Our Lord Jesus Said He is God

[DNB]

He didn't consider equality with God something to be gained because He is God! You don't desire something you already possess. And yes, Phil 2 is a testimony to His humility. As a human He certainly was subordinate to God the Father. As God, He is equal in every way.
More straw men. He never denied His deity nor did He 'remember' what He came to earth for. The rest is your opinion.

God absolutely atoned for our sin because no one else can. Our kinsmen redeemer is God incarnate.
That does not tell me what 'first born ' means. Give a verse, the word and a lexical definition.

You reason like a child. You seem to have no comprehension of what your stating, you offer no proof or wisdom to your position, but just in an obstinate manner you make illogical conclusions. That verse would not have stated the contemplation of Christ, if it had no relevance to his character and his ontological subordination to God. Like a fool you rebutted that he did not consider equality with God because he already possessed it, and yet the context is explaining what he was forced to deny and disregard, the option to even attain it, and to not rest on his pre-eminent laurels.
Plus, to not regard equality with God, if he were God, is to deny his deity. This is not a straw-man argument. You sound silly.

You simply regurgitate trinitarian clichés with having any understanding, or offering any insight, as to what you mean. 'God absolutely atoned for our sin because no one else can.' You need to grow-up and get serious. As I said, the victim does not pay the price for the culprit, for that is judiciously and legalistically unsound.

Smarten-up, i told you what first-born means, the entire universe and all that it contains was created for Christ, despite his birth and inception into the world taking place thousands of years after the fact.

Chris1964, start offering some wisdom and insight into what you are talking about, otherwise you just sound like an indoctrinated and naive neophyte.

Colossians 1:15-20
1:15. He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. 16. For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities--all things have been created through Him and for Him. 17. He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together. 18. He is also head of the body, the church; and He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, so that He Himself will come to have first place in everything. 19. For it was the Father's good pleasure for all the fullness to dwell in Him, 20. and through Him to reconcile all things to Himself, having made peace through the blood of His cross; through Him, I say, whether things on earth or things in heaven.

 

[Chris1964]

You reason like a child. You seem to have no comprehension of what your stating, you offer no proof or wisdom to your position, but just in an obstinate manner you make illogical conclusions.

I give what i get. Youre guilty of the very thing you rail against others doing. Theres a word for that.

That verse would not have stated the contemplation of Christ, if it had no relevance to his character and his ontological subordination to God. Like a fool you rebutted that he did not consider equality with God because he already possessed it, and yet the context is explaining what he was forced to deny and disregard, the option to even attain it, and to not rest on his pre-eminent laurels.
Plus, to not regard equality with God, if he were God, is to deny his deity. This is not a straw-man argument. You sound silly.

Wait, i thought you were all about facts, proof and wisdom? Where is any of that in what you just said? Nowhere. I'm beginning to think you lack the substance to back up your groundless assertions.

You simply regurgitate trinitarian clichés with having any understanding, or offering any insight, as to what you mean. 'God absolutely atoned for our sin because no one else can.' You need to grow-up and get serious. As I said, the victim does not pay the price for the culprit, for that is judiciously and legalistically unsound.

Where is Jesus ever called a victim? More groundless babble. But wait, i thought you were all about facts, proof....yada yada? I guess its do as i say not as i do huh?

Smarten-up, i told you what first-born means, the entire universe and all that it contains was created for Christ, despite his birth and inception into the world taking place thousands of years after the fact.

Chris1964, start offering some wisdom and insight into what you are talking about, otherwise you just sound like an indoctrinated and naive neophyte.

Telling me what first born means TO YOU is irrelevant. I've asked for a lexical definition, not your opinion. Youre sounding like a indoctrinated jw with memorized cards you repeat and hope that gets you through the discussion. It won't. So lets see some of that wisdom and insight you keep going on about.

Colossians 1:15-20
1:15. He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. 16. For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities--all things have been created through Him and for Him. 17. He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together. 18. He is also head of the body, the church; and He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, so that He Himself will come to have first place in everything. 19. For it was the Father's good pleasure for all the fullness to dwell in Him, 20. and through Him to reconcile all things to Himself, having made peace through the blood of His cross; through Him, I say, whether things on earth or things in heaven.

Perfect. I knew you were going there. So tell us, what does the greek word for first born mean?

Lets see this wisdom and insight you keep going on about.

 

[DNB]

Where is Jesus ever called a victim?

I clearly stated in my previous post that God was the victim, and that man was the culprit.
'God cannot atone for man's sin, for God is the victim and man is the culprit, thus a mediator was required who cannot be God.'
Why did you make it sound like that wasn't clear? I'm trying to be reasonable and practical here, and offer at a high level, for starters, fundamental reason why trinitarian theology is not plausible, ...let alone Biblical or glorious to God. Why are you being difficult, ...or daft?

Telling me what first born means TO YOU is irrelevant. I've asked for a lexical definition, not your opinion. So tell us, what does the greek word for first born mean?

Why in the world is it coming down to this? You've read the Bible (I assume, ...but am beginning to doubt it?), and you've not come across the rather predominant theme of one's first-born? Especially, through Isaac & Ishmael, Jacob & Isaac, the Exodus (Passover), Levitical Law (1st born all belonged to the Lord), Monarchical heritage, ...
And you ask me what does the expression mean? What the heck is wrong with you?

[the] firstborn
πρωτότοκος (prōtotokos)
Adjective - Nominative Masculine Singular
Strong's Greek 4416: First-born, eldest. From protos and the alternate of tikto; first-born.

Are you playing games right now? Is this a joke to you? ...you cannot be that daft, are you?

 

[DNB]

There's plenty of Scripture that 'directly' declares Jesus as God come in the flesh (like the ones I showed in my op, and some that others have shown). That's not one of them, so I don't think it offers much debate, if any. I think Jesus drew attention away from His deity there on purpose, so as to teach about The Father.

To teach what about the Father? Jesus clearly said that a fundamental characteristic and attribute of deity, was true about the Father, but not true about himself. What in the world did you mean that Jesus digressed in order to speak about the Father for a moment, as if the subject matter or context did not pertain to him also, especially as far as the young ruler was concerned?

You trinitarians just can't keep your stories straight.

 

[Chris1964]

I clearly stated in my previous post that God was the victim, and that man was the culprit.
'God cannot atone for man's sin, for God is the victim and man is the culprit, thus a mediator was required who cannot be God.'
Why did you make it sound like that wasn't clear? I'm trying to be reasonable and practical here, and offer at a high level, for starters, fundamental reason why trinitarian theology is not plausible, ...let alone Biblical or glorious to God. Why are you being difficult, ...or daft?

High level? Who are you kidding? This is high level for you? Yes, YOU stated God is the victim. My question was WHERE does the BIBLE say God or Jesus is the victim. I think you read in order to respond but not necessarily to understand. Show us where God or Jesus is referred to as a victim. Not your opinion mind you, scripture. Clear enough?

Why in the world is it coming down to this?

Because your opinion is exactly that, yours.

You've read the Bible (I assume, ...but am beginning to doubt it?), and you've not come across the rather predominant theme of one's first-born? Especially, through Isaac & Ishmael, Jacob & Isaac, the Exodus (Passover), Levitical Law (1st born all belonged to the Lord), Monarchical heritage, ...
And you ask me what does the expression mean? What the heck is wrong with you?

[the] firstborn
πρωτότοκος (prōtotokos)
Adjective - Nominative Masculine Singular
Strong's Greek 4416: First-born, eldest. From protos and the alternate of tikto; first-born.

Are you playing games right now? Is this a joke to you? ...you cannot be that daft, are you?

This isn't the entire definition but close. First born also means; having first place in, superior to preeminent. Yet in your earlier posts this isnt even close to what you give here.

i told you what first-born means, the entire universe and all that it contains was created for Christ, despite his birth and inception into the world taking place thousands of years after the fact.

I've spoken to enough jw's that i know you somehow think first born = first created. It doesn't. There is a word in the greek for first created, its never used of Jesus. But here is some commentary regarding first born;

The first born (πρωτοτοκος). Predicate adjective again and anarthrous. This passage is parallel to the Λογος passage in Joh 1:1-18 and to Heb 1:1-4 as well as Php 2:5-11 in which these three writers (John, author of Hebrews, Paul) give the high conception of the Person of Christ (both Son of God and Son of Man) found also in the Synoptic Gospels and even in Q (the Father, the Son). This word (LXX and N.T.) can no longer be considered purely "Biblical" (Thayer), since it is found In inscriptions (Deissmann, Light, etc., p. 91) and in the papyri (Moulton and Milligan, Vocabulary, etc.). See it already in Lu 2:7 and Aleph for Matt 1:25; Rom 8:29. The use of this word does not show what Arius argued that Paul regarded Christ as a creature like "all creation" (πασης κτισεως, by metonomy the act regarded as result). It is rather the comparative (superlative) force of πρωτος that is used (first-born of all creation) as in Col 1:18; Rom 8:29; Heb 1:6; Heb 12:23; Rev 1:5. Paul is here refuting the Gnostics who pictured Christ as one of the aeons by placing him before "all creation" (angels and men). Like εικων we find πρωτοτοκος in the Alexandrian vocabulary of the Λογος teaching (Philo) as well as in the LXX. Paul takes both words to help express the deity of Jesus Christ in his relation to the Father as εικων (Image) and to the universe as πρωτοτοκος (First-born).

Robertson's Word Pictures.

 

[DNB]

If the Scripture evidence that Jesus is God which I and others here have shown won't convince you, then rest assured you WILL believe when Jesus comes. Then you can push your doubt and false twisting of the Scriptures to Him personally.

If the Scriptural evidence, responsible and competent exegesis, and sound reasoning, that I and others have shown you, and that you insist on subscribing to the most implausible, incomprehensible and chaotic doctrine in all of Christendom, then all that I can say is that you will have a lot of explaining to do on the day of Christ's return.
If you can't comprehend it, then you cannot be convicted of it. Don't bastardize the meaning of faith with that of credulity and enigma.

 

[DNB]

High level? Who are you kidding? This is high level for you? Yes, YOU stated God is the victim. My question was WHERE does the BIBLE say God or Jesus is the victim. I think you read in order to respond but not necessarily to understand. Show us where God or Jesus is referred to as a victim. Not your opinion mind you, scripture. Clear enough?

You need to grow-up. Every single Christian, except you, in the world knows that man transgressed God's Law, making man guilty of a crime, and the offense being leveled at God. Thus, in judicial terms, God is understood to be the plaintiff or victim. It is up to man to propitiate the offended party, and not for the one who incurred the damages, to expiate himself.
Don't even think of asking for a Biblical verse on this. This is as elementary and fundamental as it gets in regard to the Atonement within Christianity. Man needs to become 'at-one' with God again, God cannot appease or placate Himself.

by one man sin entered the world, by one man grace entered the world (Romans 5:12-21)

There is a word in the greek for first created, its never used of Jesus. But here is some commentary regarding first born;

The entire universe was created for Christ, he was the first creature that God designed in his blueprint of creation. Although, many creatures preceded Christ in their historical inception into the world, God chose to reveal his actual First-Born at the appointed time, revealing that all that came before Christ, Eden, Adam, Abraham, Moses, the Law, David, all were meant to point to God's precedential creation. God saved the best, and His primary creature for last. Thus, 'before Abraham was, I am'. Christ was the First-Born, not Adam, the stars nor the universe.

Romans 8:29. For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren;

Hebrews 1:6. And when He again brings the firstborn into the world, He says, "AND LET ALL THE ANGELS OF GOD WORSHIP HIM."

Colossians 1:15. He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.

I'm not JW, trinitarian nor modalist. I do not deify Christ in any manner whatsoever. Only the Father is God, and the Holy Spirit is the Father's gift to man. And Jesus is the Father's first-born of all creation, who came into existence for the first time around 4BC, and died around 30AD, who now sits at the right-hand side of God for eternity.

 

[Chris1964]

You need to grow-up. Every single Christian, except you, in the world knows that man transgressed God's Law, making man guilty of a crime, and the offense being leveled at God. Thus, in judicial terms, God is understood to be the plaintiff or victim. It is up to man to propitiate the offended party, and not for the one who incurred the damages, to expiate himself.
Don't even think of asking for a Biblical verse on this. This is as elementary and fundamental as it gets in regard to the Atonement within Christianity. Man needs to become 'at-one' with God again, God cannot appease or placate Himself.

by one man sin entered the world, by one man grace entered the world (Romans 5:12-21)

Theres a lot wrong here. First the fact you can't find a verse that says God or Jesus is a victim speaks volumes. You can't find one because there isn't one. Secondly, 'its up to man to propitiate the offended party...?' Wheres this in the bible? Have you read Romans 3:25? Jesus is our propitiation, not you. Atonement has always been substitutional from the garden through the levitical sacrifices to Jesus. Gal 2:20, Mark 10:45, 2 Cor 5:21. And no one has ever said that God is appeasing Himself. Another straw man on your part.

The entire universe was created for Christ, he was the first creature that God designed in his blueprint of creation.

Something you've yet to prove.

Although, many creatures preceded Christ in their historical inception into the world, God chose to reveal his actual First-Born at the appointed time, revealing that all that came before Christ, Eden, Adam, Abraham, Moses, the Law, David, all were meant to point to God's precedential creation. God saved the best, and His primary creature for last. Thus, 'before Abraham was, I am'. Christ was the First-Born, not Adam, the stars nor the universe.

Jesus is firstborn in the sense of His being preeminent or having first place in or over all creation which He Himself created.

Romans 8:29. For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren;

Hebrews 1:6. And when He again brings the firstborn into the world, He says, "AND LET ALL THE ANGELS OF GOD WORSHIP HIM."

Colossians 1:15. He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.

Not a bit of exegesis here. I thought you were all about proof?

I'm not JW, trinitarian nor modalist. I do not deify Christ in any manner whatsoever. Only the Father is God, and the Holy Spirit is the Father's gift to man. And Jesus is the Father's first-born of all creation, who came into existence for the first time around 4BC, and died around 30AD, who now sits at the right-hand side of God for eternity.

Is the Holy Spirit God? If not, what does it mean that he is the Fathers gift to man? In what capacity?

 

[DNB]

Theres a lot wrong here. First the fact you can't find a verse that says God or Jesus is a victim speaks volumes. You can't find one because there isn't one. Secondly, 'its up to man to propitiate the offended party...?' Wheres this in the bible? Have you read Romans 3:25? Jesus is our propitiation, not you. Atonement has always been substitutional from the garden through the levitical sacrifices to Jesus. Gal 2:20, Mark 10:45, 2 Cor 5:21. And no one has ever said that God is appeasing Himself. Another straw man on your part.


Something you've yet to prove.

Jesus is firstborn in the sense of His being preeminent or having first place in or over all creation which He Himself created.


Not a bit of exegesis here. I thought you were all about proof?

Is the Holy Spirit God? If not, what does it mean that he is the Fathers gift to man? In what capacity?

You're way too immature in your understanding. I'm not trying to be critical for the sake of it, but my points should not need that much explanation, not in my view. Your understanding of Adam's transgression, and God's offer of absolution, is just out-there. I have no idea where you are going with this, and right now, I don't care. The only explanation that you offered was your view on the idea of first-born, and that was just an explanation of a single word, not an exposition of a principle necessarily.

We should be way further ahead, but I feel that your comprehension of the Gospel and Christology and Soteriology is too deficient to continue with you.

 

[Chris1964]

You're way too immature in your understanding. I'm not trying to be critical for the sake of it, but my points should not need that much explanation, not in my view. Your understanding of Adam's transgression, and God's offer of absolution, is just out-there. I have no idea where you are going with this, and right now, I don't care. The only explanation that you offered was your view on the idea of first-born, and that was just an explanation of a single word, not an exposition of a principle necessarily.

We should be way further ahead, but I feel that your comprehension of the Gospel and Christology and Soteriology is too deficient to continue with you.

Ah yes, you pick up your ball and go home when you can't answer simple questions or are called out to explain your position. It happens all the time. And like many others i talk with, when you don't get your way, let the caustic language fly. I'm the one that doesn't understand or am too immature. Yet you can't exegete verses you post.

Its hilarious that you think so highly of yourself that 'your' explanations don't need to be explained. But you require proof from me. Again, hilarious.

Atonement has always been by substitution which is all over the bible from genesis to revelation yet you claim YOU propititate your sin. The bible said nowhere! First born in the context of Col 1 is to be superior to or having first place in. It does not mean first created. But you can't back that up so i'm the dumb one?

And i cited a rather lengthy quote from Robertson. So your previous comment that 'my only' explanation of first born was my own is completely disingenuous and ignores whats right in front of your face. Again, youre reading to respond, not understand.

So go ahead and pick up your ball and run home to mommy. Maybe theres someone else here you can snow but its not me. Thanks for playing.

 

[DPMartin]

Well, is there anyone else that manifested as God come in the flesh, born through woman's womb vial The Holy Spirit? No. And that's an absolutely no. This is what one of the main subjects is about in Hebrews with Jesus being the only 'begotten' Son of God.

What Apostle John was saying in 1 John 2 about it is the point of just what does the tile 'The Christ' mean?

1 John 2:22-23
22 Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.

23 Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: (but) he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also.
KJV

John's point was not that Jesus was born in the flesh like us. It was that Jesus is God born in the flesh as 'The Christ'. And to make sure we understand, John thus says those who deny Jesus as The Christ hath not The Father, for to deny Jesus as The Christ is also to deny The Father. But belief on Jesus as The Christ is to have both The Son and The Father.

this isn't razzle dazzle debating here by answer a question with a question, right? where'd you learn that, tv shows?

if what you saying is true, then why "Son of God"? a distinction the Son of God Himself made sure was understood.

 

[101G]

Hebrews 1:8 "But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom."
here "the definite article" is used of the Son, WHY? for he is the diversity of God himself in flesh. lets explain. verse 10 here in Hebrews chapter 1 give us the answer also. Hebrews 1:10 "And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands:" well, well, well, who laid the foundation in "THE BEGINNING? answer, Zechariah 12:1 "The burden of the word of the LORD for Israel, saith the LORD, which stretcheth forth the heavens, and layeth the foundation of the earth, and formeth the spirit of man within him." HOLD IT, who laid the foundations of the earth? the "LORD", all cap. but did not the "Lord", O God the definite article in Hebrews 1:10 say it was the "Lord", but Zechariah 12:1 say it was the "LORD", all caps. well now we have two options, or three. #1. the writer of Hebrews either lied, or the prophet Zechariah lied. meaning.......... God lied... God forbid. through the process of elimination, A. we know God don't lie. and that means the writer of Hebrews and Zechariah are not lying. so what the conclusion? it's the same ONE God, but is he a SECOND Person in the Godhead? no, so how do we know this?. for only one person laid the foundation of the earth. lets find out, for a son of God gives us the answer, Job 38:4 "Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding." (BINGO, "I", is a single person designation, and it was the "LORD", all cap who said that). and in Hebrew that person is the one whom many call the Son. either one has two foundation layers, which the bible say is not so. that only leave that the "Father", and the "Son" is the same ONE God with two diffrent TITLES.... (smile)... BINGO.

Now, knowing this, the Son in Hebrews 1 is the LORD, (GOD, the FATHER), the same and one PERSON, "diversified" the Son who is God..... how many way must we say it. God, Jesus, is the diversity of his OWN-self in flesh. oh see how the bible just come together. understand, when christian read the bible, they need to+ ask God for recall, let him bring back to your rememberance as to what you read somewhere else in the bible and make the connection of the scriptures, here at where you're reading now. see how Job complement Zechariah 12:1, and Hebrews 1:10. for Psalms 104 complements Hebrews 1. what did the Lord Jesus say concering himself? Hebrews 10:7 "Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God." (DID YOU SEE THAT?), here the Son calls the Father "O God", here as well as in Hebrews 1:10 the DEFINITE ARTICLE is used of EACH, meaning both the Ordinal FIRST is the Ordinal LAST. oh how simple this is when God teach, who can compare him?....... again, "ye have not because ye ask not".

PICJAG.

 

[Behold]

Im probably the 24th person to quote 1 Timothy 3:16 that says "God was manifested in the Flesh".
Thats a good one.

I like this one also.. John 1:10. "Jesus was in the world, and the world was made by Him".

Thats a great verse. It says that Jesus made the world.
And this is interesting because the World was made by God speaking WORDS, and Jesus is the "Word made FLESH".

Its the same. God <> Christ <>WORD = Made the World.= The same ONE did it.

How do you know?

Colossians 1:16 :.."""For by Jesus were all things created, (WORLD) that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him">.

I like to think about this..
When Jesus was about 9 months old, obo, He started to try to stand up on His tiny bare feet.
Those little feet were standing on The world that HE, as GOD, had previously created.

Colossians 1:16 :.."""For by Jesus were all things created, (WORLD) that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him">.

 

[101G]

Im probably the 24th person to quote 1 Timothy 3:16 that says "God was manifested in the Flesh".
Thats a good one.

I like this one also.. John 1:10. "Jesus was in the world, and the world was made by Him".

Thats a great verse. It says that Jesus made the world.
And this is interesting because the World was made by God speaking WORDS, and Jesus is the "Word made FLESH".

Its the same. God <> Christ <>WORD = Made the World.= The same ONE did it.

How do you know?

Colossians 1:16 :.."""For by Jesus were all things created, (WORLD) that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him">.

I like to think about this..
When Jesus was about 9 months old, obo, He started to try to stand up on His tiny bare feet.
Those little feet were standing on The world that HE, as GOD, had previously created.

Colossians 1:16 :.."""For by Jesus were all things created, (WORLD) that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him">.

I like John 1:3 BETTER, "All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made." for it clearly tells us that JESUS is the true and only living God. for the one who made all things Jesus God the Ordinal First said this in Isaiah 44:24 "Thus saith the LORD, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I am the LORD that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself;"

so, yes, Jesus is God the Ordinal "LAST". who as Ordinal "First" MADE ALL THINGS. and Isaiah 44:24 also states that he was "ALONE", and by himself, meaning he didn't go through anyone to "MAKE ALL THINGS"......

PICJAG.

 

[tigger 2]

1 Tim. 3:16

The NKJV (and the few other Bibles still based on the flawed Received Text) has rendered this passage as "God was manifested in the flesh" when it is quite clear that this was a change to the earlier manuscripts purposely made by trinitarian copyists around the eighth or ninth century A.D. (See A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, United Bible Societies, 1971. And even noted Bible scholar Dr. Frederick C. Grant writes:

“A capital example [of NT manuscript changes] is found in 1 Timothy 3:16, where ‘OS’ (‘who’) was later taken for theta sigma with a bar above, which stood for θεὸς (‘God’). Since the new reading suited …. the orthodox doctrine of the church [trinitarian, at this later date], it got into many of the later manuscripts ….” – p. 656, Encyclopedia Americana, vol. 3, 1957 ed. (This same statement by Dr. Grant was still to be found in the latest Encyclopedia Americana that I examined – the 1990 ed., pp. 696-698, vol. 3.)

Trinitarian scholar Murray J. Harris also concludes:

“The strength of the external evidence favoring OC [‘who’], along with considerations of transcriptional and intrinsic probability, have prompted textual critics virtually unanimously to regard OC [ὃς] as the original text, a judgment reflected in NA(26) [Nestle-Aland text] and UBS (1,2,3) [United Bible Societies text] (with a ‘B’ rating) [also the Westcott and Hort text]. Accordingly, 1 Tim 3:16 is not an instance of the Christological [‘Jesus is God’] use of θεὸς.” - Jesus as God, p. 268, Baker Book House, 1992.

And very trinitarian (Southern Baptist) NT Greek scholar A. T. Robertson wrote about this scripture:

“He who (hos [or OC in the original text]). [This is] the correct text, not theos (God) the reading of the Textus Receptus ... nor ho (neuter relative [pronoun]), agreeing with [the neuter] musterion [‘mystery’] the reading of Western documents.” - p. 577, Vol. 4, Word Pictures in the New Testament, Broadman Press.

And even hyper-trinitarian NT Greek scholar, Daniel B. Wallace uses the relative pronoun ὃς (‘who’) in this scripture and tells us:

“The textual variant θεὸς in the place of ὃς has been adamantly defended by some scholars, particularly those of the ‘majority text’ school. Not only is such a reading poorly attested,* but the syntactical argument that ‘mystery’ (musthrion) being a neuter noun, cannot be followed by the masculine pronoun (ὃς) is entirely without weight. As attractive theologically [for trinitarians, of course] as the reading θεὸς may be, it is spurious. To reject it is not to deny the deity of Christ, of course; it is just to deny any explicit reference in this text.” [italicized emphasis is by Wallace]. - pp. 341-342, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, Zondervan, 1996.


* Wallace’s footnote for the above says: “In particular, it is impossible to explain the Latin reading of a neuter R[elative] P[ronoun] as deriving from θεὸς, showing that ὃς was quite early. Not one firsthand of any Greek witnesses prior to the 8th century read θεὸς.”

 

[tigger 2]

John 1:3, 10

John's (and Jesus' and all Bible writers') repeated use of the term "Father" for God stresses over and over that Jesus' Father (and our Father) is the ultimate source who, because of his will (Rev. 4:11) and his spoken command (Ps. 33:6, 8, 9; Ps. 148:5) caused (originated) all things to be made through the obedient efforts of his Firstborn Son, Jesus.

The word "through" (dia in NT Greek) is extremely important here! Although more often translated "by" in the King James Version, dia means "through" in modern English and is rendered that way in modern Bible translations such as NASB; NRSV; NAB; RSV; NIV; TEV; etc. (At times some translations may render dia as "by," but it is with the intended meaning of "through": "God's law was given by Moses.") Notice its obvious meaning at Matt. 1:22, "what was spoken by [hypo] the Lord through [dia] the prophet" - NASB. Obviously, the Lord was the source of the message and "spoke" through (dia) the prophet!

Again: John 1:17, "The law was given through [dia] Moses." - NASB. The law obviously did not originate with Moses. Moses was not the source. The source was God even though it was given through (dia) Moses! (Compare Acts 19:11 - "God was performing ... miracles by [dia - `through'] the hands of Paul" - NASB.) Would anyone dare to say that this means Moses (or Paul) actually is God? Of course not!

The Greek word dia is a "primary preposition denoting the channel of an act; through" - Strong's Exhaustive Concordance, #1223.

So we can see that the Father alone is the source and his first creation (the only direct creation by Him), His only-begotten son, is the channel through whom he caused all the rest of creation to be. "His son, whom he appointed heir of all things, through [dia] whom he made the world." - Heb. 1:2. "All things came into being through [dia] him.... The world was made through [dia] him" - John 1:3,10.

Notice how the strongly trinitarian NT Greek experts, Dana and Mantey, explain this scripture:

"`All things were made through him.' Jn 1:3. Here God the Father is thought of as the original cause of creation, and the logos [Jesus] as the intermediate agent." - p. 162, A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament.

 

[101G]

So we can see that the Father alone is the source and his first creation (the only direct creation by Him), His only-begotten son, is the channel through whom he caused all the rest of creation to be. "His son, whom he appointed heir of all things, through [dia] whom he made the world." - Heb. 1:2. "All things came into being through [dia] him.... The world was made through [dia] him" - John 1:3,10.

I understand what you are saying but one problem, Hebrews 11:3 "Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear."for you clearly said, ""what was spoken by [hypo] the Lord through [dia] the prophet" - NASB. Obviously, the Lord was the source of the message and "spoke" through (dia) the prophet!" so what was done "by" the word of God, we believe "THROUGH" faith. so now we have a problem. you said the

So we can see that the Father alone is the source and his first creation (the only direct creation by Him), His only-begotten son, is the channel

so in Hebrews 11:3 the source is the WORD OF GOD "ALONE", our Faith is the channel "through" which we believe.

so I cannot buy your assessment, but I can buy the process. for clearly "BY" the "WORD of GOD" is the Source. now either the Word of God is God as John 1:1 states, or the scholars lie.

PICJAG

 

[tigger 2]

Heb. 11:3 does not say "through faith." There is no use of dia there. Simply the dative form of 'faith' (pistei) which means to or by faith.

 

[GerhardEbersoehn]

Ray Charles

Who was / is Ray Charles .. the blind pianist. I liked him playing and singing. But did he CONFESS Jesus his God?

 

[GerhardEbersoehn]

Davy wrote:

In John 8, our Lord Jesus is conversing with the unbelieving scribes and Pharisees who tried to trap His words.

John 8:56-59
56 "Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day: and he saw it, and was glad."

57 Then said the Jews unto Him, "Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast Thou seen Abraham?"

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

59 Then took they up stones to cast at Him: but Jesus hid Himself, and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by. KJV

The 'I AM THAT I AM' is the sacred name GOD gave to Moses upon Mt. Sinai (Exodus 3:14-15). [Actually the Hebrew word ehyeh there is literally translated as "I Will Be" everywhere else in the writings of Moses] Our Lord Jesus just said to those blind scribes and Pharisees directly that He is God. And to show that they understood that, they took up stones to stone Jesus for blasphemy.
......................

Some trinitarians claim that Jesus was declaring himself to be Jehovah God because he said “I AM” (ego eimi in the original NT Greek) at John 8:58.


Their reasoning goes like this: Exodus 3:14 in some English Bible translations has Jehovah God revealing himself as “I AM WHO I AM” and “I AM.” So, they say, Jesus’ statement at John 8:58 shows him revealing himself by the same exclusive title (name? description?) as Jehovah (“I AM” at Exodus 3:14) and, therefore, he is Jehovah God!

Furthermore, some of these trinitarians say, the Jews understood perfectly that Jesus was claiming to be Jehovah when he used those two words because they immediately took up stones to kill him.

But these Jews of Judea had already decided beforehand to kill Jesus! (John 7:1, 25) They needed no further incentives. Nothing that Jesus said or did at this point would have made any difference to them.

If the Jews had really understood the phrase “I AM” (ego eimi) to mean the speaker was claiming to be Jehovah and that they should therefore kill him, they would have immediately stoned Jesus at John 8:24 or :28. (The actual Greek in the ancient Bible manuscripts is identical to John 8:58, ego eimi, but many English Bible translations properly add “he” so that it can be understood as “I am he” in English.) Nevertheless, Jesus actually identified himself by saying ego eimi in these two verses (unlike his use of them in John 8:58!)

We know that even his disciples didn’t believe Jesus was God simply because he said ego eimi, for he identified himself to them with these very same words at John 6:20 (usually rendered into English as “It is I”), and their reaction was certainly not that of those who had come into the presence of God! - Cf. the parallel Matt. 14:27.

We should also know that the Jews didn't believe it either. Otherwise they would have immediately stoned the ex-blind man who identified himself to the Jews by saying ego eimi: John 9:9.

As for the charge that the Jews were going to stone him because he claimed to be God, we should be aware that the Jews stoned people for many offenses. For example, a person pretending to be a “wizard” was to be stoned to death according to the Law (Lev. 20:27 - KJV, RSV, ASV, LB). Today’s Dictionary of the Bible, 1982 ed., tells us

“Wizard, a pretender to supernatural knowledge and power .... such a one was forbidden on pain of death to practice his deceptions ... Lev. 20:26, 27.” - p. 654.

There are many other capital crimes including false prophecy and Sabbath breaking.

We also know that some of the Jews wanted Jesus killed for blasphemy because he admitted to being the Messiah (Christ) - see Matt 26:59-68 and footnotes for Matt 26:65 and Luke 22:71 in The NIV Study Bible, Zondervan Publ., 1985.

“But powerful forces in the Jewish congregation, jealous of his popularity, incensed by his denunciation of some of them, and bitterly critical of his disregard for formalism, his willingness to violate some of the minor laws of the Jews, and his heretical claim that he was the Son of God, repudiated him, conspired to kill him, saw him crucified, and after his death, persecuted his followers.” - The Portable World Bible, Viking Press, p. 230.

If John truly believed a stunning new essential knowledge of God that Jesus is equally God, why would he summarize and conclude his Gospel with, 'But these [the Gospel of John] are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God.'

Where is the amazing new 'truth' that Jesus IS God?

When the chief priests and the whole Sanhedrin were attempting to gather evidence to kill Jesus, why did they have to hire false witnesses? And why did these same priests and false witnesses never say that Jesus believed (or said) that he was God? Instead the high priest finally said to Jesus: Tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God. - Matt. 26:59-63 NIV.

Another Barney Bright far too bright for his batteries to last.