A Curious Question For Non-Trinitarians

[Kermos]

@Aunty Jane @Keiw @Butch5 @keithr @Rich R @Pierac @DavidB @MatthewG @tigger 2 @jaybird @NayborBear @Wrangler @XFire @APAK

God raised Jesus up, so Jesus is God

Jesus says that Jesus would raise up Jesus from the dead (John 2:19-22), and God raised Jesus up from the dead (Acts 2:24); therefore, Jesus is God! Here are the relevant passages.

Jesus answered them, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up." The Jews then said, "It took forty-six years to build this temple, and will You raise it up in three days?" But He was speaking of the temple of His body. So when He was raised from the dead, His disciples remembered that He said this; and they believed the Scripture and the word which Jesus had spoken. (John 2:19-22).

"God raised Him up" (Apostle Peter referencing "Him" to Jesus, Acts 2:24).

Christians believe Christ.

Christ declares Jesus to be God as shown above.

Christ declares the Truth (John 14:6) that Jesus is God for the ever living Word of God (John 1:1, John 1:14) proclaims this Truth "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I AM" (John 8:58), so according to the Christ, Lord Jesus existed in eternity past which means He is uncreated thus He proclaims that He is YHWH God for there is NO other that exists in eternity past (Isaiah 45:5).

We Christian's blessed Lord Jesus is God with us (Matthew 1:23 Immanuel), so Jesus, is truly Almighty YHWH God with us (Revelation 1:8), the One True God (Deuteronomy 6:4)!

 

[tigger 2]

Raise up?


In English we use “rise” and “raise” with two distinctly different meanings. “Rise” is what a person or thing does by itself to itself: “I rise every morning at dawn;” “the sun will rise soon.”

“Raise,” on the other hand, is what a person does to some other object or person: “He raised the flag.” “The flag was raised.” The object does not “rise” by itself in this case, but is actually “raised” by someone else! If “raise” is to be used with one’s own self as the object, it must be so stated or plainly understood: “I raised myself so I could see better”!

An examination of all the passages dealing with Christ’s resurrection shows that this is also the intent of nearly all of them. Therefore, when we see “God, having raised up his servant” (Acts 3:26, RSV), we understand God as being one person who raised up someone else (His servant, Jesus). And at Gal. 1:1 we see - “God the Father, who raised [Jesus Christ] from the dead.”

The noted trinitarian NT Greek expert Dr. Alfred Marshall writes:

“our Lord ‘was raised’ as are the dead generally (they do not ‘rise’). See 1 Corinthians ch. 15, etc.” - p. xxxvi, The Zondervan Parallel New Testament in Greek and English, 1980.

We also see at Eph. 1:17, 19, 20 -

“that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of Glory ..., according to the working of his great might which he accomplished in Christ when he raised him from the dead and made him sit at his right hand [cf. Ps. 110:1, 2; Acts 2:34-36; and Ro. 8:34] in the heavenly places” - RSV.

And 1 Thess. 1:9, 10 -

“how you turned to God from idols to serve a living and true God [John 17:3] and to wait for His Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, Jesus” - RSV. Also see Acts 10:40; 13:30, 33, 34, 37; Ro. 4:24; 6:4; 8:11; 10:9; 1 Cor. 6:14; 2 Cor. 4:14; Col. 2:12; 1 Peter 1:21; etc.

Probably the only place you could find where there appears to be a statement that the Son raised himself (in contrast to the many scriptures to the contrary) would be John 2:19-22.

John 2:19, 21, 22 -

“Jesus answered them, ‘Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.’ .... But he spoke of the temple of his body. When therefore he was raised [not ‘he raised himself’] from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this.” - RSV.

Rather than ignoring this scripture, since at first glance it seems to contradict all the many others about Jesus being raised up by the Father alone, we should make every attempt to understand it in agreement with the other scriptures on the subject.

Obviously Jesus was speaking figuratively here, whereas the other scriptures concerning his being raised are to be understood literally. Figurative Bible language often leads to difficulties in interpretation.

However, Jesus was speaking figuratively of his actual body which his enemies really did destroy (“destroy this temple and ...”). Therefore, one understanding might be that Jesus was merely stating that after the Father had already returned Jesus’ life to a body (“raised” him to life) Jesus was then physically able to raise up that life-filled body: He literally was able to raise himself to his feet again; he raised his own body up from a prone position!

Even famed trinitarian NT Greek scholar A. T. Robertson tells us

“Recall [John] 2:19 where Jesus said: ‘And in three days I will raise it up.’ He did not mean that he will raise himself independently of the Father as the active agent (Rom. 8:11).” - Word Pictures in the New Testament, Vol. v, p. 183.

It should be noted that at least one Bible student has suggested that the figurative "body" Jesus was to raise up was probably a parallel to the one that had been destroyed. The temple stood for the "body" of God's followers. After it had been removed, Jesus built up a new "body" of God's Christian followers which, in effect, replaced the old "body."

But whatever the answer to any possible confusion generated from this single figurative usage at John 2:19, we must not ignore the many clear, indisputable, literal statements which clearly state that the Father alone actually raised Jesus to life.

 

[Rich R]

You LIE, and you are not Jesus Christ.The Truth (John 14:6) is that Jesus is God for the ever living Jesus proclaims this Truth "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I AM" (John 8:58), so according to the Christ, Lord Jesus existed in eternity past which means He is uncreated thus He proclaims that He is YHWH God for there is NO other that exists in eternity past (Isaiah 45:5).

John 8:58,

Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.​

Read the verse very carefully as written. Notice that nowhere does it speak of an "eternity past." John didn't say Jesus existed in "eternity past."

It says Jesus existed "before Abraham" and there is no indication of just how much before Abraham he reportedly existed, It could have been the day before Abraham was born. Where do you suppose we could find the answer? Right! In the scriptures. But they must be read as written, free from any preconceived ideas. Free from preconceived ideas; because of 2,000 of trinity tradition, I am fully aware of how difficult it is to do that. But it can be done. I did it myself.

 

[Kermos]

You sure are good at judging others Kermos.....but I have to ask....what if God were to judge you in the way that you judge others? By what you post you appear to have no idea about the scriptures you use.....have you done any original word studies? Apparently not, or you would not keep making a fool of yourself by repeating your errors mindlessly as if you say it often enough someone will believe you.....all you demonstrate is your ignorance.
Is every mention of "the word" referring to Jesus? Is that what you are inferring in that scripture?
Let me use 2 Peter 3:5, 6 to show you how you have misinterpreted what John wrote......
"They deliberately ignore the fact that the heavens existed of old and earth was formed out of water and through water by the word of God; 6 through these the world that then existed was destroyed, deluged with water." (NABRE)

Is "the word" capitalized? Because if it isn't, then it isn't referring to Jesus. It is about God's command.....his word, "Let there be...." that the heavens and the earth came into being....and waters above the earth should remain where they were, suspended above the earth, simply by his command. It was then used by God to flood the world in Noah's day.

Using the link below, please refer to Strongs Concordance and see how this word "logos" is used in all the places where it appears in the NT.

G3056 - logos - Strong's Greek Lexicon (nasb20)

Perhaps if you studied original language words you wouldn't misunderstand so much and then point fingers at others for what you believe are their mistakes....when your own are glaring. For goodness sake stop and listen.....you might learn something. What you present is accusatory, prideful and arrogant, when no one appointed you the judge of what makes anyone else a "Christian".....Jesus will do that. The echo is getting old....seriously....

The Word of God says "Let there be light" (Genesis 1:3), and here is Wonderful Jesus (Isaiah 9:6)!

The Word of God says "He who rejects Me and does not receive My sayings, has one who judges him; the word I spoke is what will judge him at the last day" (John 12:48).

The Word of God says "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM" (John 8:58),

The Word of God says "unless you believe that I AM, you will die in your sins" (John 8:24).

Both of you reject Jesus because you think Jesus is not I AM.

The Word of God says "Do not judge according to appearance, but judge the righteous judgment" (John 7:24).

I proclaim the Truth (John 14:6) to you, yet you, who fail to understand the Truth and linguistics and logic - you reject Jesus with the word of Aunty Jane such as "Let me use 2 Peter 3:5, 6 to show you how you have misinterpreted what John wrote" which means that you do not receive the Word of God Who says "Let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters" (Genesis 1:6) and you foolishy do not receive "All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being" (John 1:3).

So, truthfully, when the Apostle Peter wrote "the Word of God" in 2 Peter 3:5, then Peter refers to Jesus being Creator of everything seen and unseen, and Peter is in accord with the Apostle John who wrote "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God" (John 1:1) and "the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth" (John 1:14).

You foolishly lie by thinking that Jesus is not God, that He's not I AM, that He's not the Word (Logos), based on the deceptive word of Aunty Jane, yet Jesus says to the I AM unbelievers "You are of your father the devil, and you want to do the desires of your father. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth because there is no truth in him. Whenever he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies" (John 8:44).

@Wrangler, this goes for you, too, since you liked Aunty Jane's post.

The Truth (John 14:6) is that Jesus is God for the ever living Jesus proclaims this Truth "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I AM" (John 8:58), so according to the Christ, Lord Jesus existed in eternity past which means He is uncreated thus He proclaims that He is YHWH God for there is NO other that exists in eternity past (Isaiah 45:5).

Immanuel (Matthew 1:23 "God with us"), Jesus, is truly Almighty God, YHWH, with us (Revelation 1:8).

 

[tigger 2]

Immanuel

Should Jesus really be considered to be God because he was symbolically “named” Immanuel (Is. 7:14; Mt. 1:23) which means “God is with us”?[1] No more so than Gabriel was calling himself God when he visited Mary and declared: “The Lord is with thee” - Luke 1:28. Nor did Zacharias mean that John the Baptizer (his new son) was actually God when he was asked, “I wonder what this child [John] will turn out to be?”, and he answered, “Praise the Lord, the God of Israel, for he has come to visit his people and has redeemed them.” - Luke 1:66-68, LB.

Gabriel and Zacharias (Zechariah) meant exactly what Israelites have meant throughout thousands of years when saying “God is with us” and similar statements. They meant “God has favored us” or “God is helping us”! - Gen. 21:22; Ex. 18:19; Nu. 23:21; josh. 1:9; 1 Chron. 17:2; 2 chron. 1:1; 35:21; Ezra 1:3; is. 8:10. And Joshua 1:17; 1 Samuel 10:7; 2 Chron. 15:2-4, 9 (cf., Jer. 1:8; Haggai 1:13). But if we insist on trinitarian-type “proof,” then Gabriel must have meant that he (Gabriel) is God! And Zacharias (whose own name means ‘Jehovah is renowned’ - p. 678, TDOTB) must have meant that John the Baptizer is God! – Also see 1 Sam. 17:37; 2 Sam. 14:17; 1 Ki. 8:57; 1 Chron. 17:2; 22:18; 2 Chron. 36:23; Is. 41:10; Amos 5:14; Zech 8:23.

This understanding is seen throughout the Bible. For example, “But if all prophesy, and an unbeliever or outsider enters, he is convicted by all, he is called to account by all, the secrets of his heart are disclosed; and so, falling on his face, he will worship God and declare that God is really among you.” - 1 Corinthians 14:24-25, RSV.

Or, in a Psalm many of us apply to ourselves or our friends:

4 Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil; for thou [God] art with me - ASV.


The acclaimed trinitarian Bible dictionary, The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, 1986, Vol. 2, pp. 86, 87, states:

“The name Emmanuel [or Immanuel] which occurs in Isa. 7:14 and 8:8 means lit. ‘God [is] with us’ .... In the context of the times of Isaiah and King Ahaz the name is given to a child as yet not conceived with the promise that the danger now threatening Israel from Syria and Samaria will pass ‘before the child knows how to refuse evil and choose the good.’ Thus, the child and its name is a sign of God’s gracious saving presence among his people .... [The name Emmanuel] could be a general statement that the birth and naming of the special child will indicate that the good hand of God is upon us.” - p. 86. And, “The point of the present passage [Matt. 1:23] is to see in the birth of Jesus a saving act of God, comparable with the birth of the first Emmanuel. Both births signify God’s presence with his people through a child.” - p. 87.

Or as noted trinitarian scholar Murray J. Harris tells us:

“Matthew [in Matt. 1:23] is not saying, ‘Someone who is “God” is now physically with us,’ but ‘God is acting on our behalf in the person of Jesus.’” - p. 258, Jesus as God, Baker Book House, 1992.

Footnotes:

1. How do we know that Immanu El in Hebrew means ‘God is with us’? We know because shortly after it is introduced in Isaiah 7:14 and repeated in 8:8, the very same Hebrew term is explained in 8:10 - “God is with us” - KJV; RSV; NRSV; NASB; NIV; NEB; REB; NJB; NAB; MLB; LB; etc.

 

[GRACE ambassador]

What the heck; I'll do the forth one in the list also.

Phil 2:6,

You do realize that (what I used to say, till a precious brother Corrected me):
"heck" (christian cussing?) is a Euphemism for "hell," Correct? and, for
the "forth," did you actually mean "fourth"? But this does bring to
[the] mind (of 'Christ Is God' Reason # 36?):

Mic 5:2 "But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among
the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall HE come forth unto Me
That Is To Be Ruler in Israel; Whose Goings FORTH have been from
of old, from EVERLASTING." ​

And, why would this prophecy about The SON Be In Agreement with It?:

Isa 9:6 For Unto us A Child is born, unto us A SON is given: and the
government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called
Wonderful, Counsellor, The Mighty God, The EVERLASTING Father,
The Prince of Peace.
​

Is it ok for finite men to Just Change definitions of words at will, with
modernism/textual Criticism making EVERLASTING, Now to mean:

"The SON Had a created beginning, Thus cannot be God," Correct, @Rich R?

IF so, then we can Also Take Liberties with...

1 Cor 8:6,

But to us [there is but] one God, the Father, of whom [are] all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom [are] all things, and we by him.

...And (ignoring The Rest Of The Profitable Scriptures), just interpret this to say:

There is "one God, who is Only one person, who is Only the father!" Correct?

Thus Negating The Truthful Testimony Of THREE Very Important Witnesses:

I John_5:7!:

"For There Are THREE That Bear Witness In Heaven, The Father,
The WORD, And The Holy Ghost, And These THREE Are 'ONE!'" ​

IF we are going to take these liberties, we might as well say Peter "really
meant to say" to Ananias' deceit about giving ALL his money!: There Is
Only One God, and That ONE "person" is The HOLY GHOST, Correct?:
Acts 5:3-4:

"But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to
lie to The Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the
land? Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold,
was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing
in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but Unto God."​

Which of course, you might probably agree would be total nonsense,
corrupting The PURE Word Of God, Correct? @Rich R?

Concluding question: Wait! If The Father Is EVERLASTING, how is it HIS
EVERLASTING "Relationship" With HIS SON is not EVERLASTING? Does
that "make sense"?

oops, sorry Second Question: IF "The Holy Spirit Is ETERNAL (Heb 9:14).
then how does finite man Also "BREAK" that ETERNAL Relationship With
BOTH The ETERNAL "Father And SON"?

Only about 145 - 150 more "Reasons" To Go, eh, @Rich R?

GRACE And Peace... Amen?:

God, Who IS:

 

[Kermos]

Raise up?


In English we use “rise” and “raise” with two distinctly different meanings. “Rise” is what a person or thing does by itself to itself: “I rise every morning at dawn;” “the sun will rise soon.”

“Raise,” on the other hand, is what a person does to some other object or person: “He raised the flag.” “The flag was raised.” The object does not “rise” by itself in this case, but is actually “raised” by someone else! If “raise” is to be used with one’s own self as the object, it must be so stated or plainly understood: “I raised myself so I could see better”!

An examination of all the passages dealing with Christ’s resurrection shows that this is also the intent of nearly all of them. Therefore, when we see “God, having raised up his servant” (Acts 3:26, RSV), we understand God as being one person who raised up someone else (His servant, Jesus). And at Gal. 1:1 we see - “God the Father, who raised [Jesus Christ] from the dead.”

The noted trinitarian NT Greek expert Dr. Alfred Marshall writes:

“our Lord ‘was raised’ as are the dead generally (they do not ‘rise’). See 1 Corinthians ch. 15, etc.” - p. xxxvi, The Zondervan Parallel New Testament in Greek and English, 1980.

We also see at Eph. 1:17, 19, 20 -

“that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of Glory ..., according to the working of his great might which he accomplished in Christ when he raised him from the dead and made him sit at his right hand [cf. Ps. 110:1, 2; Acts 2:34-36; and Ro. 8:34] in the heavenly places” - RSV.

And 1 Thess. 1:9, 10 -

“how you turned to God from idols to serve a living and true God [John 17:3] and to wait for His Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, Jesus” - RSV. Also see Acts 10:40; 13:30, 33, 34, 37; Ro. 4:24; 6:4; 8:11; 10:9; 1 Cor. 6:14; 2 Cor. 4:14; Col. 2:12; 1 Peter 1:21; etc.

Probably the only place you could find where there appears to be a statement that the Son raised himself (in contrast to the many scriptures to the contrary) would be John 2:19-22.

John 2:19, 21, 22 -

“Jesus answered them, ‘Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.’ .... But he spoke of the temple of his body. When therefore he was raised [not ‘he raised himself’] from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this.” - RSV.

Rather than ignoring this scripture, since at first glance it seems to contradict all the many others about Jesus being raised up by the Father alone, we should make every attempt to understand it in agreement with the other scriptures on the subject.

Obviously Jesus was speaking figuratively here, whereas the other scriptures concerning his being raised are to be understood literally. Figurative Bible language often leads to difficulties in interpretation.

However, Jesus was speaking figuratively of his actual body which his enemies really did destroy (“destroy this temple and ...”). Therefore, one understanding might be that Jesus was merely stating that after the Father had already returned Jesus’ life to a body (“raised” him to life) Jesus was then physically able to raise up that life-filled body: He literally was able to raise himself to his feet again; he raised his own body up from a prone position!

Even famed trinitarian NT Greek scholar A. T. Robertson tells us

“Recall [John] 2:19 where Jesus said: ‘And in three days I will raise it up.’ He did not mean that he will raise himself independently of the Father as the active agent (Rom. 8:11).” - Word Pictures in the New Testament, Vol. v, p. 183.

It should be noted that at least one Bible student has suggested that the figurative "body" Jesus was to raise up was probably a parallel to the one that had been destroyed. The temple stood for the "body" of God's followers. After it had been removed, Jesus built up a new "body" of God's Christian followers which, in effect, replaced the old "body."

But whatever the answer to any possible confusion generated from this single figurative usage at John 2:19, we must not ignore the many clear, indisputable, literal statements which clearly state that the Father alone actually raised Jesus to life.

Hey, confused tigger 2, the "raise up" in John 2:19-22 means Jesus raised up Jesus from the dead because John continued by recording "when He was raised from the dead, His disciples remembered that He said this; and they believed the Scripture and the word which Jesus had spoken" (John 2:22).

You are a linguistical fool.

Every verse that states God raised Jesus from the dead affirms that Jesus is God because Jesus says "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up" (John 2:19).

Lord Jesus means what He says here (John 2:19), but you, YOU wickedly think that Jesus LIED.

In your heart, you cause your Jesus to break the commandant "You shall not lie" (Leviticus 19:11).

I BELIEVE JESUS WHO SAYS JESUS RAISED JESUS FROM THE DEAD (JOHN 2:19-22), AND I BELIEVE PETER WHO SAYS JESUS IS GOD BECAUSE GOD RAISED JESUS FROM THE DEAD (ACTS 2:24).

You are a coward that has avoided quoting posts to which you are clearly addressing - not even an @ flag.

You try to hide, but the Word of God shows you to be the deceiver that you are.

 

[tigger 2]

Micah 5:2

Some trinitarians tell us Micah 5:2 (or 5:1 in some versions) teaches that Jesus has always existed ("from everlasting" - KJV). And since only God has existed for all eternity, Jesus must be God!

But look at other trinitarian translations of Micah 5:2. (E.g., "O Bethlehem ..., from you shall come forth for me one who is to be ruler in Israel, whose origin is from of old, from ancient days" - RSV, cf. JB, NEB, REB, NAB, NIV, AT, Mo, NRSV, NJB, CEB, CJB, ERV, ESV, God's Word, LEB, MEV, NCV, NET, NLT, WEB, Byington, and Young's.) Not only does this verse not teach that Jesus has always existed, it even speaks of his origin in very ancient times. (Origin: "a coming into existence" - Webster's New World Dictionary, 1973.)

Why would these trinitarian translations admit such a thing? Perhaps because it is difficult to honestly translate the Hebrew motsaah with a word that does not include this understanding. (Even when "goings forth" is the rendering, it appears it should also be with the understanding of "originating." For example, if we said "the command went forth from the King," we obviously mean the command originated with - or sprang from - the king! And when Micah 5:2 says of the Messiah: "O Bethlehem ..., from you shall come forth [the Messiah]," it can only mean that, in his earthly existence, he originated in Bethlehem!)

Obviously for so many respected trinitarian translators to choose this meaning ("origin") they must feel there is no other honest choice! The only meanings given by Gesenius for this word in his highly-respected Lexicon are "origin, springing" - #4163, Gesenius - cf. Micah 5:1 in The Jewish Publication Society's Bible translation, Tanakh.

And A Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament gives the only meaning for this word as used in Micah 5 as "origin." - p. 187, Eerdmans.

It would make no sense to interpret this as meaning the Messiah's human origin springs from ancient times. We have just been told that in Micah's time the Messiah's human origin was to be a future event and would take place in Bethlehem. Also there are no humans who haven't sprung from the very first pair in ancient Eden. It would be ridiculous to make the point that the human Messiah came from ancient stock since every human has done so. It must mean that his pre-existence as a spirit person in heaven originated in very ancient times (as the very beginning of God's creation - Rev. 3:14; Prov. 8:22). The Bible Greek of the ancient Septuagint, in fact, at Micah 5:2 says: "and his goings forth were from the beginning [arkhe], from ancient days [aionos]."

The NIV Study Bible, in a footnote for Micah 5:2 explains: "origins...from of old. His beginnings were much earlier than his human birth."

BUT THE TRUE, ETERNAL GOD HAD NO BEGINNING!

As for the Hebrew word olam, it can often be understood as “ancient times” or “of old” and does not necessarily refer to “eternity.” Here is how olam is used in the following scriptures in the NASB:

of old (Gen 6:4)

days of old (Deuteronomy 32:7)

From ancient times (Joshua 24:2)

from ancient times. (1 Samuel 27:8)

the ancient path (Job 22:15)

the ancient boundary (Proverbs 22:28)

the ancient boundary (Proverbs 23:10)

the ancient nation (Isaiah 44:7)

ancient ruins (Isaiah 58:12)

ancient ruins (Isaiah 61:4)

the days of old. (Isaiah 63:9)

the days of old (Isaiah 63:11)

an ancient nation, (Jeremiah 5:15)

the ancient paths (Jeremiah 6:16)

the ancient paths (Jeremiah 18:15)

the ancient waste places (Ezekiel 26:20)

the days of old (Malachi 3:4)

Micah 5:2 literally says "days of olam." This same wording is found again in Micah at Micah 7:14:

Let them feed in Bashan and Gilead as in the days of old [‘days of olam’] (Micah 7:14).

Try substituting “eternity” in the above scriptures. It’s clear that the NASB has rendered olam correctly in those scriptures.

So, adding the fact that the Messiah had a beginning in this verse to the possibility of olam meaning “ancient” as translated here in numerous Trinitarian Bibles and and in many other scriptures, it seems evident that the RSV has correctly rendered Micah 5:2 -

(RSV) Micah 5:2 But you, O Bethlehem Ephrathah, who are little to be among the clans of Judah, from you shall come forth for me one who is to be ruler in Israel, whose origin is from of old, from ancient days.

It's also very important to examine Micah 5:4 where Jehovah is recognized as being the God of the Messiah! (The NIVSB tells us in a footnote for this verse that the LORD [`Jehovah'] here - the God of the Messiah - refers to "God the Father.")

 

[GRACE ambassador]

Some trinitarians tell us Micah 5:2 (or 5:1 in some versions) teaches that Jesus has always existed ("from everlasting" - KJV...RSV,

cf. JB, NEB, REB, NAB, NIV, AT, Mo, NRSV, NJB, CEB, CJB, ERV, ESV, God's Word, LEB, MEV, NCV, NET, NLT, WEB, Byington, and Young's

Some make false doctrines based on ONE verse, But Sound Doctrine IS
Based ON All Harmonious Scriptures From God's Preserved Word,

NOT: on "UNauthorized commentaries based on Corrupt versions. Amen!

500 Plain And Clear Preserved Passages JESUS CHRIST IS Almighty God!

GRACE And Peace...

 

[Keiw]

You LIE, and you are not Jesus Christ.

You have been exposed as a liar about the Word of God such as your wicked claim that Jesus was created. and here are posts exposing your public deception:

• Since your heart's treasure is that "Plain Theos in the last line at John 1:1gets-a god", then you have two gods (YHWH God + Jesus a god = 2 gods) as shown in post #509 in this thread, in effect your heart rails against the Word of God (John 1:1, John 1:14) being Jesus Christ being YHWH God (Exodus 20:3, Isaiah 45:5). And you repeat your evil proclamation as recorded in post #1247 in this thread
• You presented that Jesus is ho Theos in John 1:1 when you failingly asserted that I have two gods with your replacement of "the Word was with God" with "God was with God" as shown in post #1271 in this thread because the grammar must remain consistent, so the definite article for God needs to be included with your replacement text since the word "Word" has the definite article, so the accuracte replacement is "the God was with God", and there is ho Theos for the Word, Who is Jesus (John 1:1, John 1:14).
• You claim the Wisdom of God was created according to your twisted interpretation of Proverbs 8
  as shown in post #733 in this thread, so, in effect, your heart's treasure is that YHWH God started off as a stupid being.
• People like you are willingly ignorant of the creation (2 Peter 3:5) as shown in post #1445 in this thread, so, in effect, your heart's treasure deliberately deceives.
• YOUR HEART LIED when you convey that Jesus is never called "the God" in the New Testament with your words of "Jesus is never called HoTheos in the NT" as shown in post #510 in this thread, in effect, you call the Apostle Peter a liar since he wrote "the God" referring to Jesus in 2 Peter 1:1 - you deny Apostolic teaching!
• According to your assertion, you cannot have an accurate translation of the Bible as shown in post #719 in this thread, in fact, The Watchtower Society's New World Translation has a myriad of human-induced translational deceptions, and this fact can and has been proven using techniques mentioned in the referenced post.
• You wickedly persist in denying that Jesus will reign forever in the kingdom of God as the angel Gabriel prescribed in Luke 1:33 as shown in post #557 in this thread, in effect, your thoughts of a 1,000 year limited reign for Jesus makes God's angel Gabriel out to be a liar since Gabriel declared "He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and His kingdom will have no end" (Luke 1:33).
• Your heart evilly adds 144,000 into the Book of Ezekiel to unscripturally tie the 144,000 into the Book of Revelation relating the 144,000 to your conjuring up of the Angel Michael being Jesus Christ, yet 144,000 is not mentioned in Ezekiel
  as shown in post #569 in this thread, in effect, your thoughts of Jesus being one and the same as Michael is your delusion as well as you adding to the Book of Revelation. Truly, Jesus is One with the Father (John 10:30).
• Your heart wickedly adds 1914 AD into "it was granted to take peace from the earth" (Revelation 6:4) as shown in post #427 in this thread, in effect your heart changes Revelation 6:4 to read "it was granted in 1914 to take peace from the earth".

So just like Charles Taze Russell, you, Keiw, you are adding to The Book of Revelation and/or you are subtracting from The Book of Revelation.

The year 1914 is not specified in the Book of Revelation; therefore, the following applies to you as a person who adds to the Book of Revelation:

"I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues which are written in this book; and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his part from the tree of life and from the holy city, which are written in this book" (Revelation 22:18-19).

Therefore, you are an unreliable source.

The Truth (John 14:6) is that Jesus is God for the ever living Jesus proclaims this Truth "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I AM" (John 8:58), so according to the Christ, Lord Jesus existed in eternity past which means He is uncreated thus He proclaims that He is YHWH God for there is NO other that exists in eternity past (Isaiah 45:5).

Immanuel (Matthew 1:23 "God with us"), Jesus, is truly Almighty God, YHWH, with us (Revelation 1:8).

I didnt lie.
Your problem is you listened to the wrong teachers. Only these( Matt 24:45) know the truth of revelation. The teachers Jesus appoints. And just like his apostles, not taught in the schools of men, but lead by holy spirit-and give spiritual food( truths) at the proper time.
Jesus did exist before Abraham, he answered their question honestly. Its your teachers twisting what he said because their translations are error filled. There is no i am that i am in the Hebrew written OT. What dont you understand about that fact? And why dont you question why your bible is mistranslated at that spot? To Mislead by satans will is why. The same reason Gods name is removed in 7000 places-by satans will to Mislead.

 

[Keiw]

@Aunty Jane @Keiw @Butch5 @keithr @Rich R @Pierac @DavidB @MatthewG @tigger 2 @jaybird @NayborBear @Wrangler @XFire @APAK

God raised Jesus up, so Jesus is God

Jesus says that Jesus would raise up Jesus from the dead (John 2:19-22), and God raised Jesus up from the dead (Acts 2:24); therefore, Jesus is God! Here are the relevant passages.

Jesus answered them, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up." The Jews then said, "It took forty-six years to build this temple, and will You raise it up in three days?" But He was speaking of the temple of His body. So when He was raised from the dead, His disciples remembered that He said this; and they believed the Scripture and the word which Jesus had spoken. (John 2:19-22).

"God raised Him up" (Apostle Peter referencing "Him" to Jesus, Acts 2:24).

Christians believe Christ.

Christ declares Jesus to be God as shown above.

Christ declares the Truth (John 14:6) that Jesus is God for the ever living Word of God (John 1:1, John 1:14) proclaims this Truth "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I AM" (John 8:58), so according to the Christ, Lord Jesus existed in eternity past which means He is uncreated thus He proclaims that He is YHWH God for there is NO other that exists in eternity past (Isaiah 45:5).

We Christian's blessed Lord Jesus is God with us (Matthew 1:23 Immanuel), so Jesus, is truly Almighty YHWH God with us (Revelation 1:8), the One True God (Deuteronomy 6:4)!

All translations with Gods personal name removed in nearly 7000 places was done by the will of Satan to mislead. Gods will= his name be in every one of those spots--Thus every religion using those altered translations are supporting satans will over Gods will. That is sad because Jesus clearly teaches--Matt 7:21--only those living to do his Fathers will get to enter his kingdom( be saved)
Satan and his teachers transformed into angels of light( 2Cor 11:12-15) and are misleading billions to do his will over Gods will.

 

[Kermos]

I didnt lie.
Your problem is you listened to the wrong teachers. Only these( Matt 24:45) know the truth of revelation. The teachers Jesus appoints. And just like his apostles, not taught in the schools of men, but lead by holy spirit-and give spiritual food( truths) at the proper time.
Jesus did exist before Abraham, he answered their question honestly. Its your teachers twisting what he said because their translations are error filled. There is no i am that i am in the Hebrew written OT. What dont you understand about that fact? And why dont you question why your bible is mistranslated at that spot? To Mislead by satans will is why. The same reason Gods name is removed in 7000 places-by satans will to Mislead.

All translations with Gods personal name removed in nearly 7000 places was done by the will of Satan to mislead. Gods will= his name be in every one of those spots--Thus every religion using those altered translations are supporting satans will over Gods will. That is sad because Jesus clearly teaches--Matt 7:21--only those living to do his Fathers will get to enter his kingdom( be saved)
Satan and his teachers transformed into angels of light( 2Cor 11:12-15) and are misleading billions to do his will over Gods will.

You most certainly lie and deceive, and this post clearly enumerates your deceptions.

You have been exposed as a liar about the Word of God such as your wicked claim that Jesus was created. and here are posts exposing your public deception:

• Since your heart's treasure is that "Plain Theos in the last line at John 1:1gets-a god", then you have two gods (YHWH God + Jesus a god = 2 gods) as shown in post #509 in this thread, in effect your heart rails against the Word of God (John 1:1, John 1:14) being Jesus Christ being YHWH God (Exodus 20:3, Isaiah 45:5). And you repeat your evil proclamation as recorded in post #1247 in this thread
• You presented that Jesus is ho Theos in John 1:1 when you failingly asserted that I have two gods with your replacement of "the Word was with God" with "God was with God" as shown in post #1271 in this thread because the grammar must remain consistent, so the definite article for God needs to be included with your replacement text since the word "Word" has the definite article, so the accuracte replacement is "the God was with God", and there is ho Theos for the Word, Who is Jesus (John 1:1, John 1:14).
• You claim the Wisdom of God was created according to your twisted interpretation of Proverbs 8
  as shown in post #733 in this thread, so, in effect, your heart's treasure is that YHWH God started off as a stupid being.
• People like you are willingly ignorant of the creation (2 Peter 3:5) as shown in post #1445 in this thread, so, in effect, your heart's treasure deliberately deceives.
• YOUR HEART LIED when you convey that Jesus is never called "the God" in the New Testament with your words of "Jesus is never called HoTheos in the NT" as shown in post #510 in this thread, in effect, you call the Apostle Peter a liar since he wrote "the God" referring to Jesus in 2 Peter 1:1 - you deny Apostolic teaching!
• According to your assertion, you cannot have an accurate translation of the Bible as shown in post #719 in this thread, in fact, The Watchtower Society's New World Translation has a myriad of human-induced translational deceptions, and this fact can and has been proven using techniques mentioned in the referenced post.
• You wickedly persist in denying that Jesus will reign forever in the kingdom of God as the angel Gabriel prescribed in Luke 1:33 as shown in post #557 in this thread, in effect, your thoughts of a 1,000 year limited reign for Jesus makes God's angel Gabriel out to be a liar since Gabriel declared "He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and His kingdom will have no end" (Luke 1:33).
• Your heart evilly adds 144,000 into the Book of Ezekiel to unscripturally tie the 144,000 into the Book of Revelation relating the 144,000 to your conjuring up of the Angel Michael being Jesus Christ, yet 144,000 is not mentioned in Ezekiel
  as shown in post #569 in this thread, in effect, your thoughts of Jesus being one and the same as Michael is your delusion as well as you adding to the Book of Revelation. Truly, Jesus is One with the Father (John 10:30).
• Your heart wickedly adds 1914 AD into "it was granted to take peace from the earth" (Revelation 6:4) as shown in post #427 in this thread, in effect your heart changes Revelation 6:4 to read "it was granted in 1914 to take peace from the earth".

So just like Charles Taze Russell, you, Keiw, you are adding to The Book of Revelation and/or you are subtracting from The Book of Revelation.

The year 1914 is not specified in the Book of Revelation; therefore, the following applies to you as a person who adds to the Book of Revelation:

"I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues which are written in this book; and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his part from the tree of life and from the holy city, which are written in this book" (Revelation 22:18-19).

Therefore, you are a wickedly unreliable source.

Immanuel (Matthew 1:23 "God with us"), Jesus, is truly Almighty God, YHWH, with us (Revelation 1:8).

 

[Kermos]

You do realize that (what I used to say, till a precious brother Corrected me):
"heck" (christian cussing?) is a Euphemism for "hell," Correct? and, for
the "forth," did you actually mean "fourth"? But this does bring to
[the] mind (of 'Christ Is God' Reason # 36?):

Mic 5:2 "But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among
the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall HE come forth unto Me
That Is To Be Ruler in Israel; Whose Goings FORTH have been from
of old, from EVERLASTING."

And, why would this prophecy about The SON Be In Agreement with It?:

Isa 9:6 For Unto us A Child is born, unto us A SON is given: and the
government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called
Wonderful, Counsellor, The Mighty God, The EVERLASTING Father,
The Prince of Peace.

Is it ok for finite men to Just Change definitions of words at will, with
modernism/textual Criticism making EVERLASTING, Now to mean:

"The SON Had a created beginning, Thus cannot be God," Correct, @Rich R?

IF so, then we can Also Take Liberties with...

...And (ignoring The Rest Of The Profitable Scriptures), just interpret this to say:

There is "one God, who is Only one person, who is Only the father!" Correct?

Thus Negating The Truthful Testimony Of THREE Very Important Witnesses:

I John_5:7!:

"For There Are THREE That Bear Witness In Heaven, The Father,
The WORD, And The Holy Ghost, And These THREE Are 'ONE!'"

IF we are going to take these liberties, we might as well say Peter "really
meant to say" to Ananias' deceit about giving ALL his money!: There Is
Only One God, and That ONE "person" is The HOLY GHOST, Correct?:
Acts 5:3-4:

"But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to
lie to The Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the
land? Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold,
was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing
in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but Unto God."

Which of course, you might probably agree would be total nonsense,
corrupting The PURE Word Of God, Correct? @Rich R?

Concluding question: Wait! If The Father Is EVERLASTING, how is it HIS
EVERLASTING "Relationship" With HIS SON is not EVERLASTING? Does
that "make sense"?

oops, sorry Second Question: IF "The Holy Spirit Is ETERNAL (Heb 9:14).
then how does finite man Also "BREAK" that ETERNAL Relationship With
BOTH The ETERNAL "Father And SON"?

Only about 145 - 150 more "Reasons" To Go, eh, @Rich R?

GRACE And Peace... Amen?:

God, Who IS:

ATTACH23395/ATTACH

Praise God! Very well written and poignant, GRACE ambassador.

I wonder if @Rich R will read it.

I am appreciative that you brought up "heck".

I recall when God opened my eyes to euphemisms which are meant to be abusive against God, such as gosh (a replacement for exclaiming "God") and jeez (a replacement for exclaiming "Jesus").

Paul wrote "give thanks in all circumstances; for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus for you" (1 Thessalonians 5:18), so is using "jeez" as an expression of frustration giving thanks? Of course not.

God bless you, GRACE ambassador.

It's a blessing that you brought up Isaiah 9:6 which refers to Jesus as Mighty God, and there is only One True God (Deuteronomy 6:4), and there are no other gods (Isaiah 45:5).

 

[Rich R]

You do realize that (what I used to say, till a precious brother Corrected me):
"heck" (christian cussing?) is a Euphemism for "hell," Correct? and, for
the "forth," did you actually mean "fourth"? But this does bring to
[the] mind (of 'Christ Is God' Reason # 36?):

I didn't know that. I guess it makes sense though.

Mic 5:2 "But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among
the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall HE come forth unto Me
That Is To Be Ruler in Israel; Whose Goings FORTH have been from
of old, from EVERLASTING." ​

And, why would this prophecy about The SON Be In Agreement with It?:

Isa 9:6 For Unto us A Child is born, unto us A SON is given: and the
government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called
Wonderful, Counsellor, The Mighty God, The EVERLASTING Father,
The Prince of Peace.
​

Is it ok for finite men to Just Change definitions of words at will, with
modernism/textual Criticism making EVERLASTING, Now to mean:

"The SON Had a created beginning, Thus cannot be God," Correct,

I won't say anything about what "everlasting" means. I'll let Strong's define it.

H3117 יוֹם yowm (yome) n-m.
1. a day (as the warm hours).
2. (literal) from sunrise to sunset, or from one sunset to the next.
3. (figurative) a space of time defined by an associated term.

I'm not sure of your question, but does this definition make any difference?

 

[tigger 2]

I didn't know that. I guess it makes sense though.

I won't say anything about what "everlasting" means. I'll let Strong's define it.

H3117 יוֹם yowm (yome) n-m.
1. a day (as the warm hours).
2. (literal) from sunrise to sunset, or from one sunset to the next.
3. (figurative) a space of time defined by an associated term.

I'm not sure of your question, but does this definition make any difference?

......

Look up the page to post 1628.

 

[Rich R]

......

Look up the page to post 1628.

I did and don't see how that changes how Strong's defines "everlasting." Am I missing something?

It's also worth understand both the words "old" and "going forth" (both from KJV) mean in Hebrew. Both are also in Strong's.

 

[Rich R]

I wonder if @Rich R will read it.

I am appreciative that you brought up "heck".

I recall when God opened my eyes to euphemisms which are meant to be abusive against God, such as gosh (a replacement for exclaiming "God") and jeez (a replacement for exclaiming "Jesus").

Matt 7:3,

And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
​

1 John 1:8,

If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.​

 

[tigger 2]

I did and don't see how that changes how Strong's defines "everlasting." Am I missing something?

It's also worth understand both the words "old" and "going forth" (both from KJV) mean in Hebrew. Both are also in Strong's.

................................
Halfway down the post You'll see that the word sometimes translated "everlasting" in Hebrew is olam (Strong's #5769).
Yom is the Heb. word for "day."

 

[Rich R]

................................
Halfway down the post You'll see that the word sometimes translated "everlasting" in Hebrew is olam (Strong's #5769).
Yom is the Heb. word for "day."

Got it! Thanks. Very good. Too often folks jump to conclusions as to what a word meant to the ancient Hebrews. They din't always mean the same thing as we in the modern West think they mean. It's nice to know there's someone who cares to make the effort to ascertain the true meaning of words, the words God purified 7 times. We ought to read them with the same care.

 

[Rich R]

Micah 5:2It's also very important to examine Micah 5:4 where Jehovah is recognized as being the God of the Messiah! (The NIVSB tells us in a footnote for this verse that the LORD [`Jehovah'] here - the God of the Messiah - refers to "God the Father.")

As I recall, Jesus is said to have a God in about a half dozen places in the NT. Ephesians 1:3 comes to mind, but there are others.

Maybe we should be worshiping that God. He must be even more powerful than YHWH. But, I guess it's easier to just ignore those verses and keep calling Jesus YHWH. That way nobody has to change their thinking, something that can be humbling.