, to know God is to know Torah is to know God. I believe you diverge from correct interpretation by saying that word of God in John 1:1 is equivalent and interchangeable with Jesus’ name.
JMO
bananna

 

[jeffC]

In what way do you assume Jesus is reffered to as YHVH in the O.T?

I believe Jesus... he is divine, he is the son of God... but he is the SON of God, not God himself. The Father is greater than the Son.

Yes, Jesus is divine - He is a God: "IN the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." (John 1:1) This is because Jesus was an heir to all that the Father is. (Philip 2:6; Col 2:9; Heb 1:2; John 10:30)

Nonetheless, Jesus is not God the Father. As you point out, Jesus said His Father was greater than Himself. Jesus also said "Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God." (John 20:17)


I don't know where in the OT the LORD is identified as Jesus - that doesn't mean its not (or never was) there, but I'm not aware of it if it's there. Then again, I'm not aware of where in the OT it teaches that "there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one." (1 Jn 5:7), despite the fact that "in the beginning was the Word." No doctrine concerning a trinity is given in our OT, that I'm aware of (anyone, correct me please). It is in the NT that we learn of God the Father and Jesus as two different Gods, so it is also from the NT that we learn which one was LORD in the OT.


But from the NT it is very clear that Jesus was the LORD spoken of in the OT:

A. Both claim to be Alpha and Omega, the first and the last:

Isa. 48:12 Hearken unto me, O Jacob and Israel, my called; I am he; I am the first, I also am the last.

Rev 1:8 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.



Rev 1:17,18 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: I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.

Rev 22:13,16 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.... I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches.

Who sent his angel? "and the Lord God of the holy prophets sent his angel to shew unto his servants the things which must shortly be done." (v.6)

Jesus is the Alpha and Omega; Jesus is the first and the last; Jesus is the Lord God of the holy prophets


B. Who is the author of eternal salvation?
Isa 43:11 I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour.

Isa 45:17,21 But Israel shall be saved in the LORD with an everlasting salvation: ye shall not be ashamed nor confounded world without end.... there is no God else beside me; a just God and a Saviour; there is none beside me. Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else.


Heb. 5:9 And being made perfect, [Jesus] became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;

Acts 4:11 Neither is there salvation in any other [than Jesus]: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.


C. Who will judge the earth?
Psalms 96:10,13 Say among the heathen that the LORD reigneth: the world also shall be established that it shall not be moved: he shall judge the people righteously. Before the LORD: for he cometh, for he cometh to judge the earth: he shall judge the world with righteousness, and the people with his truth.

Ecl. 3:17 I said in mine heart, God shall judge the righteous and the wicked: for there is a time there for every purpose and for every work.


John 5:22 For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son:

Rom 14:10-12 for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ. For it is written[in the OT!], As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God. So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God.

To whom will every knee bow? "at the name of Jesus every knee should bow." (Philip 2:10)


the LORD Jesus will judge the earth.

 

[liljon]

Jesus never refused worshipped. Plus to say That Only The Father is God you must also believe that the Father isn't Lord which contadicts 1 timothy 6.

 

[jeffC]

Jesus never refused worshipped. Plus to say That Only The Father is God you must also believe that the Father isn't Lord which contadicts 1 timothy 6.

Jesus is worthy of worship. Jesus is also our God because He, the Father and the Holy Ghost form the Godhead (Col 2:9). At the same time, Jesus taught His Father's greatness over Himself (John 14:12, 10:29, Matt. 19:17), and emphasised the Father's will over His own (Luke 22:42). Even the risen Jesus demonstrated deference to His Father (John 20:16-17). This is why Paul states that there is one God, and one Lord Jesus Christ (1 Cor 8:6).

God The Father is Jesus' Lord. Gr. kurios (lord) means master. Jesus identified the Father as His God in John 20:17. 1 Tim 6 emphasises, more than anything else, the seperate entities of the Father and Jesus Christ.

 

[Bananna]

Jesus never refused worshipped. Plus to say That Only The Father is God you must also believe that the Father isn't Lord which contadicts 1 timothy 6.

So is David God because he was called lord?

Lord is a term which is used in so many ways it cannot be equated to a singular title of YHVH.

 

[Der Alte]

[size=-1]Cool wish I could write the Greek and Hebrew instead of the transliteration.[/size]

Get a Bible program like E-Sword, which is free, that has the Hebrew OT and the Greek NT, or find an online source such as Biola, which has both, then copy paste.

[size=-1]Der Alter
I dearly would love to know what manuscript you are using for the translation of John 1:18, because it is different from The Textus Receptus.[/size]

Several sources, here are three.

Robertson Word Pictures in the N.T. John 1:18 {No man hath seen God at any time} (\theon oudeis he“raken p“pote\). "God no one has ever seen." Perfect active indicative of \hora“\. Seen with the human physical eye, John means. God is invisible (Ex 33:20; De 4:12). Paul calls God \aoratos\ (Col 15; 1Ti 1:17). John repeats the idea in Joh 5:37; 6:46. And yet in 14:7 Jesus claims that the one who sees him has seen the Father as here.

{The only begotten Son} (\ho monogenˆs huios\). This is the reading of the Textus Receptus and is intelligible after \h“s monogenous para patros\ in verse 14. But the best old Greek manuscripts (Aleph B C L) read \monogenˆs theos\ (God only begotten) which is undoubtedly the true text. Probably some scribe changed it to \ho monogenˆs huios\ to obviate the blunt statement of the deity of Christ and to make it like 3:16. But there is an inner harmony in the reading of the old uncials. The Logos is plainly called \theos\ in verse 1. The Incarnation is stated in verse 14, where he is also termed \monogenˆs\. He was that before the Incarnation. So he is "God only begotten," "the Eternal Generation of the Son" of Origen's phrase.

{Which is in the bosom of the Father} (\ho “n eis ton kolpon tou patros\). The eternal relation of the Son with the Father like \pros ton theon\ in verse 1. In 3:13 there is some evidence for \ho “n en t“I ouran“i\ used by Christ of himself while still on earth. The mystic sense here is that the Son is qualified to reveal the Father as Logos (both the Father in Idea and Expression) by reason of the continual fellowship with the Father. {He} (\ekinos\). Emphatic pronoun referring to the Son.

{Hath declared him} (\exˆgˆsato\). First aorist (effective) middle indicative of \exˆgeomai\, old verb to lead out, to draw out in narrative, to recount. Here only in John, though once in Luke's Gospel (24:35) and four times in Ac (10:8; 15:12,14; 21:19). This word fitly closes the Prologue in which the Logos is pictured in marvellous fashion as the Word of God in human flesh, the Son of God with the Glory of God in him, showing men who God is and what he is.

<>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <><

Translation notes - New English Translation, John 1:18

45tc The textual problem monogenhV" qeov" (monogenh" qeo", “the only God”) versus oJ monogenhV" uiJov" (Jo monogenh" Juio", “the only son”) is a notoriously difficult one. Only one letter would have differentiated the readings in the mss, since both words would have been contracted as nomina sacra: thus qMs or uMs. Externally, there are several variants, but they can be grouped essentially by whether they read qeov" or uiJov". The majority of mss, especially the later ones (A C3 Q Y Ë1,13 Ï lat), read oJ monogenhV" uiJov". Ì75 Í1 33 pc have oJ monogenhV" qeov", while the anarthrous monogenhV" qeov" is found in Ì66 Í* B C* L pc. The articular qeov" is almost certainly a scribal emendation to the anarthrous qeov", for qeov" without the article is a much harder reading. The external evidence thus strongly supports monogenhV" qeov". Internally, although uiJov" fits the immediate context more readily, qeov" is much more difficult. As well, qeov" also explains the origin of the other reading (uiJov"), because it is difficult to see why a scribe who found uiJov" in the text he was copying would alter it to qeov". Scribes would naturally change the wording to uiJov" however, since monogenhV" uiJov" is a uniquely Johannine christological title (cf. John 3:16, 18; 1 John 4:9). But qeov" as the older and more difficult reading is preferred. As for translation, it makes the most sense to see the word qeov" as in apposition to monogenhv", and the participle oJ w[n (Jo wn) as in apposition to qeov", giving in effect three descriptions of Jesus rather than only two. (B. D. Ehrman, The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture, 81, suggests that it is nearly impossible and completely unattested in the NT for an adjective followed immediately by a noun that agrees in gender, number, and case, to be a substantival adjective: “when is an adjective ever used substantivally when it immediately precedes a noun of the same inflection?” This, however, is an overstatement. First, as Ehrman admits, monogenhv" in John 1:14 is substantival. And since it is an established usage for the adjective in this context, one might well expect that the author would continue to use the adjective substantivally four verses later. Indeed, monogenhv" is already moving toward a crystallized substantival adjective in the NT [cf. Luke 9:38; Heb 11:17]; in patristic Greek, the process continued [cf. PGL 881 s.v. 7]. Second, there are several instances in the NT in which a substantival adjective is followed by a noun with which it has complete concord: cf., e.g., Rom 1:30; Gal 3:9; 1 Tim 1:9; 2 Pet 2:5.) The modern translations which best express this are the NEB (margin) and TEV. Several things should be noted: monogenhv" alone, without uiJov", can mean “only son,” “unique son,” “unique one,” etc. (see 1:14). Furthermore, qeov" is anarthrous. As such it carries qualitative force much like it does in 1:1c, where qeoV" h\n oJ lovgo" (qeo" hn Jo logo") means “the Word was fully God” or “the Word was fully of the essence of deity.” Finally, oJ w[n occurs in Rev 1:4, 8; 4:8, 11:17; and 16:5, but even more significantly in the LXX of Exod 3:14. Putting all of this together leads to the translation given in the text.

<>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <><

Vincent Word Studies. John 1:18. No man hath seen God at any time (Qeo<n oujdei<v eJw>raken >pote). God is first in the Greek order, as emphatic: “God hath no man ever seen.” As to the substance of the statement, compare 3:11; Exodus 33:20; 1 John 4:12. Manifestations of God to Old Testament saints were only partial and approximate (Exodus 33:23). The seeing intended here is seeing of the divine essence rather than of the divine person, which also is indicated by the absence of the article from Qeo<n, God. In this sense even Christ was not seen as God. The verb oJra>w, to see, denotes a physical act, but emphasizes the mental discernment accompanying it, and points to the result rather than to the act of vision. In 1 John 1:1; 4:12, 14, 882 qea>omai is used, denoting calm and deliberate contemplation (see on ver. 14). In 12:45, we have qewre>w, to behold (see on Mark 5:15; Luke 10:18). Both qea>omai and qewre>w imply deliberate contemplation, but the former is gazing with a view to satisfy the eye, while the latter is beholding more critically, with an inward spiritual or mental interest in the thing beheld, and with a view to acquire knowledge about it. “Qewrei~n would be used of a general officially reviewing or inspecting an army; qea~sqai of a lay spectator looking at the parade” (Thayer).

The only begotten son (oJ monogenh<v uiJo<v). Several of the principal manuscripts and a great mass of ancient evidence support the reading monogenh<v Qeo<v, “God only begotten.” 16 Another and minor difference in reading relates to the article, which is omitted from monogenh<v by most of the authorities which favor Qeo<v. Whether we read the only begotten Son, or God only begotten, the sense of the passage is not affected. The latter reading merely combines in one phrase the two attributes of the word already indicated — God (ver. 1), only begotten (ver. 14); the sense being one who was both God and only begotten.
​

[size=-1]First off being "translated to" and "being equal in meaning" is not the same. The pronunciation of a word, is even in English, qualified by the sentence structure a word is in.
I want to READ a book.
I have REaD a book.
One must translate in context.[/size]

Thank you for the gratuitous, irrelevant grammar lesson, which addresses nothing I posted.

Before one lectures another, one should learn what they are talking about. I first learned to speak Greek more than 4 decades ago, and studied Biblical Greek, formally, more than 2 ½ decades ago. I am not an expert, but I know when someone is yanking my chain. So, please don’t try.

[size=-1]Just because the oral traditions were not written down, did not make the Jews some how conspirators to hide the truth. God chose to use Israel to teach the Nations about himself and he still does. Because GOD cannot change what HE says he will do. [/size]

And this is relevant to this discussion, how?

[size=-1]from the BLBKJV 1550 version.
Wescott 1881 says it is
Theon oudeis eo'raken po'pote [...]monogene's [theos] o o'n eis ton kolpn tou patros ekenos exe'ge'sato.
So instead of "THE only begotten" it is just "only begotten God".[/size]

Along with your presumptive lecturing, why did you ask for my sources for “only begotten God,” when you, yourself, posted a source that supports it?

 

[Der Alte]

[size=-1]We have seen this "only Begotten" terminology before in scriptures.

Gen 22:2 And he said, Take now thy son, thine only [son] Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of.[/size]

Not really relevant, the NT was written in Greek and the OT in Aramaic and Hebrew. The Hebrew word “[size=+1]&#1497;&#1495;&#1497;&#1491;[/size]/yachid,” translated “your only [son],” means “one, single, solitary.” It is used in many passages that cannot be interpreted as”only begotten.” For example Ps 25:16, “Turn thee unto me, and have mercy upon me; for I am desolate [[size=+1]&#1497;&#1495;&#1497;&#1491;[/size]/yachid],” and afflicted.”

The word “son,” in parentheses, is not in the original mss.

[size=-1]All of us are Elohim... made in image of Elohanu and He breathed into us life. With out this we would be just animals with no fellowship with THE YHVH. We are flesh and blood, but YHVH is not flesh and blood, nor can HE change. Elohim in us does not make us gods plural or even one with God. To be one with God we must be filled with His Spirit walking in Torah.[/size]

You presume to lecture me about, “being "translated to" and "being equal in meaning" is not the same,” etc., then you post your own eisegesis, i.e., reading your presuppositions into the scripture. Unless you can show me scripture that clearly states, “All of us are Elohim...?”

[size=-1]Now the word of God is living and active sharper than a two edged sword. That is TORAH. So too is the word of God in John 1:1 is that God and his Torah are on in the same, to know God is to know Torah is to know God.[/size]

More of your own eisegesis and presuppositions, the word Torah, means “instruction,” or “teaching,” not word. The Hebrew for word is “[size=+1]&#1491;&#1489;&#1512;[/size]/dabar”

And, if you are advocating Torah observance, you are in the wrong forum, you need to be in the “Messianic Judaism” forum.

But let me introduce you to the Aramaic word, “memra.” During the Babylonian captivity, the Jews, to preserve their language and beliefs, translated the T’nakh, from Hebrew, the language of the temple, into Aramaic, the everyday language of the people.

Jewish Encyclopedia-MEMRA:
"The Word," in the sense of the creative or directive word or speech of God manifesting His power in the world of matter or mind; a term used especially in the Targum as a substitute for "the Lord” when an anthropomorphic expression is to be avoided.

In the Targum:

In the Targum the Memra [Aramaic for “word.”] figures constantly as the manifestation of the divine power, or as God's messenger in place of God Himself, wherever the predicate is not in conformity with the dignity or the spirituality of the Deity.

"Instead of the Scriptural "You have not believed in the Lord," Targ. Deut. i. 32 has "You have not believed in the word of the Lord. "; instead of "I shall require it [vengeance] from him," Targ. Deut. xviii. 19 has "My word shall require it." "The Memra," instead of "the Lord, " is "the consuming fire" (Targ. Deut. ix. 3; comp. Targ. Isa. xxx. 27). The Memra "plagued the people" (Targ. Yer. to Ex. xxxii. 35). "The Memra smote him" (II Sam. vi. 7; comp. Targ. I Kings xviii. 24; Hos. xiii. 14; et al.). Not "God," but "the Memra," is met with in Targ. Ex. xix. 17 (Targ. Yer. "the Shekinah"; comp. Targ. Ex. xxv. 22: "I will order My Memra to be there"). "I will cover thee with My Memra," instead of "My hand" (Targ. Ex. xxxiii. 22). Instead of "My soul," "My Memra shall reject you." (Targ. Lev. xxvi. 30; comp. Isa. i. 14, xlii. 1; Jer. vi. 8; Ezek. xxiii. 18). "The voice of the Memra," instead of "God," is heard (Gen. iii. 8; Deut. iv. 33, 36; v. 21; Isa. vi. 8; et al.). Where Moses says, "I stood between the Lord and you" (Deut. v. 5), the Targum has, "between the Memra of the Lord and you"; and the "sign between Me and you" becomes a "sign between My Memra and you" (Ex. xxxi. 13, 17; comp. Lev. xxvi. 46; Gen. ix. 12; xvii. 2, 7, 10; Ezek. xx. 12). Instead of God, the Memra comes to Abimelek (Gen. xx. 3), and to Balaam (Num. xxiii. 4). His Memra aids and accompanies Israel, performing wonders for them (Targ. Num. xxiii. 21; Deut. i. 30, xxxiii. 3; Targ. Isa. lxiii. 14; Jer. xxxi. 1; Hos. ix. 10 [comp. xi. 3, "the messenger-angel"]). The Memra goes before Cyrus (Isa. xlv. 12). The Lord swears by His Memra (Gen. xxi. 23, xxii. 16, xxiv. 3; Ex. xxxii. 13; Num. xiv. 30; Isa. xlv. 23; Ezek. xx. 5; et al.). It is His Memra that repents (Targ. Gen. vi. 6, viii. 21; I Sam. xv. 11, 35).. Not His "hand," but His "Memra has laid the foundation of the earth." (Targ. Isa. xlviii. 13); for His Memra's or Name's sake does He act (l.c. xlviii. 11; II Kings xix. 34). Through the Memra God turns to His people (Targ. Lev. xxvi. 90; II Kings xiii. 23), becomes the shield of Abraham (Gen. xv. 1), and is with Moses (Ex. iii. 12; iv. 12, 15) and with Israel (Targ. Yer. to Num. x. 35, 36; Isa. lxiii. 14). It is the Memra, not God Himself, against whom man offends. (Ex. xvi. 8; Num. xiv. 5; I Kings viii. 50; II Kings xix. 28; Isa. i. 2, 16; xlv. 3, 20; Hos. v. 7, vi. 7; Targ. Yer. to Lev. v. 21, vi. 2; Deut. v. 11); through His Memra Israel shall be justified (Targ. Isa. xlv. 25); with the Memra Israel stands in communion (Targ. Josh. xxii. 24, 27); in the Memra man puts his trust (Targ. Gen. xv. 6; Targ. Yer. to Ex. xiv. 31; Jer. xxxix. 18, xlix. 11).

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=399&letter=M
​

When the Aramaic speaking Jews, of the first century, including Jesus, read their Aramaic Targums, OT, God was literally the “Word,” and the “Word,” was literally God. John was not saying anything new.

[size=-1]I believe you diverge from correct interpretation by saying that word of God in John 1:1 is equivalent and interchangeable with Jesus’ name.
JMO
bananna.[/size]

But of course you do. That is the assumption and presupposition you bring to the text.

And OBTW I did not say, “that word of God in John 1:1 is equivalent and interchangeable with Jesus’ name.” But “[size=+1]&#955;&#959;&#947;&#959;&#962;[/size]/Logos,” does, most certainly, refer to Jesus. Remember your lecture about reading “in context?”

John 1: 1 In the beginning was the Word, [[size=+1]&#955;&#959;&#947;&#959;&#962;[/size]] and the Word [[size=+1]&#955;&#959;&#947;&#959;&#962;[/size]] was with God, [[size=+1]&#952;&#949;&#959;&#957;[/size]] and the Word [[size=+1]&#955;&#959;&#947;&#959;&#962;[/size]] was God. [[size=+1]&#952;&#949;&#959;&#957;[/size]]
2 The same [[size=+1]&#955;&#959;&#947;&#959;&#962;[/size]] was in the beginning with God.
3 All things were made by him; [[size=+1]&#955;&#959;&#947;&#959;&#962;[/size]] and without him [[size=+1]&#955;&#959;&#947;&#959;&#962;[/size]] was not any thing made that was made.​

Note, Greek grammar requires the reflexive pronoun, “him,” in this, and the following, vss. to refer back to the [size=+1]&#955;&#959;&#947;&#959;&#962;[/size], vs. 1, it is the closest noun, in the correct case and gender, in the Greek mss.

4 In him [[size=+1]&#955;&#959;&#947;&#959;&#962;[/size]] was life; and the life was the light of men.
5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.
[…]
9 That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.
10 He [[size=+1]&#955;&#959;&#947;&#959;&#962;[/size]] was in the world, and the world was made by him, [[size=+1]&#955;&#959;&#947;&#959;&#962;[/size]] and the world knew him not.
11 He came unto his own, and his own received him [[size=+1]&#955;&#959;&#947;&#959;&#962;[/size]] not.
12 But as many as received him, [[size=+1]&#955;&#959;&#947;&#959;&#962;[/size]] to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: [[size=+1]&#955;&#959;&#947;&#959;&#962;[/size]]
[…]
14 And the Word [[size=+1]&#955;&#959;&#947;&#959;&#962;[/size]] became [[size=+1]&#949;&#947;&#949;&#957;&#949;&#964;&#959;[/size]] flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
15 John testified about him. He cried out, saying, "This was he of whom I said, 'He who comes after me has surpassed me, for he was before me.'"
​

The word translated “became,” “[size=+1]&#949;&#947;&#949;&#957;&#949;&#964;&#959;[/size]/egeneto,” vs. 14, is V-2ADI-3S, second aorist, middle deponent, indicative, third person singular. That means that the subject performed the action. IOW the “[size=+1]&#955;&#959;&#947;&#959;&#962;[/size]/logos,” acting upon himself became flesh, “and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.”

Correct me if I am wrong, but didn’t you say that Jesus was the “only begotten of the Father?”

Now note vs. 15, John the Apostle quotes John the Baptizer as saying of him, the “[size=+1]&#955;&#959;&#947;&#959;&#962;[/size]/logos,” who, acting upon himself became flesh, "This was he of whom I said, 'He who comes after me has surpassed me, for he was before me.'" Mark 1:7, Luke 3:16. John 1:30.

I recently became aware of a very interesting OT verse which speaks of “The Word of YHWH,” as a person, distinct from YHWH.

1 Kings 19:9 And he [Elijah] came thither unto a cave, and lodged there; and, behold, the word of the LORD [“[size=+1]&#1491;&#1489;&#1512;&#1470;&#1497;&#1492;&#1493;&#1492;[/size]/dabar-YHWH”] came to him, and he [the word of the LORD] said unto him, What doest thou here, Elijah?
10 And he said, I have been very jealous for the LORD God of hosts: for the children of Israel have forsaken thy covenant, thrown down thine altars, and slain thy prophets with the sword; and I, even I only, am left; and they seek my life, to take it away.
11 And he [the word of the LORD] said, Go forth, and stand upon the mount before the LORD. And, behold, the LORD passed by, and a great and strong wind rent the mountains, and brake in pieces the rocks before the LORD; but the LORD was not in the wind: and after the wind an earthquake; but the LORD was not in the earthquake:​

Note, “the word of the LORD,” is referred to with the personal pronoun, “he”, vs. 9,. And Elijah has a conversation with “the word of the LORD.” Then “he,” the personal pronoun again, “the word of the LORD, in the cave, sends Elijah out of the cave to stand, “before the LORD.” Before [size=+1]&#1497;&#1492;&#1493;&#1492;[/size], third person, masculine, singular, not before “me,” first person, masculine, singular.

Please do feel free to correct my “in-context” reading, any time.

[SIZE=-1]So is David God because he was called lord?

Lord is a term which is used in so many ways it cannot be equated to a singular title of YHVH[/SIZE].

Did the Jewish religious leaders ever accuse David of making himself God?

 

[The Gregorian]

Jesus never refused worshipped. Plus to say That Only The Father is God you must also believe that the Father isn't Lord which contadicts 1 timothy 6.

Aye... God (Theos) has also been the lord (kurios/master)... in fact he still is directly master TO our master (Jesus)... but because of Jesus' faithfulness, he was given lordship over the congregation and named Kurios as well.... that doesn't make him god.

 

[Der Alte]

... [SIZE=-1]but because of Jesus' faithfulness, he was given lordship over the congregation and named Kurios as well.... that doesn't make him god[/SIZE].

Do you have scripture to back this up?

I see the same old, same old, same old, anti-Trinity nonsense. Ignore/reject everything that has been posted, offer nothing in rebuttal.

John 1:1, 1:14, 1:18, and several other passages, make him God.

You are free to believe anything you want. But you are deluding yourself if you think you have proven anything. Repeating "Neener, neener, neener that doesn't make him god," over an over again means absolutely nothing.

 

[Der Alte]

[size=-1][…]I don't know where in the OT the LORD is identified as Jesus - that doesn't mean its not (or never was) there, but I'm not aware of it if it's there. Then again, I'm not aware of where in the OT it teaches that "there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one." (1 Jn 5:7), despite the fact that "in the beginning was the Word." No doctrine concerning a trinity is given in our OT, that I'm aware of (anyone, correct me please). It is in the NT that we learn of God the Father and Jesus as two different Gods, so it is also from the NT that we learn which one was LORD in the OT.[…][/size]

Isaiah 48:11 For mine own sake, even for mine own sake, will I do it: for how should my name be polluted? and I will not give my glory unto another.
12 Hearken unto me, O Jacob and Israel, my called; I am he; I am the first, I also am the last.
13 Mine hand also hath laid the foundation of the earth, and my right hand hath spanned the heavens: when I call unto them, they stand up together.
14 All ye, assemble yourselves, and hear; which among them hath declared these things? The LORD hath loved him: he will do his pleasure on Babylon, and his arm shall be on the Chaldeans.
15 I, even I, have spoken; yea, I have called him: I have brought him, and he shall make his way prosperous.
16 ¶ Come ye near unto me, hear ye this; I have not spoken in secret from the beginning; from the time that it was, there am I: and now the Lord GOD “[[size=+1]&#1497;&#1492;&#1493;&#1492;[/size]/YHWH”], and his Spirit, hath sent me.
17 Thus saith the LORD, [[size=+1]&#1497;&#1492;&#1493;&#1492;[/size]] thy Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel; I am the LORD thy God which teacheth thee to profit, which leadeth thee by the way that thou shouldest go.​

In this passage YHWH, the first and the last, the one who has laid the foundation of the earth and measured the heavens, who existed from the beginning, says, that the Lord (Adonai) YHWH and His Spirit has sent Him.

I count three, (1) YHWH who is sent, (2) YHWH, and (3) His spirit the senders.
The O.T. very clearly says that YHWH and His spirit sent YHWH. In the N.T. Jesus says that God sent Him. He was the Word, He was God, and He made all things, including the foundation of the earth and the heavens.

John 8:42 Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God ; neither came I of myself, but he sent me.

John 1:1 ¶ In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word [size=+1]was[/size] God.
2 The same was in the beginning with God.
3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
14 And the Word [acting on himself] became flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.​

There is no God except YHWH! There is nothing in the form of YHWH, except YHWH! There is nothing equal to YHWH except YHWH! Deut 4:35, 39; Isa 43:10-11, 44:6, 8; 40:25, 45:5, 6, 21-22; 46:5,9

Isa 44:6 Thus saith the LORD [[size=+1]&#1497;&#1492;&#1493;&#1492;[/size]] the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD [[size=+1]&#1497;&#1492;&#1493;&#1492;[/size]] of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.

Isa 44:8 Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any.

Isa 45:5 ¶ I am the LORD [[size=+1]&#1497;&#1492;&#1493;&#1492;[/size]], and there is none else, there is no God beside me:

Isa 45:21 I the LORD [[size=+1]&#1497;&#1492;&#1493;&#1492;[/size]]? and there is no God else beside me; a just God and a Saviour; there is none beside me.​

Is 44:6 is very interesting, “[size=+1]&#1497;&#1492;&#1493;&#1492;[/size]/YHWH [1], and his redeemer [size=+1]&#1497;&#1492;&#1493;&#1492;[/size]/YHWH [2]

Your statement, “in the NT that we learn of God the Father and Jesus as two different Gods,” contradicts the Word of God. There cannot be, “two different Gods.”

But the N.T., in addition to telling us that Jesus was the Son of God and sent by God, also tells us Jesus was in the very form of God and equal to God. And that Jesus, in the form of God and equal to God, YHWH sent by YHWH and His spirit, made Himself in the likeness and fashion as a man. Jesus was in one form before, God, and another form, afterward, man.

Philip 2:5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:
6 Who, being [existing] in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be [Present active participle. Then present reality, NOT future possibility] equal with God:
7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him[self] the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:
8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.

<>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <><

Re 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.​

Jesus is set down with the Father in His, the Father’s, throne.

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

But there is only one throne in heaven and only one sitting on the throne.

Re 4:9 And when those beasts give glory and honour and thanks to him that sat on the throne, who liveth for ever and ever, Re 4:10, 5:1, 5:7, 5:13, 6:16, 7:10, 7:15, 20:11, 21:5​

Only one sits on the one throne. There are not, and cannot be, “two different Gods.”

 

[ccastellow]

bleh... again, no one replied to the actual listing. I AM aware that the verse goes on to say 'there is one lord, Jesus...'. That seems to confuse people, so I left it out, but really it only clarifies that Jesus has a title other than his Father.

So... again...

[/SIZE]

how does that mean anything other than "there is one God, the Father?"

Now I can accept that God and his son are one as we are one with adam... Adam created us since he's our forefather... likewise the Father is the Sson's father... therefore they are related... but I am not actually adam. I'm not equal to adam. Likewise, the son (though he IS a spiritual being with great authority) is not his father, nore is he equal to his father just because he's of the same physical composure.

I wouldn't say that Jesus is just a person though... he had a human form at one point (maybe more... but you get the point). But he existed before his human form, and continues to exist afterword...

Here is something that might help you with this. This is in fact the difference between right and wrong theology. The trinity has two divine persons here where I say we have two distinctions in the one YHWH. This is how and I will be very brief:

1)God is Spirit (John 4:24 "God is a Spirit (a spiritual Being) and those who worship Him must worship Him in spirit and in truth (reality).") As a spirit God cannot be seen in a physical sense. He has shown us Himself through theophanies in the OT (burning bush, cloud, fire, earthquakes, and as a man in some instances) and these were all temporary appearings of God. So from scripture we have God being a Spirit.

2)God is omnipotent (all-powerful), omniscient (all-knowing), omnipresent (present-everywhere), immutable (unchanging), and eternal (had no beginning or ending). All of these attributes of God can be found in the Bible but as I said I am going to be brief here. God is everything and always will be the Almighty.

3)God is one: Deuteronomy 6:4, John 10:30, I Corinthians 8:6, Ephesians 4:5-6, and James 2:19 all point to this fact.

4)God became a man (human being): Isaiah 9:6, John 1:14, I Timothy 3:16, and Colossians 2:8-9 all testify that God robed Himself in flesh and became a man.

This is the distinction that people need to understand. Jesus is not a second person in the Godhead who came down and became a man. All throughout the OT we see God being talked of or shown doing something. Not the Father or the Son or the Holy Spirit. I will say that anytime the Spirit is mentioned in the OT it is always shown to be God's Spirit and not another person.

We see the Father mentioned and the Son brought to light after the Incarnation. It is only after Luke 1:35, that we see the "Son of God" come into play because it was this event that God became a man. We later read in Philippians 2:6-8 (The Kenosis) that not only was Jesus God but He didn't want to use His powers as God when He came down in flesh. Jesus was fully a man and had to endure everything that we do on a daily basis. It is in this way that He can be our sacrifice, kinsman-redeemer, high priest, mediator and advocate. Jesus was a genuine human being with the Spirit of God (Father) inside of Him. This is why He prayed to the Father and this is why He called the Father greater than Himself. He was a REAL HUMAN BEING and as such had to seek after the Father for everything He needed. Jesus Christ is God in flesh and not just God making His home in a human being but actually becoming one of us to be our sacrifice for sin. What a glorious God we have. He is not three persons. He is the Almighty YHWH who now has a glorified immortal body in Jesus Christ our Savior.

 

[liljon]

"So is David God because he was called lord?

Lord is a term which is used in so many ways it cannot be equated to a singular title of YHVH."
I was responding to gregorians statement.
"Aye... God (Theos) has also been the lord (kurios/master)... in fact he still is directly master TO our master (Jesus)... but because of Jesus' faithfulness, he was given lordship over the congregation and named Kurios as well.... that doesn't make him god."
What I was saying is if you said (if im not mistaken) that Only the Father is God becasue of 1 cor 8:6. Well Then Jesus Has to be the Only Lord by logic.

 

[Bananna]

Scriptures must be defined within context. Since we know that there is only one God and the statement one "lord Jesus annointed"

So yes only one is annointed lord over all others Yehoshua

bananna

 

[jeffC]

The logical procession of your argument begins in the OT, where based on the passages presented you claim it is taught that there is only one God. Thus doctrines taught
under the more dim light of the law of Moses are used to interpret later words of Jesus Himself. This is backwards, as both you and I believe that Jesus was the one who uttered the doctrines in the first place. Jesus' words which He gave as part of the higher gospel provide a fuller and deeper meaning to OT teachings; NT writings expound upon and interpret OT writings, not the other way around.

Re 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.

Jesus is set down with the Father in His, the Father&#8217;s, throne.

Note the context within the verse itself: "To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne even as I ... . Unless you maintain that all who overcome will become numerically and identically one with the Father, it does not follow from this verse (or those you presented next) that Jesus is numerically one with the Father.

The extended context of the verse is also very enlightening. Verse 21 is part of counsel given to the church of the Laodiceans; verse 5 contains a promise Jesus gave to the church in Sardis: "He that overcometh, the same shall be clothed in white raiment; and I will not blot out his name out of the book of life, but I will confess his name before my Father, and before his angels." Use of "before" already indicates a physical separation, but here Jesus speaks before the Father in the same manner as He does before angels. The angels are not physically one with the Father; Jesus cannot be either.

Further, Jesus' relationship to the throne of God is spelled out very clearly elsewhere in the NT. Jesus sits on the right hand of God (see also Acts 7:55-56).

Heb 12:2 Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.

This is a statement of authority. As Jesus specified elsewhere, His Father is in authority over him (John 20:17, Matt 19:17, John 14:28, 5:26,30, 1 Cor 15:28). This condition is not compatible with traditional trinitarian thinking.

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

But there is only one throne in heaven and only one sitting on the throne.

Re 4:9 And when those beasts give glory and honour and thanks to him that sat on the throne, who liveth for ever and ever, Re 4:10, 5:1, 5:7, 5:13, 6:16, 7:10, 7:15, 20:11, 21:5

Only one sits on the one throne. There are not, and cannot be, &#8220;two different Gods.&#8221;

Although you have quoted the verses in ch. 4 as though they are a continuation of the topic and context of ch. 3, this is highly inaccurate. Chapter 4 begins with a new vision describing a specific throne and the identity of the "one" on it; it is God the Father. To identify Jesus also with the one on the throne is not possible because 1) the context is completely separate and 2) Jesus is identified specifically as not being on the throne.

5:5-7 And one of the elders saith unto me, Weep not: behold, the Lion of the tribe of Juda, the Root of David, hath prevailed to open the book, and to loose the seven seals thereof....And he came and took the book out of the right hand of him that sat upon the throne.

Just to be thorough, the citations you reference in ch. 20 & 21 reference a separate throne than either described above; it is the judgement seat of Christ.

This business with the thrones only strengthens the NT teaching that Jesus was separate from the Father. Jesus was always clear on this issue. Moments when Jesus asserts His own divinity should not be a source of confusion. One only has to put aside century old prejudices on the nature of the Godhead. That Jesus and the Father are separate is easily established Biblically. If one accepts Jesus as God, it immediately follows that there are two Gods.

But the N.T., in addition to telling us that Jesus was the Son of God and sent by God, also tells us Jesus was in the very form of God and equal to God.

Jesus was in the form of God and also asserted His divinity while on earth. Jesus was made heir to all things - in this too He is equal with God. But the etymology of form (gr. morphe) does not imply exactness. And Jesus' equality with God never included an equality of authority, as demonstrated above. It was the Father who made Jesus heir, and gave Him "power, and riches, and wisdom, and strength, and honour, and glory, and blessing" (Rev. 5:12). Jesus was "the beginning of the creation of God" (Rev 3:14). Yes, the Word [acting on himself] became flesh. In the beginning, Jesus was God. His great condescension was to submit to the flesh, though He was God. This does not change the fact that He did so according to the Father's will, nor that it was because Jesus "prevailed to open the book" that He was worthy of "power, glory, etc." (Rev 5:5-10).

I count three, (1) YHWH who is sent, (2) YHWH, and (3) His spirit the senders.

The O.T. very clearly says that YHWH and His spirit sent YHWH. In the N.T. Jesus says that God sent Him. He was the Word, He was God, and He made all things, including the foundation of the earth and the heavens.

There is no God except YHWH! There is nothing in the form of YHWH, except YHWH! There is nothing equal to YHWH except YHWH! Deut 4:35, 39; Isa 43:10-11, 44:6, 8; 40:25, 45:5, 6, 21-22; 46:5,9

Your statement, &#8220;in the NT that we learn of God the Father and Jesus as two different Gods,&#8221; contradicts the Word of God. There cannot be, &#8220;two different Gods.&#8221;

Already when we arrive at the task of understanding these verses, it must be done with the knowledge that Jesus and the Father are separate entities. Either Jesus is not considered God (which is not scriptural) or these statements that there is only one God must be considered more carefully. Thus it is encouraging that there are verses which suggest two or three different components of YHWH. Our disagreement lies in whether the group is literally identical, or if there is one Godhead represented by YHWH. Fortunately we have the NT to help us sort this out.

The NT also teaches that there is "one" God. Jesus states "I and my Father are one." He also specifies exactly what "one God" means. Speaking of His disciples, Jesus prayed to His Father "That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us.... And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one" (John 17:21-22). The apostles were not nor will they ever be numerically one with God, but rather one in purpose and righteousness. As these verses again reiterate, neither is Jesus identically one with the Father. Yet Jesus describes Himself and the Father as one.

Further, the Godhead is literally one, even if it is composed of three entities. The OT is not a trinitarian document, nor is a Godhead described in any detail. It is to be expected that the language of the OT will reflect that reality. As Paul describes, even today we see doctrines dimly. Before the revelations in the NT enhancing man's understanding of deity, doctrinal understanding would inherently be on a lower plane.

The context of these chapters in Isaiah is also worth noting. There are heavy warnings against idolatry surrounding many of the verses previously quoted. It is only natural that the Lord would use language intended to reinforce His own covenants with Israel. Elsewhere in the OT the Lord's denial of the existence of other "god's" is debatable. There is much more that can be said on these two points, but this post is already long enough. It should be clear that because the NT reveals so much more of the divine nature, it should be the magnifying glass that is used to examine the OT; not the other way around.

 

[MrHappyChappy]

All the confusion here is just because the Bible makes no sense.

I used to be confused by the Bible. It didn't make much sense to me. I even thought for a while that maybe God doesn't exist. But then I thought, why don't I ask God? He would be able to explain it to me - after all, it's all His words, right? So that's what I did. At first it seemed like God was ignoring me, but when I relaxed and stopped trying to hear Him, I realized that He had always been there. I didn't understand at first because it wasn't a voice in my head - I'm not a skitzopath or anything! God doesn't need to talk because when He wants to tell you something, He can just make you know the answer, He does not need words. Anyway I was just camly asking, I had sort of given up trying in a way, and a just wondered, and He gave me the answer. I now know that's how you ask God a question you see, you just sort of wonder about it. And anyway He told me all of a sudden - and I'm sort of making up what He said because He didn't exactly say it - and please let me explain this, He said, I didn't write the Bible. Please listen, I mean this in the nicest way, He said He didn't write the Bible. So I said well of course you told people and they wrote the truth for you, but He was all No that's not what I mean (I know He would of said it better, but like I said He didn't use words and was more like putting the answer in my head for me) He said He didn't mind that anyone wrote the Bible, but He didn't want them to ither, and the important thing was to get the truth directly from Him. I asked Him about a lot of things, and basicaly I know now that the Bible is - please give me a chance here - well, a load of rubbish. But Jesus is true anyway even though some things arent, you just can't let the Bible tell you, you have to know without the Bible. Now I know what you might be thinking - you think, someone told me the Bible was rubbish, and it wasn't God but was actually, pardon me for saying it, Satan - but you see I thought of that too, and God gave mme the answer. He did't tell me right away, He let me wonder about it, but like I said that is when He answers. He said that really I already knew He was God. I still thought, How do I know really? and He made it clear that Satan is real, but He always gives Satan another chance but he blows it again, and God would never stop Satan from talking to me if he wanted to, but if Satan tried to pretend he was God, or that he means well when he doesn't, God would stop him. So if you think its not good, then it might not be God, but if you know its right then it is. So if you do bad things you know it.
Now I am much more at peace because I know that God is not in a book, and if you have to ask about God, don't ask somebody else, just let God talk to you. That's how I get answers, I just ask. Sometimes He answers and sometimes He doesnt, but that's OK.

Thank you for reading this, I hope you take something good from it. Sorry it is a bit rushed. Thankyou goodbye!

 

[jeffC]

All the confusion here is just because the Bible makes no sense.

You are right that God will answer our prayers, and that we should ask Him about the veracity of His scriptures. But if you got an answer that the Bible is not inspired writings, then I'm afraid your answer didn't come from God. God's messages to all of us have always come for the most part through His prophets. God will always communicate to us where such prophets are, living and dead. The writings of some of those prophets who were witnesses to the most important event in history are in the Bible.

Again, you are right that God is not in a book. He is a living God, and will communicate with anyone. But to do so requires faith in His words, not only faith in Him. If we despise the light and truth He has already given, He will not reveal further "extra" truths to us only.

BTW (I see no confusion - only one large, complete, and true theological picture. The scriptures, including the Bible, are theologically coherent)

 

[Bananna]

MrHappyChappy,
I agree, seeking from the YHVH will bring wisdom. We must be willing to receive it though it cost us our friends and our families.

The way God speakes to individuals will depend on the gifts of God. Some hear His words like Moses, others know them like Yehoshuah.

JeffC,
Already the old men dream dreams and young men prophesy. Women and daughters see the future. It is no longer given to a few, but rather the called out ones are moving toward a place of open hearts to receive God's word.

 

[Der Alte]

[SIZE=-1]he logical procession of your argument begins in the OT, where based on the passages presented you claim it is taught that there is only one God. Thus doctrines taught under the more dim light of the law of Moses are used to interpret later words of Jesus Himself. This is backwards, as both you and I believe that Jesus was the one who uttered the doctrines in the first place. Jesus' words which He gave as part of the higher gospel provide a fuller and deeper meaning to OT teachings; NT writings expound upon and interpret OT writings, not the other way around[/SIZE].

Before one presumes to lecture another, especially another who has been a Christian for about 2 decades longer than one has been alive, one should know what they are talking about and have their facts straight. You don't.

Please be so kind as to show me where I have interpreted the Bible in the wrong way. In the meantime consider this, from Jewish sources.

"Rabbi Samuel Bar Hanman in the name of Rabbi Jonathan said, that at the time when Moses wrote the Torah, writing a portion of it daily, when he came to this verse which says, "And Elohim said, let us make man in our image after our likeness," Moses said, "Master of the universe, why do you give herewith an excuse to the sectarians (who believe in the Tri-unity of God)." God answered Moses, "You write and whoever wants to err, let him err."1

1Midrash Rabbah on Genesis 1:26, New York: NOP Press, N.D.

http://www.jewsforjesus.org/publications/issues/1_8/jewish

Jewish Encyclopedia-Trinity-In the Zohar.

The Cabala, on the other hand, especially the Zohar, its fundamental work, was far less hostile to the dogma of the Trinity, since by its speculations regarding the father, the son, and the spirit it evolved a new trinity, and thus became dangerous to Judaism. Such terms as "mattronita," "body," "spirit," occur frequently (e.q., "Tazria'," ed. Polna, iii. 43b); so that Christians and converts like Knorr von Rosenroth, Reuchlin, and Rittangel found in the Zohar a confirmation of Christianity and especially of the dogma of the Trinity (Jellinek, "Die Kabbala," p. 250, Leipsic, 1844 [trans]. of Franck's "La Kabbale," Paris, 1843]). Reuchlin sought on the basis of the Cabala the words "Father, Son, and Holy Ghost" in the second word of the Pentateuch, as well as in Ps. cxviii. 22 (ib. p. 10), while Johann Kemper, a convert, left in manuscript a work entitled "Matteh Mosheh," which treats in its third section of the harmony of the Zohar with the doctrine of the Trinity (Zettersteen, "Verzeichniss der Hebraischen und Aramaischen Handschriften zu Upsala," p. 16, Lund, 1900). The study of the Cabala led the Frankists to adopt Christianity; but the Jews have always regarded the doctrine of the Trinity as one irreconcilable with the spirit of the Jewish religion and with monotheism. See Christianity in Its Relation to Judaism; Polemics.

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=338&letter=T​

[SIZE=-1]Note the context within the verse itself: "To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne even as I ... . Unless you maintain that all who overcome will become numerically and identically one with the Father, it does not follow from this verse (or those you presented next) that Jesus is numerically one with the Father.[/SIZE]

As you said "note the context." Jesus said "my throne," not the Father's throne. His audience was never said to be one with Jesus or the Father. His audience was never called God, Jesus was; John 1:1, 14, 18, 1 Tim 3:16. Heb 1:8,9, Ro 10:13, Joh 20:28, Titus2:13, 2 Pe 1:1, etc.

[SIZE=-1]The extended context of the verse is also very enlightening. Verse 21 is part of counsel given to the church of the Laodiceans; verse 5 contains a promise Jesus gave to the church in Sardis: "He that overcometh, the same shall be clothed in white raiment; and I will not blot out his name out of the book of life, but I will confess his name before my Father, and before his angels." Use of "before" already indicates a physical separation, but here Jesus speaks before the Father in the same manner as He does before angels. The angels are not physically one with the Father; Jesus cannot be either.[/SIZE]

See previous reply and Philip 2:6-11 post above, and below.

[SIZE=-1]Further, Jesus' relationship to the throne of God is spelled out very clearly elsewhere in the NT. Jesus sits on the right hand of God (see also Acts 7:55-56).

Heb 12:2 Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.

This is a statement of authority. As Jesus specified elsewhere, His Father is in authority over him (John 20:17, Matt 19:17, John 14:28, 5:26,30, 1 Cor 15:28). This condition is not compatible with traditional trinitarian thinking.[/SIZE]

Which shows you know diddly squat about "traditional Trinitarian thinkingor for that matter the Trinitarian writing of the early church. And you ignored my posting of Philip 2:6-11. Note particularly vss. 7 and 8. "He emptied himself and humbled himself and became obedient." If you are going to try to reply, and impress me with your "knowledge" at least do me the courtesy of actually reading what I post?

[SIZE=-1]Although you have quoted the verses in ch. 4 as though they are a continuation of the topic and context of ch. 3, this is highly inaccurate. Chapter 4 begins with a new vision describing a specific throne and the identity of the "one" on it; it is God the Father. To identify Jesus also with the one on the throne is not possible because 1) the context is completely separate and 2) Jesus is identified specifically as not being on the throne.[/SIZE]

Is that a fact?

Vincent Word Studies &#8211; Rev 4:1- A throne. See Ezekiel 1:26-28.
Was set ([size=+1]&#949;&#954;&#949;&#953;&#964;&#959;[/size]). Denoting merely position, not that the seer saw the placing of the throne. Compare John 2:6.
One sitting. He is called henceforward throughout the book He that sitteth
on the throne, and is distinguished from the Son in chapter 6:16; 7:10, and
from the Holy Spirit in verse 5. He is commonly understood to be God the Father; but some understand the triune God.79

Robertson Word Pictures &#8211; Rev 4:1 {After these things} (\meta tauta\). Change in the panorama, not chronology (7:1,9; 15:5; 18:1; 19:1). This vision is of heaven, not of earth as was true of chapters Re 1; 2. The first vision of Christ and the messages to the seven churches began in 1:12f. This new vision of the throne in heaven (4:1-11) succeeds that to which it here alludes.

4:2 {Straightway I was in the Spirit} (\euthe&#8220;s egenom&#710;n en pneumati\). But John had already "come to be in the Spirit" (1:10, the very same phrase). Perhaps here effective aorist middle indicative while ingressive aorist in 1:10 (sequel or result, not entrance), "At once I found myself in the Spirit" (Swete), not "I came to be in the Spirit" as in 1:10. {Was set} ([size=+1]&#949;&#954;&#949;&#953;&#964;&#959;[/size]). Imperfect middle of \keimai\, old verb, used as passive of \tith&#710;mi\. As the vision opens John sees the throne already in place as the first thing in heaven. This bold imagery comes chiefly from 1Ki 22:19; Isa 6:1ff.; Eze 1:26-28; Da 7:9f.​

And exactly how many thrones of God do you count in Revelation? John repeatedly said "one throne."

[SIZE=-1]5:5-7 And one of the elders saith unto me, Weep not: behold, the Lion of the tribe of Juda, the Root of David, hath prevailed to open the book, and to loose the seven seals thereof....And he came and took the book out of the right hand of him that sat upon the throne.[/B[/SIZE]

Jesus was distinct from the Father when he walked in the flesh. Trinitarians have no problem with that. God does not share the same physical, temporal, spatial limitations that you do, after all he is God, you aren't.

[SIZE=-1]Just to be thorough, the citations you reference in ch. 20 & 21 reference a separate throne than either described above; it is the judgement seat of Christ.[/SIZE]

And you proved this how and when? Before you answer you might want to do a word search on the word "throne" in Revelation and make sure of all your facts. Read particularly the last several references the throne of God and the lamb.

[SIZE=-1]This business with the thrones only strengthens the NT teaching that Jesus was separate from the Father. Jesus was always clear on this issue. Moments when Jesus asserts His own divinity should not be a source of confusion. One only has to put aside century old prejudices on the nature of the Godhead. That Jesus and the Father are separate is easily established Biblically. If one accepts Jesus as God, it immediately follows that there are two Gods.[/SIZE]

There are not and cannot be two Gods. That is clearly stated throughout the OT and the NT. I posted most of the OT scriptures in my previous post which you apparently ignored.

[SIZE=-1]Jesus was in the form of God and also asserted His divinity while on earth. Jesus was made heir to all things - in this too He is equal with God. But the etymology of form (gr. morphe) does not imply exactness. [/SIZE]

And you proved this "etymology "how and when? Reread my Philip 2:6-11 post. Then carefully look up all three occurrences of "morphe" in the NT all refer to Jesus. Also Robertson and Vincent are very enlightening on this passage.

[SIZE=-1]And Jesus' equality with God never included an equality of authority, as demonstrated above. It was the Father who made Jesus heir, and gave Him "power, and riches, and wisdom, and strength, and honour, and glory, and blessing" (Rev. 5:12). Jesus was "the beginning of the creation of God" (Rev 3:14). Yes, the Word [acting on himself] became flesh. In the beginning, Jesus was God. His great condescension was to submit to the flesh, though He was God. This does not change the fact that He did so according to the Father's will, nor that it was because Jesus "prevailed to open the book" that He was worthy of "power, glory, etc." (Rev 5:5-10).[/SIZE]

Reread Philip 2:6-11 until you fully understand it. "Existing EQUAL with God." "Humbled himself became obedient" You do understand the meaning of "equal" particularly when it is not qualified in any way?

[SIZE=-1]Already when we arrive at the task of understanding these verses, it must be done with the knowledge that Jesus and the Father are separate entities. Either Jesus is not considered God (which is not scriptural) or these statements that there is only one God must be considered more carefully. Thus it is encouraging that there are verses which suggest two or three different components of YHWH. Our disagreement lies in whether the group is literally identical, or if there is one Godhead represented by YHWH. Fortunately we have the NT to help us sort this out.[/SIZE]

If we have the NT to help us sort this out then why don't you use it? Instead of just your handful of out-of-context proof texts.

"must be done with the knowledge that Jesus and the Father are separate entities." This is called reading your assumptions and presuppostions into the text.

[SIZE=-1]The NT also teaches that there is "one" God. Jesus states "I and my Father are one." He also specifies exactly what "one God" means. Speaking of His disciples, Jesus prayed to His Father "That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us.... And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one" (John 17:21-22). The apostles were not nor will they ever be numerically one with God, but rather one in purpose and righteousness. As these verses again reiterate, neither is Jesus identically one with the Father. Yet Jesus describes Himself and the Father as one.[/SIZE]

Kneejerk out-of-context proof text. As you clearly noted Jesus prayed, "That they all may be one" "May" is in the subjunctive mood. Look it up.

And that "oneness" never happened during the disciple's lifetime. Judas betrayed Jesus, Peter denied him. The others ran and hid. Later Paul got in Peter's face because he was shunning gentile Christians. What may or may not happen in the resurrection, with the disciples, cannot prove anything about the then and there unity of Jesus and the Father.

[SIZE=-1]Further, the Godhead is literally one, even if it is composed of three entities. The OT is not a trinitarian document, nor is a Godhead described in any detail. It is to be expected that the language of the OT will reflect that reality. As Paul describes, even today we see doctrines dimly. Before the revelations in the NT enhancing man's understanding of deity, doctrinal understanding would inherently be on a lower plane.[/SIZE]

PLease see my first response, two Jewish sources.

[SIZE=-1]The context of these chapters in Isaiah is also worth noting. There are heavy warnings against idolatry surrounding many of the verses previously quoted. It is only natural that the Lord would use language intended to reinforce His own covenants with Israel. Elsewhere in the OT the Lord's denial of the existence of other "god's" is debatable. There is much more that can be said on these two points, but this post is already long enough. It should be clear that because the NT reveals so much more of the divine nature, it should be the magnifying glass that is used to examine the OT; not the other way around.[/SIZE]

If you ever deign to provide a definitive to response to this let me know. But please read the ECF before doing so. Especially Justin, Dialogue with Trypho. late 1st early 2d century, "True God from True God without abscission." i.e. "cutting off."