If it is not in the bible, why do you believe?

[Soldier of Christ1516]

Furthermore, we have John 1 saying that the Word that became flesh (ie. Jesus) was God.

This is one of the most abused verses in Scripture. John 1:1 does not say anything about Jesus. Extreme eisegesis.

John 1 does not say God became flesh but his word became flesh, which is just a poetic way to express the prophecy of Deut 15:15-18 has been fulffiled in Christ.

If the trinitarian take on John 1:1 were true, he would have included it in his purpose statement 20:31. But he didn't. Let me say that again. John explicitly told us his purpose for writing the Gospel. Trintiarians are denying John's purpose and imposing an entirely different one onto the unitarian text.

 

[Rella]

This is one of the most abused verses in Scripture. John 1:1 does not say anything about Jesus. Extreme eisegesis.

John 1 does not say God became flesh but his word became flesh, which is just a poetic way to express the prophecy of Deut 15:15-18 has been fulffiled in Christ.

If the trinitarian take on John 1:1 were true, he would have included it in his purpose statement 20:31. But he didn't. Let me say that again. John explicitly told us his purpose for writing the Gospel. Trintiarians are denying John's purpose and imposing an entirely different one onto the unitarian text.

Put up or shut up.

I have asked repeatedly who the word was and what the relationship to YHWH is .

I get radio silence from every anti-trib.

You cannot declare something to be not true if you wont explain your position on whether or not you believe that the Word was, what he did, what his relationship to YHWH was and how he connects to Jesus.

 

[Soldier of Christ1516]

Put up or shut up.

I have asked repeatedly who the word was and what the relationship to YHWH is .

Ouch! And I have repeatedly answered. Your question has an implied premise that is false. Words are WHAT’s not WHO’s.

 

[CrowCross]

Did you not read and understand my analogy of the boat captain and the ensign? When you use the definite article, you are denying 2 Beings who work in conjunction. God is THE savior who sent a man to be OUR savior. Jesus, himself, said he does not work independently but only says and does what God (the Father) tells him. This is not the words of a god but of a servant. And that is what the Bible calls Jesus, a servant of God.

God is THE savior who sent a man to be OUR savior. Jesus, himself.....Jesus is the Word who was with God and is God...Jesus is the Word who became flesh.

And yes, Jesus is a servant....Jesus who was in the form of God took on the form of a servant during the kenosis.

 

[CrowCross]

This is one of the most abused verses in Scripture. John 1:1 does not say anything about Jesus. Extreme eisegesis.

....well that's right. No mention of Jesus in John 1:1. Now, when you keep reading Jesus is identified when verse 14 tells us the Word of John 1 became flesh. It's pretty obvious. Do I need to post it for you or do you know that part of scripture?

 

[CrowCross]

Appeal to Strawman. I've explained this many times to you. It is not merely the absence of the word but the absence of the concept in the Bible that defeats the trinity.

You do know thhere is no salvation in your "mere man" Jesus?
Tell us how a mere finite man has the ability to take on the sins of the world and pay the eternal price?

 

[Rella]

Ouch! And I have repeatedly answered. Your question has an implied premise that is false. Words are WHAT’s not WHO’s.

Take it up with John....

Opps I forgot... you wont ever have a chance to meet him.

 

[David1701]

Yep.
If one takes the Isaiah verses you listed above in a rigid strict isolated sense then anyone else said to be a savior must be rejected.

Furthermore, we have John 1 saying that the Word that became flesh (ie. Jesus) was God.
And even if one wants to take the route of the JWs and say Jesus was "a" god, then you would have to reject Jesus if one takes the Isaiah verses you quoted above in a rigid strict isolated sense because you are to have no other god.

And one more reason to not take the Isaiah verses you quoted above in a rigid strict isolated sense is that other verses in scripture say there are other gods.

Psalms 82 ESV​

(1) A Psalm of Asaph. God [elohim] has taken his place in the divine council; in the midst of the gods [elohim] he holds judgment:​

Sorry, but God cannot sit in the midst of other gods if other gods do not exist.
Not to mention that it would be silly to command people to not worship other gods if other gods are an impossibility.

When one tries to take certain scripture verses in a rigid strict isolated sense then they are going to create contradictions with other isolated scripture verses.

One of the issues with Psalm 82 is that "elohim" has more than one meaning (it can mean God, gods, magistrates/judges or can be used as a superlative, e.g. "great"). Most commentators take it to mean magistrates or judges, in Psalm 82:1. Even "gods" can be used this way, as a metaphor.

The prohibition against worshipping other "gods" was a prohibition against idolatry, because statues were often used to represent imaginary deities (and demons could use that idolatry for their evil purposes).

 

[Soldier of Christ1516]

God is THE savior who sent a man to be OUR savior.

We asgree on that.

Jesus, himself.....Jesus is the Word who was with God and is God...Jesus is the Word who became flesh.

No Scripture says this. You have to read it into Scripture.

Let me ask you this simple point of logic; how can a thing be WITH something and BE that same thing? To keep our passions in check, let's use different nouns. How can a postage stamp be with the sandwich and be the sandwich?

And yes, Jesus is a servant....Jesus who was in the form of God took on the form of a servant during the kenosis.

Here is where mysticism is revealed ... When my daughter was young, I gave her a place store her money. This was in the form of a pig but it was not a pig ... LANGUAGE USAGE ... Whenever the term "form" is used it means the thing is not what it is in the form of.

It is a piggy bank.

It is NOT a pig even though it is in the form of a pig.

I'm sure you understand this.

 

[Soldier of Christ1516]

....well that's right. No mention of Jesus in John 1:1. Now, when you keep reading Jesus is identified when verse 14 tells us the Word of John 1 became flesh. It's pretty obvious. Do I need to post it for you or do you know that part of scripture?

No. And what, you just ignore the rest of my post?

John 1 does not say God became flesh but his word became flesh, which is just a poetic way to express the prophecy of Deut 15:15-18 has been fulffiled in Christ.

If the trinitarian take on John 1:1 were true, he would have included it in his purpose statement 20:31. But he didn't. Let me say that again. John explicitly told us his purpose for writing the Gospel. Trintiarians are denying John's purpose and imposing an entirely different one onto the unitarian text.

Where I referenced the prophecy of Deut 15:15-18 has been fulffiled in Christ and the purpose statement of John. Highly relevant to the discussion.

 

[Soldier of Christ1516]

Tell us how a mere finite man has the ability to take on the sins of the world and pay the eternal price?

Because God is sovereign and can set up the universe any way he wants. And that he wants a mere finite man to take away the sins of the world is Scripture.

2. The First Fruits.

1 Corinthians 15:19-21 reveals the singular reason we have hope of an eternal life. If Jesus is not a man, like any other man, then he is not the first fruit to be raised from the dead into a glorified body and we still are waiting for such evidence. NOTE: The explicit reference to Jesus nature, not a man-god but just a man, like the first man.


1 Corinthians 15:19-21
19 If in Christ we have hope[a] in this life only, we are of all people most to be pitied. 20 But in fact Christ has been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. 21 For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead.

I look forward to your grace filled reply.

 

[Rella]

We asgree on that.


No Scripture says this. You have to read it into Scripture.

Let me ask you this simple point of logic; how can a thing be WITH something and BE that same thing? To keep our passions in check, let's use different nouns. How can a postage stamp be with the sandwich and be the sandwich?

How can your wife be with you and you still be one? Eph 5:31 NWT“For this reason a man will leave his father and his mother and he will stick to his wife, and the two will be one flesh.” which was said by Jesus.... and Genesis 2:24 That is why a man will leave his father and his mother and he will stick to* his wife, and they will become one flesh. Who was said by either YHWH or the Word.

Jesus was not born when Genesis happened yet he said the same thing....

So You and your wife are one. How can she be with you. Explain that and you have answered your own question.

Here is where mysticism is revealed ... When my daughter was young, I gave her a place store her money. This was in the form of a pig but it was not a pig ... LANGUAGE USAGE ... Whenever the term "form" is used it means the thing is not what it is in the form of.

It is a piggy bank.

It is NOT a pig even though it is in the form of a pig.

I'm sure you understand this.

 

[Soldier of Christ1516]

Take it up with John....

Opps I forgot... you wont ever have a chance to meet him.

I will say that you too should take it up with John.

But I will not say that you won't ever have a chance to meet him. See the difference?

 

[Soldier of Christ1516]

Explain that and you have answered your own question.

You cannot answer a question with a question. Answer it yourself, you mystic you!

 

[Rella]

You cannot answer a question with a question. Answer it yourself, you mystic you!

As you keep telling me ... That has been answered many times.

But you continually ignor for it causes your argument to falter.

 

[CrowCross]

Here is where mysticism is revealed ... When my daughter was young, I gave her a place store her money. This was in the form of a pig but it was not a pig ... LANGUAGE USAGE ... Whenever the term "form" is used it means the thing is not what it is in the form of.

It is a piggy bank.

It is NOT a pig even though it is in the form of a pig.

I'm sure you understand this.

LOL..really???

So, you called Jesus a servant. I'll quote you....

This is not the words of a god but of a servant. And that is what the Bible calls Jesus, a servant of God.

But, using your own logic that Jesus wasn't really God, or in the form of God then Jesus wasn't really a servant.

Here, read what the bible has to say....7but emptied Himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in human likeness.

So, if Jesus really was a servant, in the form of....then in the form of also means Jesus really is God.

Or, you can have it your way...in the form of means Jesus wasn't really God...nor was Jesus really a servant.....But, now you must retract your statement as you clearly said Jesus was a servant.

Bottom line, if Jesus was in the form of a servant, really a servant the Jesus being in the form of God was really God....not some piggy bank.

 

[Arial]

LOL..really???

So, you called Jesus a servant. I'll quote you....


But, using your own logic that Jesus wasn't really God, or in the form of God then Jesus wasn't really a servant.

Here, read what the bible has to say....7but emptied Himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in human likeness.

So, if Jesus really was a servant, in the form of....then in the form of also means Jesus really is God.

Or, you can have it your way...in the form of means Jesus wasn't really God...nor was Jesus really a servant.....But, now you must retract your statement as you clearly said Jesus was a servant.

Bottom line, if Jesus was in the form of a servant, really a servant the Jesus being in the form of God was really God....not some piggy bank.

Neither was He really a man but only the likeness of a man just as the pig was not a pig but only the likeness of a pig. @Soldier of Christ1516

 

[Soldier of Christ1516]

So, you called Jesus a servant. I'll quote you....

No. The Bible called Jesus a servant in a different verse than the one you referened, which only talked about forms.

Jesus was only in the form of a servant for humanity but he is a servant of God. Acts 3:13.

 

[Arial]

No. The Bible called Jesus a servant in a different verse than the one you referened, which only talked about forms.

Jesus was only in the form of a servant for humanity but he is a servant of God. Acts 3:13.

Try and get logic to actually kick in.

 

[CrowCross]

No. The Bible called Jesus a servant in a different verse than the one you referened, which only talked about forms.

Yes I know....but in Phil 2 Jesus is said to be in the FORM...morph...of a servant. The bible teches Jesus REALLY is a servant. You deny that when you teach the FORM of God doesn't mean Jesus was God.

YOU can't have it both ways. So, choose one.

You do know you can be freed from your false belief?