• Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

robert derrick

Well-Known Member
Apr 13, 2021
7,669
1,418
113
63
Houston, tx
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God.

No Scripture speaks of the Word Being from everlasting, but only of Being in the beginning.

And so, the true God from everlasting was Three in the beginning: God, the Word, the Spirit, and the Word was the same God as the God from everlasting.

As a trinitarian, I no longer believe God, the Word, and the Spirit were Three from everlasting, but the everlasting God was only Three in the beginning to create the heaven and the earth.

It was necessary for the One God from everlasting to be Three to create all things: God commanded, the Word spoke the commandment, and the Spirit moved to do the work.

It was also necessary for there to be Three in the beginning, that they would make man in Their image and then redeem man, if he transgressed the commandment of God.

The Lamb slain from the foundation of the world was the Word chosen of the Three to come down from heaven to be made flesh, while the Father remained on His throne in heaven, and the Spirit did the work of the kingdom on earth, according to the words spoken by the Son in obedience to the Father.

And so now for everlasting there is the Father, the Son, the Holy Ghost, and these Three are one and the same God from everlasting, with the Lamb Being forever the resurrected living and true God, that was dead.
 

GRACE ambassador

Well-Known Member
Mar 1, 2021
2,386
1,550
113
71
Midwest
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God.

No Scripture speaks of the Word Being from everlasting, but only of Being in the beginning.
No Scripture, except:

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."
+
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.

Peace.
 

tigger 2

Well-Known Member
Oct 19, 2017
916
405
63
84
port angeles
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Isaiah 9:6
see my study here: Examining the Trinity: Isa. 9:6 "Mighty God, Eternal Father"
......................

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.")
 

robert derrick

Well-Known Member
Apr 13, 2021
7,669
1,418
113
63
Houston, tx
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
No Scripture, except:

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."
+
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.

Peace.
You mistake the point: I am speaking of Scripture actually using the Word for God, and the Word for the name of God:

And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.

John 1 is the first time Scripture speaks of God the Word, who was indeed God from everlasting, but from everlasting was not by His name the Word.

And since, the the Word is spoken of by Scripture only in the beginning, then the God from everlasting was not God, the Word, and the Spirit.

And the Spirit neither is spoken of until the beginning of creation when He moved to do the work spoken by the Word, commanded by God.

Nowhere does Scripture speak of the Spirit from everlasting, neither was He the Father from everlasting, but as the Son and the Spirit is everlasting.

God from everlasting sware by Himself to be Three to create heaven and earth and man in Their image and redeem mankind from sins.

When you accurately see the point, then you can believe the interpretation or not, but you have no Scripture to contradict it.
 

robert derrick

Well-Known Member
Apr 13, 2021
7,669
1,418
113
63
Houston, tx
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Isaiah 9:6
see my study here: Examining the Trinity: Isa. 9:6 "Mighty God, Eternal Father"
......................

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.")
Not only does this verse not teach that Jesus has always existed,

The name of Jesus did not even exist, until the time of His entering into the world.

The title of the Son and of the Father were not in existence until the prophecy of them in Isaiah, and would not come to pass until the Son came down from heaven by commandment of the Father.

Neither did Jehovah's name exist until the time of Sinai.

Nor did the name the Word exist until the beginning of creation, as well as the LORD.

And so neither Jesus, nor the Son, nor the Father, nor Jehovah, nor the Word, nor the LORD were known and called as such from everlasting.

Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God.

The God from everlasting was not known nor called by any of those names, nor known by any such title, that He later would make known and do so for Himself in the beginning of His creation.

Which was when He sware by Himself to be Three and do so before the foundation of the world, which began with the creating and setting of His throne in heaven, which They sat in to create heaven and earth, and man, until the Word went down from the throne to the earth, while the Father remained on that throne in heaven, and the resurrected Lamb and Himself will be in that throne for ever:

And he shewed me a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb.

, it even speaks of his origin in very ancient times.

Since Scripture doesn't even speak of the word origin, then it is only meaningful to a created christ, who's origin is only in the minds of unbelievers.

Goings forth however are from a place, not a time.

"the command went forth from the King," we obviously mean the command originated with - or sprang from - the king!

That's pretty stupid. Exclamation points do not make stupidity more convincing.

A commandment heard by others does not originate from anything, except from a place called a 'Mouth'.

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.

He was going froth from the throne of God from everlasting, and He came forth from the womb of Mary unto God as a man in the likeness of sinful flesh.

The Word did not come forth from Mary, but only the body prepared for Him did she give birth to.

Created christs blanket stupidity with pseudo scholarship and meaningless rubbish. With exclamation points to boot...!!!!
 

tigger 2

Well-Known Member
Oct 19, 2017
916
405
63
84
port angeles
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Grace Ambassador repeatedly adds lists of trinity 'proofs,' among others, (as add-ons to his posts). I would like to reply to all of them, but I have reached a point in life where it is difficult for me even to cut and paste from my own studies.

Nevertheless, I will attempt to discuss the 11 'proofs' found in "The First 13 { of 150+ } SCRIPTURAL “Reasons” {Evidence!}
JESUS CHRIST Is Almighty God"


I will be taking most of it from my own studies.
 
Last edited:

tigger 2

Well-Known Member
Oct 19, 2017
916
405
63
84
port angeles
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
First Part of Grace ambassador’s recurring list ‘showing’ JESUS CHRIST Is Almighty God:

1. 1) God Was Manifest In The Flesh! (1 Timothy 3:16)
JESUS CHRIST Was Manifest In The Flesh! (John 1:14)
....................................................................

1 Tim. 3:16 (“God was manifest in the flesh”)

As this is translated in the KJV it makes Paul say that Jesus is God “manifest in the flesh.”

Although the KJV translates 1 Tim. 3:16 with “God” as above, nearly all other translations today use a word which refers, not to God, but to Jesus: “he(NIV; RSV; NRSV; JB; NJB; REB; NAB [‘70]; AT; GNB; CBW; and Beck’s translation), “he who(ASV; NASB; NEB; MLB; BBE; Phillips; and Moffatt), “who,” or “which.” Even the equally old Douay version has “which was manifested in the flesh.” All the very best modern NT texts by trinitarian scholars (including Westcott and Hort, Nestle, and the text by the United Bible Societies) have the NT Greek word ὃς (“who”) here instead of θεὸς (“God”). Why do the very best trinitarian scholars support this NON-trinitarian translation of 1 Tim. 3:16?[1]

Noted Bible scholar Dr. Frederick C. Grant writes:

“A capital example [of NT manuscript changes] is found in 1 Timothy 3:16, where ‘OS’ (OC or ὃς, ‘who’) was later taken for theta sigma with a bar above, which stood for theos (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.)

A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament by the United Bible Societies (1971 ed.) tells why the trinitarian UBS Committee chose ὃς [‘who’ or ‘he who’] as the original reading in their NT text for this verse:

“it is supported by the earliest and best uncials.” And, “Thus, no uncial (in the first hand [by the ORIGINAL writer]) earlier than the eighth or ninth century supports θεὸς [“God”]; all ancient versions presuppose ὃς [or OC, “who” - masc.] or [“which” - neut.]; and no patristic writer prior to the last third of the fourth century [ca. 370 A.D.] testifies to the reading θεὸς. The reading θεὸς arose either (a) accidentally, through the misreading of OC as ΘC, or (b) deliberately....” - p. 641.

In actuality it appears to be a combination of both (with the emphasis on the latter). You see, the word ὃς was written in the most ancient manuscripts as OC (“C” being a common form for the ancient Greek letter “S” at that time). Most often at this time the word for God (θεὸς) was written in abbreviated form as ΘC. However, to show that it was an abbreviated form, a straight line, or bar, was always drawn above ΘC. So no copyist should have mistaken ὃς (or OC) for ΘC, in spite of their similarities, simply because of the prominent bar which appeared over the one and not over the other.

What may have happened was discovered by John J. Wetstein in 1714. As he was carefully examining one of the oldest NT manuscripts then known (the Alexandrine Manuscript in London) he noticed at 1 Tim. 3:16 that the word originally written there was OC but that a horizontal stroke from one of the words written on the other side of the manuscript showed through very faintly in the middle of the O. This still would not qualify as an abbreviation for θεὸς, of course, but Wetstein discovered that some person at a much later date and in a different style from the original writer had deliberately added a bar above the original word! Anyone copying from this manuscript after it had been deliberately changed would be likely to incorporate the counterfeit ΘC [with bar above it] into his new copy (especially since it reflected his own trinitarian views)!

Of course, since Wetstein’s day many more ancient NT manuscripts have been discovered and none of them before the eighth century A.D. have been found with ΘC (“God”) at this verse!

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 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 & 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]). 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 [‘god’] in the place of ὃς [‘who’ or ‘he who’] has been adamantly defended by some scholars, particularly those of the ‘majority text’ school. Not only is such a reading poorly attested [2], but the syntactical argument that ‘mystery’ (μυστήριον) 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.

The correct rendering of 1 Tim. 3:16, then, is: “He who was revealed in the flesh ….” - NASB. Cf. ASV; RSV; NRSV; NAB; JB; NJB; NIV; NEB; REB; ESV; Douay-Rheims; TEV; CEV; BBE; NLV; God’s Word; New Century Version; Holman NT; ISV NT; Lexham English Bible; The Message; Weymouth; Moffatt; etc.

Even if we were to insist that those later manuscripts that used theos were, somehow, correct, we would have to recognize that it is the anarthrous (without the definite article) theos which we find. This is rarely, if ever, the form used for the only true God (when the known exceptions are taken into account - see MARTIN study). Instead, it either points to the probability that it is a corrupted OC (which of course would not have the article in the first place), or, less probable, but still possible, that Christ is being called “a god.”

Footnotes:

1. Some trinitarian paraphrase Bibles are even more certain and clear:

“He (Christ) was shown to us in a human body” - ETRV.

Christ appeared in human form” - Weymouth.

Christ came to earth as a man” - NLV.

Christ, who came to earth as a man” - LB.

Here is the great mystery of our religion:
Christ came as a human.” – CEV.


2. Wallace’s footnote 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

Well-Known Member
Oct 19, 2017
916
405
63
84
port angeles
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
2. 2) JESUS CHRIST Is EMMANUEL
“interpreted = God With us!" (Matthew 1:21-23)

….……………………………………..……

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).[2] 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. (Also see “Immanuel” in the Insight books.)

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 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.

2. Barnes' Notes on the NT:

Phil. 4:9 And the God of peace shall be with you.

The God who gives peace. Comp. Hebrews 13:20; 1 Thessalonians 5:23. See Barnes "Philippians 4:7". The meaning here is, that Paul, by pursuing the course of life which he had led, and which he here counsels them to follow, had found that it had been attended with the blessing of the God of peace, and he felt the fullest assurance that the same blessing would rest on them if they imitated his example. The way to obtain the blessing of the God of peace is to lead a holy life, and to perform with faithfulness all the duties which we owe to God and to our fellow men.

**********************

The Adam Clarke Commentary

Ruth Chapter 2 Verse 4. Boaz came from Beth-lehem

This salutation between Boaz and his reapers is worthy of particular regard; he said, Yehovah immachem, "Jehovah be with you!" They said, yebarechecha Yehovah, "May Jehovah bless thee!" Can a pious mind read these godly salutations without wishing for a return of those simple primitive times? The words may be thus paraphrased: "May God be with you, to preserve you from accidents, and strengthen you to accomplish your work!" "May God bless THEE with the increase of the field, and grace to use his bounty to the glory of the Giver!"
***********************

The Adam Clarke Commentary

Luke 1:28 The Lord is with thee

Thou art about to receive the most convincing proofs of God's peculiar favour towards thee.

**********************

The Adam Clarke Commentary

Phil. 4:9 And the God of peace

He who is the author of peace, the lover of peace, and the maintainer of peace; he who has made peace between heaven and earth, by the mission and sacrifice of his Son, shall be ever with you while you believe and act as here recommended.

*********************

The Adam Clarke Commentary

Ps. 46:7 The Lord of hosts is with us

We, feeble Jews, were but a handful of men; but the Lord of hosts-the God of armies, was on our side. Him none could attack with hope of success, and his legions could not be over-thrown.

*********************

John Darby's Synopsis of the New Testament

Phil. 4:9

"Moreover, the Christian, although walking (as we have seen) in the midst of evil and of trial, is to occupy himself with all that is good, and is able to do it when thus at peace, to live in this atmosphere, so that it shall pervade his heart, that he shall be habitually where God is to be found. This is an all-important command. We may be occupied with evil in order to condemn it; we may be right, but this is not communion with God in that which is good. But if occupied through His grace with that which is good, with that which comes from Himself, the God of peace is with us. In trouble we shall have the peace of God; in our ordinary life, if it be of this nature, we shall have the God of peace. Paul was the practical example of this; with regard to their walk, by following him in that which they had learnt and heard from him and seen in him, they should find that God was with them."

**********************

The New John Gill Exposition of the Entire Bible

Luke 1:28 the Lord is with thee;

so the angel to Gideon, (Judges 6:12) or "be with thee", an usual form of salutation among the Jews; (Ruth 2:4)

***********************

The New John Gill Exposition of the Entire Bible

Ruth 2:4 and said unto the reapers, the Lord be with you;

to give them health, and strength, and industry in their work

**************************

The New John Gill Exposition of the Entire Bible

1 Chronicles 22:18 Is not the Lord your God with you?

&c.] Blessing them with wealth and riches:

************************

The New John Gill Exposition of the Entire Bible

2 Chronicles 1:1 And Solomon the son of David was strengthened in his kingdom,

&c.] Well settled and established on the throne of his father, after the death of some persons, from whom he might expect trouble, see (1 Kings 2:46)

and the Lord God was with him;

directing and instructing him, prospering and succeeding him

*************************

Coffman Commentaries on the Old and New Testament

Ruth 2:4 Jehovah be with thee. Jehovah bless thee

(Ruth 2:4). It seems that these were customary salutations, acknowledging the blessing of the Lord in the abundance of the harvest.

***************************

Coffman Commentaries on the Old and New Testament

Ps. 46:7 Jehovah of hosts is with us

(Psalms 46:7). If God be for us, who can be against us, is the New Testament echo of this confidence. The great security is in God.
 

tigger 2

Well-Known Member
Oct 19, 2017
916
405
63
84
port angeles
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
3. 3a) The SON, JESUS CHRIST Is Called
God, By HIS Own Father! (Hebrews 1:8)
….……………………………………………………
Hebrews 1:8 is one of the more commonly used scriptures for trinitarian “evidence” in spite of (in reality, because of) its obvious ambiguity. This is because on the surface (at least as found in some trinitarian-translated Bibles) it looks clear and straightforward. Also not many people have the means or the inclination to examine it more closely.

Heb. 1:8 in the King James Version (AV or KJV) is rendered:

“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.”

Since “he saith” and the second “is” (found after “righteousness”) in the above verse are not actually found in the original manuscripts and have been added by the KJV translators, they are found in italics in most printings of the KJV.

But more importantly (as a quick glance into any interlinear Greek-English New Testament will show) the first “is” (found after “God”) in the above verse is also not in the original manuscripts but has been added by some modern translators.

Yes, literally the NT Greek manuscripts read: “Toward but the son the throne of you the god into the age of the age.”

No one should deny that the title theos (NT Greek word meaning “God,” “god,” “mighty one,” “divine,” etc.) can be applied to Jesus (at least in the writings of John - see the DEF and BOWGOD studies), just as it was applied in the scriptures to angels, judges of Israel, Moses, and (according to some trinitarian authorities) even the kings of Israel.

But theos is never applied to Jesus with the most high sense that is given only to the Almighty, Most High, only true God. So it could, perhaps, have been used at Heb. 1:8 in its positive secondary sense: “Your throne, o mighty one [theos], is ...”. This seems even more probable when we remember that Paul is really quoting from Ps. 45:6.

Psalm 45 is celebrating an Israelite king’s marriage, and the psalmist applies the words of Ps. 45:6, 7 literally to an ancient Israelite king. In fact, the trinitarian New American Standard Bible (NASB), Reference Edition, explains in a footnote for Ps. 45:1, “Probably refers to Solomon as a type of Christ.”

So, according to this trinitarian Bible, the words of Ps. 45:6, although figuratively referring to Jesus, were literally applied to an ancient Israelite king (probably King Solomon, it says).

So if Ps. 45:6 is properly translated, “your throne, O God ...” then that ancient Israelite King (Solomon?) was also literally called “O God” (or “O god”?). In fact, the highly trinitarian New American Bible, St. Joseph Edition, 1970, explains in a footnote for this verse:

“The Hebrew king was called ... ‘God,’ not in the polytheistic sense common among the ancient pagans, but as meaning ‘godlike’ or ‘taking the place of God’.”

The trinitarian Easy-to-read-Version also says in a footnote for this passage:

God .... here the writer might be using the word ‘God’ as a title for the king.” (Cf. NIV Study Bible f.n. for Pss. 45:6 and 82:1, 6.)

(And the revised 1991 ed. of the NAB actually translates Ps. 45:6, 7 as “Your throne, O god.”) The NAB (1970 ed.) goes on to explain, however, that others have translated this verse as, “Your throne is the throne of God” and refers us to 1 Chron. 29:23 “where Solomon’s throne is referred to as the throne of the LORD [Jehovah].”

Now we’re getting closer to the most likely intention of Heb. 1:8. There is good evidence that the proper translation of Heb. 1:8 (as well as Ps. 45:6) should be “your throne is God forever” or “God is your throne forever.”

For one thing, the definite article (“the”) is used in the NT Greek with “God” in this scripture. Not even John (who does, rarely, use theos for Jesus) uses theos with the definite article for anyone except the Only True God - the Father. - See the DEF study.

Also, if we look at some respected trinitarian authorities, we also see a preference for the “God is thy throne” rendering.

Oxford professor and famous trinitarian Bible translator, Dr. James Moffatt, has been described as “probably the greatest biblical scholar of our day.” His respected Bible translation renders Heb. 1:8 as:

God is thy throne for ever and ever.”

University of Cambridge professor and noted New Testament language scholar, Dr. C. F. D. Moule writes that Heb. 1:8 may be “construed so as to mean Thy throne is God- p. 32, An Idiom Book of New Testament Greek, Cambridge University Press, 1990 printing.

An American Translation (Smith-Goodspeed), renders it: “God is your throne....”

And The Bible in Living English (Byington) reads: “God is your throne....”
 

tigger 2

Well-Known Member
Oct 19, 2017
916
405
63
84
port angeles
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
3. (continued)

Heb 1:8 Quoted From Ps. 45

In addition to these admissions by trinitarian translators concerning Heb. 1:8, we need to look back at the Old Testament Hebrew scripture (Ps. 45:6) that Paul was quoting when he wrote Heb. 1:8.

The RSV renders it as “Your Divine throne” and a footnote provides this alternate

reading: “Or ‘your throne is a throne of God.’”

The NEB says: “Your throne is like God’s throne.”

The Holy Scriptures (JPS version) says: “Thy throne given of God.”

The Bible in Living English (Byington) says: “God is your throne.”

The Good News Bible (GNB), a very trinitarian paraphrase Bible, renders it: “The kingdom

that God has given you will last forever and ever.”

The REB has: “God has enthroned you for all eternity.”

And the NJB gives us: “your throne is from God.”

We also see the following statement by respected trinitarian scholars in a footnote for this passage:

45:6 O God. Possibly the king’s throne is called God’s throne because he is God’s appointed regent. But it is also possible that the king himself is addressed as ‘god.’ - Ps. 45:6 f.n. in the NIV Study Bible.

In addition to the above renderings by many respected translators (most of whom are trinitarian), we have the statement by perhaps the greatest scholar of Biblical Hebrew of all time, H. F. W. Gesenius. In his famous and highly respected Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament Gesenius renders Ps. 45:6, “thy throne shall be a divine throne.”

Obviously, then, the charge sometimes made that the NWT is “not being honest or scholarly” with its rendering of Heb. 1:8 is simply untrue, and it certainly may be honestly translated “God is your throne forever.”

Just the admission by so many trinitarian translators (above) that Heb. 1:8 may be honestly translated as it is in the NWT makes any insistence by other trinitarians that this scripture is acceptable evidence for a trinity doctrine completely invalid!

Even famed Southern Baptist New Testament Greek scholar and rabid trinitarian Dr. A. T. Robertson admits:

“It is not certain whether ho theos is here the vocative [‘your throne, O God’] ... or ho theos is nominative (subject or predicate) with estin (is) understood: ‘God is thy throne’ or ‘Thy throne is God.’ Either makes good sense.” - p. 339, Vol. 5, Word Pictures in the New Testament, Broadman Press, 1960.

However, there is more evidence, evidence which shows not only that Heb. 1:8 may be honestly translated “God is your throne,” but, indeed, should be so translated!

Notice the context. Heb. 1:8 and 1:9 are being quoted from Ps. 45:6 and 45:7. In Ps. 45:7, speaking to the Israelite king, it says:

“Therefore God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness above your fellows.” - RSV.

Just as this makes it clear that the ancient Israelite king was not God but was anointed by God, HIS God, to a position above his fellows, so does Heb. 1:9, as figuratively applied to Jesus, show that he is not God, but was anointed by his God to a position above his fellows! Context, then, shows that the person addressed in Heb. 1:8 is not God, but one who worships God and was anointed by his God!

Noted trinitarian Bible scholar, B. F. Westcott, wrote:

“The LXX [Septuagint] admits of two renderings [at Ps. 45:6, 7]: [ho theos] can be taken as a vocative in both cases (‘thy throne, O God, .... therefore, O God, thy God...’) or it can be taken as the subject (or the predicate) in the first case (‘God is Thy throne,’ or ‘Thy throne is God...’), and in apposition to [ho theos sou] in the second case (‘Therefore God, even Thy God...’) .... It is scarcely possible that [elohim] in the original can be addressed to the King. The presumption therefore is against the belief that [ho theos] is a vocative in the LXX. Thus on the whole it seems best to adopt in the first clause the rendering: ‘God is thy throne(or, ‘Thy throne is God’), that is, ‘Thy kingdom is founded upon God, the immovable Rock.’” - The Epistle to the Hebrews, London, 1889, pp. 25, 26.
 

tigger 2

Well-Known Member
Oct 19, 2017
916
405
63
84
port angeles
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
4. 3b) God Has A Father (Revelation 1:6).

That God Is JESUS CHRIST, The SON!

….………………………..

I’m surprised that anyone who truly examined it would accept this KJV mistranslation (in modern English) as “evidence.”

Here is how it reads in the NT texts (including the Textus Receptus used by the KJV translators):

Rev. 1:6
and he made us to be a kingdom, to be priests unto his God and Father; to him be the glory and the dominion for ever and ever. Amen. - ASV.

Trinitarian translations which have rendered this verse this way include nearly all found here:

Revelation 1:6 - Bible Gateway

Only KJV and some of those few translations which are following its lead mistranslate this.
 

tigger 2

Well-Known Member
Oct 19, 2017
916
405
63
84
port angeles
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
5. 4) JESUS CHRIST Is Called
The Great God And Saviour! (Titus 2:13)
….…………………………………………………………

We can find numerous translations of Titus 2:13 (probably the most-used scripture for this [Sharp’s Rule] “proof”) which render it as referring to two persons.

Titus 2:13

Bible translations old and new:

13 lokynge for that blessed hope and appearynge of the glory of ye greate God and of oure Sauioure Iesu Christ - Coverdale

13 lokynge for þe blessed hope & appearinge of the glory of the greate God, & of oure sauioure Iesu Christ, - The Great Bible

13 Looking for that blessed hope, and appearing of that glorie of that mightie God, and of our Sauiour Iesus Christ, - Geneva

13 abidinge the blessid hope and the comyng of the glorie of the greet God, and of oure sauyour Jhesu Crist; - Wycliffe

13 lokinge for that blessed hope and glorious apperenge of ye myghty god and of oure savioure Iesu Christ - Tyndale

13 in expectation of that desirable happiness, the glorious appearance of the supreme God, and of our saviour Jesus Christ, - Mace

13 awaiting the blessed hope of the appearance of the Glory of the great God and of our Saviour Christ Jesus, - Moffatt

13 expecting the blessed hope; namely, the appearing of the glory of the great God, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ; - The Living Oracles

13 looking for the blessed hope, and appearing of the glory of the great God and of our Saviour Jesus Christ; - Noyes

13 waiting for the blessed hope, the glorious appearing of the great God and of our Savior Christ Jesus, - Riverside

13 looking for the blessed hope and appearing of the glory of the great God and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, - Sawyer

(KJV) Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;

(New American Bible - 1970) as we await our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of the great God and of our Savior Christ Jesus

(New American Bible - 1991) as we await the blessed hope, the appearance of the glory of the great God and of our savior Jesus Christ

(New American Bible - 2010) as we await the blessed hope, the appearance of the glory of the great God and of our savior Jesus Christ

(A New Translation in Plain English - Charles K. Williams) while we wait for the blessed thing we hope for, the appearing of the glory of the great God and of our Saviour Jesus Christ

And while we live this life we hope and wait for the glorious denouement of the Great God and of Jesus Christ our saviour. - Phillips

We are to be looking for the great hope and the coming of our great God and the One Who saves, Christ Jesus. - NLV

13 Looking for that blessed hope, and appearing of that glory of that mighty God, and of our Savior Jesus Christ. - GNV

"looking for that blessed hope and glorious appearing of the mighty God and of our Saviour Jesus Christ," - NMB

According to An Idiom-Book of New Testament Greek, by C. F. D. Moule, Cambridge, England, 1971, p. 109, at Titus 2:13, the sense "of the Great God, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ ... is possible in [New Testament] Greek even without the repetition [of the definite article before the second noun]."

Noted British NT scholar and trinitarian clergyman Henry Alford wrote: "I would submit that [a translation which clearly differentiates God from Christ at Titus 2:13] satisfies all the grammatical requirements of the sentence: that it is both structurally and contextually more probable, and more agreeable to the Apostle’s [Paul’s] way of writing: and I have therefore preferred it." - The Greek Testament, p. 421, Vol. 3.

“Of the great God and our Savior Jesus Christ (tou megalou qeou kai swthrov hmwn Cristou Ihsou). …. According to A.V. [KJV] two persons are indicated, God and Christ. Revelations with others rend. of our great God and Savior Christ Jesus, thus indicating one person, and asserting the deity of Christ. I adopt the latter, although the arguments and authorities in favor of the two renderings are very evenly balanced. 155” - Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament.

"Some Trinitarians say that the grammar of Titus 2:13 forces the interpretation that Jesus is God because of the Granville Sharp rule of Greek grammar. That is not the case, however. The Granville Sharp rule has been debated and successfully challenged. When Scripture refers to “our Great God and Savior, Jesus Christ,” it can indeed be referring to two separate beings: the “Great God,” and the “Savior,” Jesus Christ. The highly regarded Trinitarian Henry Alford gives a number of reasons as to why the grammar of the Greek does not force the interpretation of the passage to make Christ God (Henry Alford, The Greek Testament, Moody Press, Chicago, 1958, Vol. 3, entry on Titus 2:13)." - Revised English Version Commentary - Titus 2:13.
 

tigger 2

Well-Known Member
Oct 19, 2017
916
405
63
84
port angeles
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
6. 5) JESUS CHRIST Is Called The Mighty God! (Isaiah 9:6 cp Jeremiah 32:18)

There are at least two other ways this personal name has been interpreted by reputable Bible scholars. (1) The titles within the name (e.g., “Mighty God”) are intended in their secondary, subordinate senses (e.g., “a mighty god”). (2) the titles within the name are meant to praise God the Father, not the Messiah.

First, there is the possibility that the words (or titles) found in the literal meaning of the name apply directly to the Messiah all right but in a subordinate sense. In other words, Christ is “a mighty god” in the same sense that God’s angels were called “gods” and the judges of Israel were called “gods” by God himself (also by Jesus - John 10:34, 35), and Moses was called “a god” by Jehovah himself.

And second, another way competent Bible scholars have interpreted the meaning of this name is with the understanding that it (as with many, if not most, of the other Israelites’ personal names) does not apply directly to the person bearing the name (as we can see with with “Elijah,” “Abijah,” etc.) but is, instead, a statement praising the Father, Jehovah God.

Personal names in the ancient Hebrew and Greek are often somewhat cryptic to us today. The English Bible translator must fill in the missing minor words (especially in names composed of two or more Hebrew words) such as “my,” “is,” “of,” “the” etc. in whatever way he thinks best in order to make sense for us today in English.

For instance, two of the best Bible concordances (Young’s and Strong’s) and a popular trinitarian Bible dictionary (Today’s Dictionary of the Bible) differ greatly on the exact meaning of many Biblical personal names because of those “minor” words which must be added to bring out the intended meaning.

Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance, for example, says the name “Elimelech” (which is literally just “God King”) means “God of (the) King.” Young’s Analytical Concordance says it means “God is King.” Today’s Dictionary of the Bible says it means “ God his king” - p. 206, Bethany House Publ., 1982.

Those missing minor words that the translator must supply at his own discretion can often make a vital difference! - For example, the footnote for Gen. 17:5 in The NIV Study Bible: The name ‘Abram’ “means ‘Exalted Father,’ probably in reference to God (i.e., ‘[God is the] Exalted Father’).” - bracketed information is in the original.

Therefore, the personal name at Is. 9:6 has been honestly translated in the footnote as:

“And his name is called: Wonderful in counsel IS God the Mighty, the Everlasting Father, the Ruler of Peace” - The Holy Scriptures, JPS Version (Margolis, ed.)

to show that it is intended to praise the God of the Messiah who performs great things through the Messiah.

Also, An American Translation (by trinitarians Smith & Goodspeed) says:

“Wonderful Counselor IS God Almighty, Father forever, Prince of Peace.”

From the Is. 9:6 footnote in the trinity-supporting NET Bible:

".... some have suggested that one to three of the titles that follow ['called'] refer to God, not the king. For example, the traditional punctuation of the Hebrew text suggests the translation, 'and the Extraordinary Strategist, the Mighty God calls his name, "Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace."'"

And The Leeser Bible has:

“Wonderful, counsellor of the mighty God, of the everlasting Father, the prince of peace”

Of course it could also be honestly translated:

“The Wonderful Counselor and Mighty God Is the Everlasting Father of the Prince of Peace.”

And the Tanakh by the JPS, 1985, translates it:

[1] “The Mighty God is planning grace;

[2] The Eternal Father [is] a peaceable ruler.”

This latter translation seems particularly appropriate since it is in the form of a parallelism. Not only was the previous symbolic personal name introduced by Isaiah at Is. 8:1 a parallelism (“Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz” means [1]“quick to the plunder; [2] swift to the spoil” - NIV footnote) but the very introduction to this Messianic name at Is. 9:6 is itself a parallelism: [1] “For unto us a child is born; [2] unto us a son is given.” It would, therefore, be appropriate to find that this name, too, was in the form of a parallelism as translated by the Tanakh above.

So it is clear, even to a number of trinitarian scholars, that Is. 9:6 does not imply that Jesus (or the king) is Jehovah God.
 

tigger 2

Well-Known Member
Oct 19, 2017
916
405
63
84
port angeles
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
7. 6) JESUS CHRIST Is Called The True God And Eternal Life! (1 John 5:20)

1 Jn 5:20 (“We are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This [outos] is the true God, and eternal life.” - KJV)

Some trinitarians actually insist that the word “this” (outos) here refers to Jesus. In other words, “[Jesus Christ] is the true God and eternal life.” For example, Robert M. Bowman in his Jehovah’s Witnesses, Jesus Christ, and the Gospel of John states that Jesus is called ‘the true God and eternal life’ - “indisputably identifying Christ as the Almighty God of the Old Testament.” - p. 41, Baker Book House, 1991 printing. This is incredibly poor!

At least (in a different book) Bowman gave the appearance of an honest consideration of this scripture:

1 John 5:20 ends, ‘...his Son, Jesus Christ. This is the true God and life everlasting’ (NWT). Biblical scholars disagree as to whether ‘the true God’ here applies to Jesus Christ, or to the Father whose ‘Son’ Jesus Christ is. The JWs, naturally, insist that the Father is being called the true God. Grammatically this is just possible (though not the most obvious or simplest reading.) .... Both grammar and context, therefore, point most strongly to the conclusion that it is Jesus Christ who is being called ‘the true God and life everlasting.’ - pp. 105-106, Why You Should Believe in the Trinity, Baker Book House, 1991 printing.

But this “objective” examination of 1 John 5:20 by Bowman is nearly as dishonest as his first.

It is obvious that grammatically “this” (outos) could be referring to the Father or to Jesus (see footnote for 1 Jn 5:20 in the NIVSB, 1985 ed.). The fact that the true God has just been identified as the Father of Jesus (1 Jn 5:20, TEV and GNB and f.n. in NIVSB - also see John 17:1, 3) makes it highly probable that “this is the true God” refers to the Father, not Jesus. The highly trinitarian NT scholar Murray J. Harris sums up his 13-page analysis of this scripture as follows:

“Although it is certainly possible that outos refers back to Jesus Christ, several converging lines of evidence point to ‘the true one,’ God the Father, as the probable antecedent. This position, outos = God [Father], is held by many commentators, authors of general studies, and, significantly, by those grammarians who express an opinion on the matter.” - p. 253, Jesus as God, Baker Book House, 1992.

Notice how this trinitarian scholar actually admits that the probability is that the Father (not Jesus) is being called the true God here. He even tells us (and cites examples in his footnotes) that New Testament grammarians and commentators (most of them trinitarian) agree!
 

tigger 2

Well-Known Member
Oct 19, 2017
916
405
63
84
port angeles
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
8. 7) JESUS CHRIST Is Over All, God, Blessed For Ever. Amen! (Romans 9:5)

Ro. 9:5 - “ ... Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.” - KJV.

This is the scripture that A Catholic Dictionary calls

“the strongest statement of Christ’s divinity in St. Paul, and, indeed, in the N[ew] T[estament].” - p. 815.

The Jerusalem Bible (Roman Catholic) renders it, like the equally trinitarian KJV, in such a way as to make Christ appear to be God: “Christ who is above all, God for ever blessed! Amen.”

And the very trinitarian The NIV Study Bible, 1985, in a note for Ro. 9:5, calls it:

“One of the clearest statements of the deity of Jesus Christ found in the entire NT, assuming the accuracy of the translation (see NIV text note).”

Highly-regarded trinitarian NT scholar, F. F. Bruce writes concerning Ro. 9:5:

God who is over all be blessed for ever. The relation of these words to those which precede is disputed. RSV takes them as an independent ascription of praise to God, prompted by the mention of God’s crowning his many blessings on Israel by sending them the Messiah (similarly NEB, GNB).”

Bruce then gives reasons for and against such an understanding and concludes with:

“It is, on the other hand, impermissible to charge [accuse] those who prefer to treat the words as an independent doxology with Christological unorthodoxy. The words can indeed be so treated, and the decision about their construction involves a delicate assessment of the balance of probability this way and that.” – p. 176, The Letter of Paul to the Romans, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, Revised Ed., Eerdmans Publ., 1985.

However, The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology is forced to acknowledge that even if such a trinitarian rendering of the Greek were accurate,

“Christ would not be equated absolutely with God, but only described as being of divine nature [see the DEF study], for the word theos has no article. But this ascription of majesty does not occur anywhere else in Paul. The much more probable explanation is that the statement is a doxology [praise] directed to God.” - Vol. 2, p. 80, 1986.

Trinitarian scholar John L. McKenzie also admits:

“Paul’s normal usage is to restrict the noun [‘God’] to designate the Father (cf 1 Co 8:6), and in Rm 9:5 it is very probable that the concluding words are a doxology, ‘Blessed is the God who is above all.’” – p. 318, Dictionary of the Bible, Macmillan Publ., 1979 printing.

The trinitarian United Bible Societies (UBS) makes the same admission:

“In fact, on the basis of the general tenor of his theology it was considered tantamount to impossible that Paul would have expressed Christ’s greatness by calling him ‘God blessed for ever’.” And, “Nowhere else in his genuine epistles does Paul ever designate ho christos [‘the Christ’] as theos [‘God’ or ‘god’].” - p. 522, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, United Bible Societies, 1971.

The UBS has therefore punctuated their NT Greek text in such a way as to show the separateness of Christ and God at Ro. 9:5.

We also find in the trinitarian The Expositor’s Greek Testament (Vol. two, p. 659): “I agree with those who would put a colon or a period at σάρκα [sarka - ‘flesh’], and make the words that follow refer not to Christ but to the Father.”

Even A Catholic Dictionary admits the possibility that the scripture in question is really a doxology directed to God and not to Jesus:

“There is no reason in grammar or in the context which forbids us to translate ‘God, who is over all, be blessed for ever, Amen.’” - p. 815.

And this statement is from the very same trinitarian reference work that calls Ro. 9:5 “the strongest statement of Christ’s divinity” in the entire New Testament!! If this is the “strongest” such statement, where does that put the rest of the trinity “proof”?

Illustrating the high probability that the last part of Romans 9:5 is directed as a doxology to the Father, not to Jesus, are these translations of Ro. 9:5 found in trinitarian Bibles where the statement in question is not directed to Jesus:

The Revised Standard Version (RSV), 1971 ed. - “... of their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ. God who is over all be blessed for ever. Amen.” - See p. 165, So Many Versions? (SMV), Zondervan, 1983.

The New American Bible (NAB), 1970 ed. - “... from them [Israelites] came the Messiah (I speak of his human origins). Blessed forever be God who is over all!”

The New American Bible (NAB), 1991 ed. - “[From the Israelites], according to the flesh, is the Messiah. God who is over all be blessed forever, Amen.”

The New English Bible (NEB), 1961 ed. - “... from them, in natural descent, sprang the Messiah. May God, supreme above all, be blessed forever!”

Revised English Bible (REB), 1989 ed. - “... from them by natural descent came the Messiah. May God, supreme above all, be blessed forever!”

An American Translation (AT), 1975 printing - “... and from them physically Christ came - God who is over all be blessed for ever!”

Today’s English Version (TEV), 1976 ed. - “Christ, as a human being, belongs to their race. May God, who rules over all, be praised forever!”

The Living Bible (LB) - “...Christ was one of you ... he who now rules over all things. Praise God forever!” - Tyndale House Publishers, 1971.

The Bible, A New Translation, (Mo) by Dr. James Moffatt, 1954 - “[From the Israelites] (so far as natural descent goes) is the Christ. (Blessed for evermore be the God who is over all! Amen.)”

New Life Version (NLV) - “Christ himself was born of flesh from this family and He is over all things. May God be honored and thanked forever.” - Victor Books, 1993.

Not only can Ro. 9:5 be interpreted as having two different statements about two different subjects (1. Jesus came to earth as an Israelite, and, 2. Bless God who is over all.), but that is almost certainly the meaning intended by Paul (compare Ro. 15:5, 6; Ro. 16:27; 2 Cor. 1:3; Gal. 1:3-5; Eph. 1:3; 1 Tim. 1:16, 17).

Why, even the NIVSB, which called Ro. 9:5 “One of the clearest statements of the deity of Jesus Christ found in the entire NT” (see above), also gave the following in a footnote for Ro. 9:5 as proper alternate translations of this verse:

“Or Christ, who is over all. God be forever praised! Or Christ. God who is over all be forever praised!”

But some trinitarians have, instead, run these two separate statements of Jesus and God together in such a way as to give the impression that they both refer to the same subject: Jesus.

[Added 4/2011 thanks to ‘Yahoel’: “The use of the word eulogetos, ‘blessed,’ never occurs in the New Testament in reference to Christ. If we refer eulogetos to God, our passage [Ro. 9:5] accords with the doxologies Rom. i. 25; 2 Cor. i. 3; xi. 31; and Eph. i. 3. …. [This] strongly favors the reference of the eulogetos to God. It alone seems to me most decisive.” (pp. 361-362) - Ezra Abbot, The Authorship of the Fourth Gospel. (emphasis added.)]


Amen: The last word of Rom. 9:5 is a word which is often used in the letters of the NT when the writer has expressed some form of praise to God (doxology).- Ro. 1:25; 11:36; 16:27; Eph. 3:21; Phil. 4:20; 1 Tim. 1:17; 1 Pet. 4:11; 5:11.
 

tigger 2

Well-Known Member
Oct 19, 2017
916
405
63
84
port angeles
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
9. 8) ALL the angels of God Worship HIM!
(Hebrews 1:6), therefore, It Is Impossible
for JESUS CHRIST to be = “Michael the archANGEL!”
….……………………………………………………………………………..

Heb. 1:6

At Heb. 1:6 the KJV (and many other trinitarian translations) says: "And again, when he [the Father] bringeth in the first begotten [Jesus] into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship [proskuneo] him."

However, when we look up this scripture in the Old Testament (the trinitarian New Oxford Annotated Bible; New American Standard Bible [Ref. ed.]; The NIV Study Bible; and Dr. W. F. Beck [Lutheran] in his New Testament in the Language of Today [1964] all refer Heb. 1:6 to Deut. 32:43 in the Septuagint). And we find that Deut. 32:43 does not refer to the Father bringing his firstborn Son into the world and, in fact, in the Septuagint, instructs the angels to worship God (Jehovah, the Father) with no reference to Christ or the Son whatsoever.

So there is the distinct possibility that Heb. 1:6 is saying that all the angels worship the Father at that time. But even if the writer of Hebrews is saying the angels "worship" [proskuneo] the Son, it certainly doesn't have to mean "worship" in the highest sense of the word.

Even these trinitarian translations admit as much in their renderings of Heb. 1:6 -
The New English Bible; Revised English Bible; New Jerusalem Bible; An American Translation, Smith-Goodspeed; Young’s Literal Translation of the Holy Bible; The Letter to the Hebrews - The Daily Study Bible Series, Dr. William Barclay; the Byington translation; The Twentieth Century New Testament.
 

tigger 2

Well-Known Member
Oct 19, 2017
916
405
63
84
port angeles
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
10. 9) JESUS CHRIST was WORSHIPPED!
(Matthew 2:11, 14:33, 28:9; Luke 24:52)
Not once did JESUS Say, "See thou do it not,"
as "an angel NOT to be worshipped," spoke
in Revelation 19:10, And, 22:8-9!

….………………………………………………………………………………..
The angels in Rev. were not acting as representatives of God at that time, but were “fellow servants.”

But when representing God, they do accept “worship.”

The Greek word proskuneo (or proskyneo) is defined in the 1971 trinitarian United Bible Societies’ A Concise Greek-English Dictionary of the New Testament, p. 154: “[Proskuneo] worship; fall down and worship, kneel, bow low, fall at another’s feet.”

Even the trinitarian W. E. Vine writes in his An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, p. 1247:

“PROSKUNEO ... to make obeisance, do reverence to (from pros, towards, and kuneo, to kiss), is the most frequent word rendered ‘to worship’. It is used for an act of homage or reverence (a) to God ...; (b) to Christ ...; (c) to a man, Matt. 18:26.”

“Obeisance,” of course, shows “respect, submission, or reverence” - Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary, 1961.

Noted Bible scholar J. H. Thayer defines proskuneo:

“prop. to kiss the hand to (towards) one, in token of reverence ... hence in the N. T. by kneeling or prostration to do homage (to one) or make obeisance, whether in order to express respect or to make supplication. It is used a. of homage shown to men of superior rank [position] ... Rev. 3:9 .... b. of homage rendered to God and the ascended Christ, to heavenly beings [angels]” - p. 548, Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, Baker Book House Publ., 1977.

Hasting’s A Dictionary of the Bible tells us:

“Worship, both as [noun] and verb, was formerly used of reverence or honour done to men as well as to God …” - p. 941, vol. 4.

The Hebrew word most often translated “worship” is shachah, and it is usually rendered as proskuneo in the Greek Septuagint version of the Old Testament. Unger and White say of this word: “Shachah ... ‘to worship, prostrate oneself, bow down.’” And,

“The act of bowing down in homage done before a superior [in rank] or a ruler. Thus David ‘bowed’ himself [shachah] before Saul (1 Sam. 24:8). Sometimes it is a social or economic superior to whom one bows, as when Ruth ‘bowed’ [shachah] to the ground before Boaz (Ruth 2:10).” - Nelson’s Expository Dictionary of the Old Testament, 1980, Thomas Nelson Publ., p. 482.

Perhaps the most famous Biblical Hebrew scholar of all, Gesenius, tells us in Gesenius’ Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament, p. 813, (#7812), ‘Shachah’:

“(1) to prostrate oneself before anyone out of honor .... Those who used this mode of salutation fell on their knees and touched the ground with the forehead ..., and this honor was not only shown to superiors, such as kings and princes, 2 Sam. 9:8; but also to equals; Gen. 23:7.”

The act described by proskuneo (or shachah) was of bowing or kneeling, and it generally indicated an act of respect and a display of one’s willingness to submit to or serve another person who occupied a superior position, regardless of his nature (somewhat similar to a salute in the military today). It was done, of course, in its very highest sense to God alone, but it was also done, in a lower sense of the same word, to kings, angels, prophets, etc. That is why proskuneo is translated “prostrated himself before” at Matt. 18:26 NASB, even though the KJV uses “worship” there. Notice how other trinitarian translations render that verse (RSV and NIV for example) where a servant “worships” [proskuneo] his master. And that is why, in the account of the man blind from birth whom Jesus healed, we see that man giving proskuneo to Jesus at John 9:38. The ASV, in a footnote for John 9:38, says,

“The Greek word [proskuneo] denotes an act of reverence, whether paid to a creature, as here [Jesus], or to the Creator.”

At Rev. 3:9 Jesus shows the position of authority he will give to some of his human followers when he says he will make people “worship before thy feet.” - KJV. The word used there is proskuneo! The ASV again adds this footnote: “The Greek word [proskuneo] denotes an act of reverence whether paid to a creature, or the Creator.”

So we see that the king of Israel, for example, could receive proskuneo or shachah in his role as a representative of a higher authority (Jehovah), or he could receive it in recognition of his own earthly position of authority that God allowed him to have. For example, at 2 Sam. 14:22 Joab “worships” ‘my Lord’ (King David). The Hebrew word shachah translated in most places in the Bible as “worship” is here translated “did obeisance” in the RSV. In the Greek Septuagint the word used is proskuneo. So, in spite of their both sharing the same fleshly human nature, one gave the other proskuneo or shachah!

We see the same thing at 1 Kings 1:16, 31 when Bathsheba gives shachah to her husband and king, David. Not only does the Septuagint use proskuneo for these verses (3 Kings 1:16, 31 in Sept.), but at verses 21 and 31 she calls David, “The Lord of me” (“My Lord”).

Angels, when acting as representatives of Jehovah and speaking his words, could properly receive proskuneo as representatives for a superior authority.

Gen. 18:2 uses shachah to describe what Abraham did to the angels (p. 37, New Bible Dictionary, second ed., 1982, Tyndale House Publ.) who came to him, and what Lot did to two of those same angels (shachah) is described at Gen. 19:1 (Also see Unger and White, pp. 7 and 482.) Proskuneo is also used in these two scriptures in the Septuagint. Also see Numbers 22:31: Balaam “worshiped” (proskuneo - Sept. and shachah [”fell flat” - KJV] - Hebrew OT) the ANGEL and the angel accepted it! (Unlike Rev. 19:10 and 22:8, 9.)

“The angel of the Lord [angel of Jehovah/Yahweh], sometimes ‘the angel of God’ or ‘my (or ‘his’) angel,’ is represented in Scripture as a heavenly being sent by God to deal with men as his personal spokesman. In many passages he is virtually identified with God and speaks not merely in the name of God but as God in the first person singular.” - New Bible Dictionary, p. 38.

So, like the word theos ("God"/"a god"), proskuneo and shachah had different levels of meaning. Only God was to receive worship in the highest sense of the word.
 

tigger 2

Well-Known Member
Oct 19, 2017
916
405
63
84
port angeles
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
11. 10) Every knee shall bow, and "every tongue" shall confess to GOD! (Romans 14:11; Isaiah 45:21-23).

The GOD "every tongue is confessing to,”
Is The LORD JESUS CHRIST! (Philippians 2:11)

….………………………………………………………………

Ro. 14:11 is clearly an OT quote acknowledging God (YHWH, Jehovah) as the ONLY God. - see Is. 45:21-23, ASV.

Phil. 2:11 is not a quote, but is Paul telling us that Jesus is to be acknowledged as our Lord second only to God (“to the Glory of God the Father”). God the Father is Jehovah, the only true God - John 17:1,3 and Is. 45:21-23, ASV.