Did ANYONE In Scripture (Including Jesus), Claim Jesus IS God?

[face2face]

Again.... how do you not know these things!!!

A heads up, Lux is a serial reposting offender (SRO!). I would see her in the same way the Lord viewed those fickle believers in John 8 who turned on him. she won't listen and most certainly will never engage with any of your posted material. You are better openly posting your truths into the forum than deal with her copy and pasting.

F2F

 

[RedFan]

Trinitarians have failed to prove with Scripture that Jesus is God.

I agree. @Johann may not, but I do. I've been saying this for years. (Like our back and forth in Post #2,755 of The Trinity Can Now Be Discussed.) Scripture is equivocal on the subject. One can marshal verses on both sides.

THE Trinity can Now be discussed.

@Johann A.D. 300 Trinitarian prayers unknown in the Church. A.D. 325 "Nicene Creed" affirms Christ to be "Very God of Very God". A.D. 370 Doxology composed: "Glory to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit: as it was in the beginning, is now, and will be for ever. Amen." A.D...

www.christianityboard.com

 

[Marvelloustime]

Oh my dear friend
Many will remain at their present condition
having eyes but see not
having ears but hear not .
And while its truth that On the day of the LORD the sheep and the goats will stand before him .
All seeing the VERY TRUTH in front of them . Not a goat one gonna hear well done enter in ........
There is good reason i remind us of what we already know .
David , many there be that are in deadly dire danger of eternal damnation .
And though they might even sing the song , when we all get to heaven , We shall shout the victory
many have denied the true image of GOD and followed another jesus , another spirit , another gospel .
THEY WONT SINGING IN HEAVEN DAVID but rather screaming in eternal judgement .
Now that might sound a lil grave , a lil hard stance , maybe even judgemental to most .
BUT ITS REALITY friend . FELIX TREMBLED when paul witnessed . aint a darn thing wrong with being grave .

@amigo de christo

 

[APAK]

@RedFan, no point by point rebuttal?


Isn’t ignoring all this so typical @face2face, @APAK, @Keiw?

Still they attempt to force larger squares into smaller circles, or force scripture verse puzzle pieces into place not meant to be attached, and to have dog ears - the pieces just don't fit! And they still call it all good....

 

[Wrangler]

Scripture is equivocal on the subject.

To say some Scripture is equivocal on the subject of the trinity does not mean:

1. There is any unequivocal Scripture in support of the trinity.
2. There are not mountains of unequivocal Scripture against the trinity, e.g., every epistle teaches there is only God the Father.

 

[RedFan]

Still they attempt to force larger squares into smaller circles, or force scripture verse puzzle pieces into place not meant to be attached, and to have dog ears - the pieces just don't fit! And they still call it all good....

Are you including me in this? I've been saying forever that Scripture does not prove the Trinity -- often to the chagrin of my fellow Trinitarians.

 

[APAK]

Are you including me in this? I've been saying forever that Scripture does not prove the Trinity -- often to the chagrin of my fellow Trinitarians.

That an honest reply Red, and no, for the reason you gave me..thx

 

[RedFan]

That an honest reply Red, and no, for the reason you gave me..thx

I appreciate that, APAK. There are lots of posters on this site who are convinced that I am depriving a village somewhere of an idiot.

 

[Taken]

The word Trinity is not mysterious…
Three United equal to One.

Trinity…Tri-three…United…= ONE God.

Word…Maker…Jesus…………Lord
Heavenly…Creator……………..God
Spirit…Christ…Power…………Almighty

No beginning …no ending.
IS….WAS…IS to come.

Trinity…Tri-three..United…. = ONE man

Body
Soul
Spirit

Trinity…Tri-Three…United….= US Branches

Legislative
Executive
Judicial

Glory to God,
Taken

 

[face2face]

One can marshal verses on both sides.

You and I both know that there is a single, all-powerful truth that saves. God knows it, the Apostles knew it, and I believe I possess that original saving Gospel.

It’s only a matter of time before we all come to know the truth.

F2F

 

[RedFan]

there is a single, all-powerful truth that saves

That "there is a single, all-powerful truth that saves" is unhelpful in wrestling with apparent conflicts in Scripture. That's true of the Trinity. It's even true of the contention that "there is a single, all-powerful truth that saves." (One can marshal verses on both sides of that one too!)

 

[Wrangler]

It's even true of the contention that "there is a single, all-powerful truth that saves." (One can marshal verses on both sides of that one too!)

You keep implying there is some kind of equal ambiguity on both sides. 1st, that’s not true. 2nd, you know the burden is on the one making the positive claim, I.e., both sides do not have equal burden to make its case. See post #787.

What is the trinitarian counterpoint to Romans 10:9, such as if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that Jesus raised himself from the dead, you will be saved?

 

[RedFan]

What is the trinitarian counterpoint to Romans 10:9, such as if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that Jesus raised himself from the dead, you will be saved?

I don't think there is a Trinitarian (or even a Binitarian) counterpoint to that one.

But is that the "single" truth that F2F suggests is the exclusive means to salvation? We can't know one way or the other just by reading the verse, because Rom. 10:9 portrays itself as a sufficient condition for salvation, but not a necessary one. And there are other Scriptural passages which might suggest alternative paths.

 

[Wrangler]

But is that the "single" truth that F2F suggests is the exclusive means to salvation? We can't know one way or the other just by reading the verse, because Rom. 10:9 portrays itself as a sufficient condition for salvation, but not a necessary one.

I don’t understand how you are parsing sufficient with necessary? At first, it seems like sophistry, an artificial dichotomy, to side step THE condition of salvation.

 

[RedFan]

I don’t understand how you are parsing sufficient with necessary? At first, it seems like sophistry, an artificial dichotomy, to side step THE condition of salvation.

I'm just pointing out that Rom. 10:9 says "If X, then salvation." It doesn't say "ONLY if X, then salvation." And other Xs are also of the form "If X, then salvation."

 

[Wrangler]

I'm just pointing out that Rom. 10:9 says "If X, then salvation." It doesn't say "ONLY if X, then salvation." And other Xs are also of the form "If X, then salvation."

It doesn’t have to say only X. The fact that other conditions are absent from the text tells the story.

Boy, the sophistry to NOT reject the trinity is something to behold! Invent a specific formulation of words designed to defeat the obvious, explicit and repeatedly given truth from God’s words.

 

[RedFan]

It doesn’t have to say only X. The fact that other conditions are absent from the text tells the story.

There are no other conditions in the verse. (That's what "sufficient" means.) But nothing in the verse gainsays other paths to salvation.

Jesus is quoted as saying “For if you forgive others their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you” (Matt. 6:14). Is forgiving others, without more, enough to be judged positively on Judgment Day and have our own sins forgiven? Taken literally, Matt. 6:14 is absolute, in the form “If X, then Y,” i.e., if we forgive, we will be forgiven. Period. Without more. If the “more” that others suggest is necessary for forgiveness of sin is indeed necessary, then Matt. 6:14 is literally untrue! Can you imagine Paul, if he were in the crowd, jumping up and down screaming "NOT TRUE, JESUS! NO FORGIVENESS EXCEPT THROUGH CONFESSING YOU AS LORD! THAT'S WHAT I'M GONNA TELL THE ROMANS, AND I'M STICKING TO IT!"

Or how about this one. John 5:28-29 quotes Jesus as saying "Do not be astonished at this; for the hour is coming when all who are in their graves will hear his voice and will come out—those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of condemnation." This is literally a reference to salvation BY WORKS! A reference only to those who died pre-Jesus? Maybe. But IT DOESN'T SAY SO IN THE TEXT! And therein lieth the dilemma.

I can keep doing this all night, but my point is very simple. Whether it's the Trinity, or salvation exclusively through faith in Christ, or whatever the topic -- it is often possible to find verses that support both sides of an issue.

 

[Wrangler]

There are no other conditions in the verse.

Why are you only looking at this verse?

You keep implying there is some kind of equal ambiguity on both sides. 1st, that’s not true. 2nd, you know the burden is on the one making the positive claim, I.e., both sides do not have equal burden to make its case. See post #787.

What is the trinitarian counterpoint to Romans 10:9, such as if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that Jesus raised himself from the dead, you will be saved?

As a lawyer, you know if a contract has one condition, that is determinant; no parsing between sufficient amor necessary.

You don’t just look at a single sentence. That’s why I asked about the trinitarian counterpoint, which you admit is non-existent. The question brings into context the entire contract, aka Scripture in total.

 

[RedFan]

Why are you only looking at this verse?

As a lawyer, you know if a contract has one condition, that is determinant; no parsing between sufficient amor necessary.

You don’t just look at a single sentence. That’s why I asked about the trinitarian counterpoint, which you admit is non-existent. The question brings into context the entire contract, aka Scripture in total.

But I am not looking just at a single sentence. I am looking at three. Two of which confirm that the first is not a necessary, but only a sufficient, condition to salvation -- precisely as its text suggests..

 

[David in NJ]

Elohim has been a very confusing word for many people. The word elohim is used various ways in Scripture. It is not only used to describe the Almighty, but also individual pagan gods and even mighty human beings. Elohim may be translated as God, god, angels, judges, or even a human being who stands as God's representative or agent. For example, the sons of Heth address Abraham as "a mighty prince," the word for "mighty" being elohim (Genesis 23:6). Some translations have Abraham here being called "Prince of God." Take another instance. In Exodus 4, the Lord tells Moses that he "shall be as God" (elohim) to his brother Aaron. Moses will have God's words in his mouth, and will stand as God's representative before Aaron. Here is a case where an individual human is called elohim. Again in Exodus 7:1, the Lord says to Moses, "See, I make you God [elohim] to Pharaoh." No one dares to suggest that there is a plurality of persons within Moses because he is called elohim, that is, God's representative. The pagan god Dagon is also called elohim in the Hebrew Bible. The Philistines lamented that the God of Israel was harshly treating "Dagon our God [elohim]" (1 Sam. 5:7). Dagon was a single pagan deity. The same holds true for the single pagan god called Chemosh: “Do you not possess what Chemosh your god [elohim] gives you to possess?" (Jud. 11:24). The same for the single deity called Baal.

The Hebrew language has many examples of words which are plural but whose meaning is singular. In Genesis 23, Abraham's wife Sarah dies. The Hebrew text says, "the lives [plural] of Sarah were 127 years" (v. 1). Even the plural verb that accompanies the pronoun does not mean Sarah lived multiple lives. The Hebrews never taught reincarnation or plurality of personhood. Another example of this kind of anomaly in the Hebrew language is found in Genesis 43. After Joseph wept to see his brothers, we read that Joseph "washed his faces" (plural). This is another instance where in the Hebrew language the plural noun functions as a singular noun with a singular meaning, unless, of course, Joseph was a multi-faced human being! The same occurs in Genesis 16:8 where Hagar flees from "the faces" (plural) of her mistress Sarah. These are "anomalies" of the Hebrew language that are clearly understood by Hebrew scholars who rightly translate to a singular form in English.

The better explanation is that the Hebrews used a form of speech called "the plural of majesty." Put simply this means that someone whose position was warrant of dignity was spoken in this way as giving a sign of honor. The plural acted as a means of intensification:

Elohim must rather be explained as an intensive plural, denoting greatness and majesty.

Whenever the word elohim refers to the God of Israel the Septuagint uses the singular and not the plural. From Genesis 1:1 consistently right through, this holds true. The Hebrews who translated their own scriptures into Greek simply had no idea that their God could be more than one individual, or a multiple personal Being! This is true too when we come to the New Testament. The New Testament nowhere hints at a plurality in the meaning of elohim when it reproduces references to the One God as ho theos, the One God.

How do you not know these things...

Whenever someone claims the Holy Scriptures are "nonsense" it shows that they do not have the Holy Spirit who gives UNDERSTANDING.

In the Beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God