Non-Trinitarians, Please Answer This

[stunnedbygrace]

This is drifting in the same direction as Amadeus was going in, and I'd like to address it as it's very interesting to discuss theologically and spiritually, and by that I mean Very interesting, especially from the Charismatic point of view. But it would be too far afield from what I'm trying to focus on in this thread.

I just wanna know what the response is to the particular passage in question, but maybe sometime else : )

Well, okay…but I think you’re going to have a hard time trying to get any man at all to share his mind on that one scripture without the man bringing up the line upon line and precept upon precept that GOT him to his current view. But good luck. I’ve seen other men attempt to demand an answer of others using ONLY the one scripture they give and I’ve never seen the demand work. In fact, I think even YOU would probably say it’s best not to make a doctrine on one verse alone, but I’m just guessing there…

 

[Hidden In Him]

Well, okay…but I think you’re going to have a hard time trying to get any man at all to share his mind on that one scripture without the man bringing up the line upon line and precept upon precept that GOT him to his current view. But good luck. I’ve seen other men attempt to demand an answer of others using ONLY the one scripture they give and I’ve never seen the demand work.

I understand, SBG.

I didn't start the thread as one not familiar with the arguments, or one wanting to debate Trinitarianism for the hundredth time on this forum in less than a year. I merely want an answer to this specific question, nothing more. It's a "for future reference" sort of thing.

 

[ScottA]

It is clear from the Book of Revelation that Jesus Christ, the Lamb who was slain but who now lives, the firstborn from the dead, the beginning of God’s creation, is not God.
...

There is no biblical proof that Jesus = God (actually the Father) HIH...

This certainly gives the appearance of two distinct persons...but it does not reconcile "Emmanuel,” which is translated, “God with us.” Matthew 1:23 to mean that Jesus is not God.

 

[stunnedbygrace]

Scripture says that Jesus and the Father share the same throne in Heaven (Revelation 22:1, 3). If so, how could this infer anything else but that Jesus is God if He is seated together with Him on the same throne? Will not the inhabitants of Heaven worship Him like they do the Father if He is seated on the throne of Almighty God?

I don’t think you heard me really, so maybe I could do it this way and pretend I am neither trinitarian nor binarian and answer the above question.

Here is my answer - What makes you think just because Jesus is seated with God on His throne, it means He is to be worshiped along with God. I mean, after all, some of US will also sit on His throne with Him but does that mean we also have to necessarily be worshiped too? I hope your answer is: of course not!

Do you see?

 

[Hidden In Him]

Here is my answer - What makes you think just because Jesus is seated with God on His throne, it means He is to be worshiped along with God. I mean, after all, some of US will also sit on His throne with Him but does that mean we also have to necessarily be worshiped too?

I understood you, sister, and I understand the argument.

Again, it was not my intention to get into this discussion when starting the thread, but for your sake I will give an answer: In short, "We" are not worshipped in Heaven because "we" have died and it is no longer we who live but Christ Jesus who lives in us. Therefore all glory belongs to Him alone, yet we share in His glory because we are in Him. This is why the saints are going to rule and reign with Him - not because of any intrinsic value in themselves but because He will live and move and speak and act through them to His creation.

 

[stunnedbygrace]

Okay…it still doesn’t answer why Jesus necessarily must be worshiped just because He shares Gods throne though. And we found an anomaly, which would only cement them further in their insistence that just because Jesus shares Gods throne it doesn’t mean He should be worshiped. And that is your assertion, right? That if someone shares Gods throne it has to mean they are to be worshiped?

 

[Hidden In Him]

Okay…it still doesn’t answer why Jesus necessarily must be worshiped just because He shares Gods throne though. And that is your assertion, right? That if someone shares Gods throne it has to mean they are to be worshiped?

I insinuated it in the OP, but let me elaborate a little more.

If the Lord Jesus Christ shares the throne of God the Father - not additional thrones such as what the 24 elders sit upon, but the Father's throne itself - then He literally dwells in the Fulness of the Power of Almighty God Himself, and this would be seen by all in Heaven. If this is true together with the fact that He shares the very throne of Almighty God Himself, the question is how could such things infer anything else but that Jesus is God, and that He is worthy of the same worship the Father is?

 

[tigger 2]

Perhaps we should go to a respected trinitarian source. I mentioned The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, Vol. 3, p. 588, Zondervan, 1986. Here is the quote:

Under “Sit”

“1. for sitting (on a throne) as the proper posture of the king see e.g.Acts 12:21; Rev. 18:7. So God, as king, is constantly described in Rev. as ‘the one who sits on the throne’ (e.g. Rev. 4:2-10; 5:1-13; 6:16; 7:10-17; 21:5 cf. Matt. 23:22). It is a mark of the glory of Christ that he has been given the seat at God’s right hand (Mk. 14:62 and many other allusions to Ps. 110:1; Eph. 1:20), or even shares the very throne of God (Rev. 3:21). So, having completed his work of redemption, he is now seated in the place of supreme authority, until all opposition is finally destroyed (Heb. 1:3-4; 10:11-13).

“2. It is a remarkable extension of this idea that the believer, who is ‘in Christ’, shares this exalted position. James and John asked for this place of honour as a personal right (Mk. 10:37-40), and it was refused. But the Christian’s union with Christ means that God has ‘raised us up with him and made us sit with him in the heavenly places’ (Eph. 2:6). He even offers us a place on the throne which he himself shares with the Father (Rev. 3:21; cf. Matt. 19:28).”

 

[stunnedbygrace]

This is an interesting exercise to try to make someone’s argument for them even though I don’t agree with them but I think I’m learning by it.

So in your op, you made an appeal to the Greek meaning one throne, not two thrones. And then you just now made a distinction with the 24 additional thrones, (which obviously doesn’t need any Greek appeal), but I wonder (since I don’t do the whole Greek thing) if you might want to take the verse below and do the Greek thing with it also concerning my throne/His throne and see what comes of it regarding whether there is any difference. Or not. Just a curiosity.

Those who are victorious will sit with me on my throne, just as I was victorious and sat with my Father on his throne.

 

[Hidden In Him]

Perhaps we should go to a respected trinitarian source. I mentioned The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, Vol. 3, p. 588, Zondervan, 1986. Here is the quote:

Under “Sit”

“1. for sitting (on a throne) as the proper posture of the king see e.g.Acts 12:21; Rev. 18:7. So God, as king, is constantly described in Rev. as ‘the one who sits on the throne’ (e.g. Rev. 4:2-10; 5:1-13; 6:16; 7:10-17; 21:5 cf. Matt. 23:22). It is a mark of the glory of Christ that he has been given the seat at God’s right hand (Mk. 14:62 and many other allusions to Ps. 110:1; Eph. 1:20), or even shares the very throne of God (Rev. 3:21). So, having completed his work of redemption, he is now seated in the place of supreme authority, until all opposition is finally destroyed (Heb. 1:3-4; 10:11-13).

“2. It is a remarkable extension of this idea that the believer, who is ‘in Christ’, shares this exalted position. James and John asked for this place of honour as a personal right (Mk. 10:37-40), and it was refused. But the Christian’s union with Christ means that God has ‘raised us up with him and made us sit with him in the heavenly places’ (Eph. 2:6). He even offers us a place on the throne which he himself shares with the Father (Rev. 3:21; cf. Matt. 19:28).”

I'm not sure the entry supports or refutes either position, Tigger. It's merely an entry on the word "sit," which while the word could certainly be used figuratively in certain instances shows no signs of being used figuratively in his examples.

 

[APAK]

This certainly gives the appearance of two distinct persons...but it does not reconcile "Emmanuel,” which is translated, “God with us.” Matthew 1:23 to mean that Jesus is not God.

Actually Scott, Immanuel or Emmanuel is another grossly misunderstood and misapplied term.

It was always with the Hebrews and used in the Hebrew and in the Aramaic language before Christ. It was a common term amongst the Israelites for example to convey in common spirit that God was with them in battle, for health, in mind and spirit. It was also used as part of prayer and used even as a greeting, to triumph over their enemies and to protect their families. So it was fitting that Jesus was labelled Emmanuel, as he was and became the instrument of his Father for our victory over the enemy, and of death, indeed.

 

[Nancy]

This is an interesting exercise to try to make someone’s argument for them even though I don’t agree with them but I think I’m learning by it.

So in your op, you made an appeal to the Greek meaning one throne, not two thrones. And then you just now made a distinction with the 24 additional thrones, (which obviously doesn’t need any Greek appeal), but I wonder (since I don’t do the whole Greek thing) if you might want to take the verse below and do the Greek thing with it also concerning my throne/His throne and see what comes of it regarding whether there is any difference. Or not. Just a curiosity.

Those who are victorious will sit with me on my throne, just as I was victorious and sat with my Father on his throne.

Hmm, interesting. Jesus will reside with us on earth one day but at this time resides at the right hand of The Father...until His enemies are under His feet. Does Jesus have His own throne at this time or is He at "the right hand of The Father?

 

[stunnedbygrace]

Hmm, interesting. Jesus will reside with us on earth one day but at this time resides at the right hand of The Father...until His enemies are under His feet. Does Jesus have His own throne at this time or is He at "the right hand of The Father?

HIH made a case in his op of it being, by the Greek, one throne, not two. We greekless dummies don’t ever know if we are speaking with an actual Greek scholar or an armchair dabbler but no one has challenged him on it who claims to be a Greek scholar so…

 

[Hidden In Him]

Those who are victorious will sit with me on my throne, just as I was victorious and sat with my Father on his throne.

The reference was to Jesus promising the Laodiceans that if they overcame they would sit with Him on His earthly throne just as He sat down with His Father on His heavenly one. Both uses are in singular, so the translation there is correct. They're just referring to two different thrones is all.

 

[Hidden In Him]

HIH made a case in his op of it being, by the Greek, one throne, not two. We greekless dummies don’t ever know if we are speaking with an actual Greek scholar or an armchair dabbler but no one has challenged him on it who claims to be a Greek scholar so…

You are not a greekless dummy, you are merely "Greek-impaired."

It's curable.

 

[ScottA]

Actually Scott, Immanuel or Emmanuel is another grossly misunderstood and misapplied term.

It was always with the Hebrews and used in the Hebrew and in the Aramaic language before Christ. It was a common term amongst the Israelites for example to convey in common spirit that God was with them in battle, for health, in mind and spirit. It was also used as part of prayer and used even as a greeting, to triumph over their enemies and to protect their families. So it was fitting that Jesus was labelled Emmanuel, as he was and became the instrument of his Father for our victory over the enemy, and of death, indeed.

And yet, to Christ alone, it was given as a Name, rather than merely the power of God among men.

 

[Nancy]

The reference was to Jesus promising the Laodiceans that if they overcame they would sit with Him on His earthly throne just as He sat down with His Father on His heavenly one. Both uses are in singular, so the translation there is correct. They're just referring to two different thrones is all.

Yes, His throne will come down to us! New Jerusalem, new earth...new LIFE amen!

 

[stunnedbygrace]

The reference was to Jesus promising the Laodiceans that if they overcame they would sit with Him on His earthly throne just as He sat down with His Father on His heavenly one. Both uses are in singular, so the translation there is correct. They're just referring to two different thrones is all.

Oh…! So this is a good answer for the argument I was making for nontrinitarians…
He is talking about His earthly throne not Gods throne in heaven. It also makes distinction between saints and the faithful.

 

[Hidden In Him]

Oh…! So this is a good answer for the argument I was making for nontrinitarians…
He is talking about His earthly throne not Gods throne in heaven. It also makes distinction between saints and the faithful.

Yes, and forgive my wise crack about the Greek if that came off as offensive. I was actually just encouraging you that it's not beyond your capacity. There are so many reference works out there these days that memorizing declensions isn't even necessary any more to study it.

 

[amadeus]

Hi, John.

Listen, don't take offense, but I'm really only looking for an answer to the specific question posed in the OP rather than another lengthy debate on the Trinity. We've had a ton of those already, and they just go round and round.

But I noticed Tigger 2 is on, and I tagged him for this thread. He's the best of the non-Trinitarian debaters IMO, so I'll see what he (and maybe others) have to say about the passage in question.

God bless, and I appreciate the response anyway : )
- H

I hear you. But, for me... my answer is the answer to your question as well. I understand that it does not directly answer you. For me it is all tied together.

Have a good day and may God richly bless you!