Why Did God Tell Israel That He is One?

[LeviR]

Wait a minute. Not to defend your opponent here —far from it!— but what do you mean, "("To become" can simply be replaced with "was" with no loss of meaning.)" ? Do you mean that the two translations are equally valid use of the originals, or do you mean that the two English renditions are the same in meaning? They do NOT mean the same thing.

He refers to the context as justification for switching the verbs. However, Jesus does not always reply directly to a specific question asked of him. Especially to those whom he knows are only seeking to trap him and give reason to kill him.

Jesus might just have easily passed over their question of seeing Abraham and been making further reference to Abraham’s ardent desire to see Jesus’ day.(v 56) Which he will, at the resurrection of the dead.
As Abraham believed Isaac would be raised from the dead.

 

[makesends]

He refers to the context as justification for switching the verbs. However, Jesus does not always reply directly to a specific question asked of him. Especially to those whom he knows are only seeking to trap him and give reason to kill him.

Jesus might just have easily passed over their question of seeing Abraham and been making further reference to Abraham’s ardent desire to see Jesus’ day.(v 56) Which he will, at the resurrection of the dead.
As Abraham believed Isaac would be raised from the dead.

Before Abraham "was" in the aorist middle voice doesn't necessarily mean either way, but "I AM" is in the present indicative active 1st person, necessarily implying that he is existing (continuously), and that, in and of himself. Now the fact that this is taken by the audience as a reference to his statement in the OT to Moses, if we can affirm that it was indeed a reference to that, is sure claim as to the OT meaning. It is not a mere quote from the Septuagint or something. Jesus' use of it shows its OT meaning. It is circular to claim that it is not so, since 'he is not God', and, that as a result of him not being divine, he misused the OT.

You, of your own authority, think to do better than Jesus himself in his use of the OT???

Now, if your line is that he wasn't referring to the OT, then you still must change what he obviously said about himself, that HE IS before Abraham "WAS being (existing, becoming, etc)". If you know better than Christ on that issue ...well, I'll leave it here, to avoid yelling your well-deserved epithets. I'll let John, Jude, Peter and Paul do that.

You wish to propagate the lie that Christ is not God. If it was up to me you and others like you would be kicked off the site as soon as possible for your attempted disunity and proselytizing, but maybe it is good for us to fight you intellectually. I tire of it quickly because you will to not listen.

 

[TMSO]

Wait a minute. Not to defend your opponent here —far from it!— but what do you mean, "("To become" can simply be replaced with "was" with no loss of meaning.)" ? Do you mean that the two translations are equally valid use of the originals, or do you mean that the two English renditions are the same in meaning? They do NOT mean the same thing.

It is lost in his comments.

 

[LeviR]

Before Abraham "was" in the aorist middle voice doesn't necessarily mean either way, but "I AM" is in the present indicative active 1st person, necessarily implying that he is existing (continuously), and that, in and of himself. Now the fact that this is taken by the audience as a reference to his statement in the OT to Moses, if we can affirm that it was indeed a reference to that, is sure claim as to the OT meaning. It is not a mere quote from the Septuagint or something. Jesus' use of it shows its OT meaning. It is circular to claim that it is not so, since 'he is not God', and, that as a result of him not being divine, he misused the OT.

You, of your own authority, think to do better than Jesus himself in his use of the OT???

Now, if your line is that he wasn't referring to the OT, then you still must change what he obviously said about himself, that HE IS before Abraham "WAS being (existing, becoming, etc)". If you know better than Christ on that issue ...well, I'll leave it here, to avoid yelling your well-deserved epithets. I'll let John, Jude, Peter and Paul do that.

You wish to propagate the lie that Christ is not God. If it was up to me you and others like you would be kicked off the site as soon as possible for your attempted disunity and proselytizing, but maybe it is good for us to fight you intellectually. I tire of it quickly because you will to not listen.

You can’t change the meaning of the verb simply because you assume Jesus is directly answering the Jews question of whether or not he had seen Abraham.

That’s called making a verse mean what YOU want it to mean. Anyone can do foolish things like that to make any verse mean what THEY want it to.

So go ahead, enjoy yourself. Just keep in mind that you are switching verbs for your own theological purpose.

 

[LeviR]

Before Abraham "was" in the aorist middle voice doesn't necessarily mean either way, but "I AM" is in the present indicative active 1st person, necessarily implying that he is existing (continuously), and that, in and of himself. Now the fact that this is taken by the audience as a reference to his statement in the OT to Moses, if we can affirm that it was indeed a reference to that, is sure claim as to the OT meaning. It is not a mere quote from the Septuagint or something. Jesus' use of it shows its OT meaning. It is circular to claim that it is not so, since 'he is not God', and, that as a result of him not being divine, he misused the OT.

You, of your own authority, think to do better than Jesus himself in his use of the OT???

Now, if your line is that he wasn't referring to the OT, then you still must change what he obviously said about himself, that HE IS before Abraham "WAS being (existing, becoming, etc)". If you know better than Christ on that issue ...well, I'll leave it here, to avoid yelling your well-deserved epithets. I'll let John, Jude, Peter and Paul do that.

You wish to propagate the lie that Christ is not God. If it was up to me you and others like you would be kicked off the site as soon as possible for your attempted disunity and proselytizing, but maybe it is good for us to fight you intellectually. I tire of it quickly because you will to not listen.

Trinitarians have been persecuting Unitarians from the 3rd century. Ever since they invented a Trinity God.
So kick me off for disagreeing with you it’s par for the course.

 

[LeviR]

I have been in these discussions for a long time. I find it interesting that there are many different views of the Trinity.

For example, the RCC says that God died on the cross. But most of Reformed Theology rejects that idea.
The RCC claims that there are three persons of the Trinity. But others claim that they are not persons but aspects of the Trinity.
Some Trinitarians claim that Jesus had two minds and two wills and two souls separate from each other. While others claim he merely spoke at times from his human nature as if the person he was was an actual human person.

So you see, there are actually many different ideas about the Trinity out there. And those who hold to the RCC doctrine would refute any other teaching to the point of claiming heresy against them.
Modelism is heresy according to the RCC and other so called orthodox.

 

[Smidge]

Before Abraham "was" in the aorist middle voice doesn't necessarily mean either way, but "I AM" is in the present indicative active 1st person, necessarily implying that he is existing (continuously), and that, in and of himself. Now the fact that this is taken by the audience as a reference to his statement in the OT to Moses, if we can affirm that it was indeed a reference to that, is sure claim as to the OT meaning. It is not a mere quote from the Septuagint or something. Jesus' use of it shows its OT meaning. It is circular to claim that it is not so, since 'he is not God', and, that as a result of him not being divine, he misused the OT.

You, of your own authority, think to do better than Jesus himself in his use of the OT???

Now, if your line is that he wasn't referring to the OT, then you still must change what he obviously said about himself, that HE IS before Abraham "WAS being (existing, becoming, etc)". If you know better than Christ on that issue ...well, I'll leave it here, to avoid yelling your well-deserved epithets. I'll let John, Jude, Peter and Paul do that.

You wish to propagate the lie that Christ is not God. If it was up to me you and others like you would be kicked off the site as soon as possible for your attempted disunity and proselytizing, but maybe it is good for us to fight you intellectually. I tire of it quickly because you will to not listen.

See you later. I can tell you're a full-blown jerk. I don't need to {edit by admin}.

 

[LeviR]

It is lost in his comments.

I asked you a very simple question. Please show from scripture where the verb Jesus used means “was” or “was born” or “existed” as Trinitarians claim.
If the verbs means something else in every case, you can’t change the meaning of it.
However, you’re free to deceive whoever you will.

To give them power to become sons of God.

To give them power was born sons of God.

Absurd.

 

[LeviR]

See you later. I can tell you're a full-blown jerk. I don't need to be around trinitarian assholes.

They don’t like being corrected about anything. I welcome being corrected.
If I’m wrong about what that verb means, I welcome being corrected. But I’m not wrong because it means the same thing in every other verse it is used. And there are 37 other verses to compare.

 

[makesends]

You can’t change the meaning of the verb simply because you assume Jesus is directly answering the Jews question of whether or not he had seen Abraham.

That’s called making a verse mean what YOU want it to mean. Anyone can do foolish things like that to make any verse mean what THEY want it to.

So go ahead, enjoy yourself. Just keep in mind that you are switching verbs for your own theological purpose.

Right back atcha! In every respect (or disrespect, as the case may be).

 

[makesends]

Trinitarians have been persecuting Unitarians from the 3rd century. Ever since they invented a Trinity God.
So kick me off for disagreeing with you it’s par for the course.

Nope. Like David and Saul, in a sense, God obviously intended (predestined) you to be here as long as the mods allow it; (I don't have the authority); and God always has a reason.

 

[makesends]

It's impossible for Jesus to be God.

Hebrews 2:17-18 "For this reason he had to be made like them,[k] FULLY HUMAN IN EVERY WAY, in order that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in service to God, and that he might make atonement for the sins of the people. Because he himself suffered when he was tempted, he is able to help those who are being tempted."

FWIW, that is not a faithful translation of Heb 2:17. The words, "fully human in every way" are not there. But even if they were, the implication is not that he ceased to be God, nor that he never was God. It only means that he was 100% human, which does not preclude him also being 100% God.

___________________________________________________

What you guys need to realize is the hypostatic union destroys the atonement. If Jesus was God that makes him a fraud and the cross a hoax.

How so?

The bible says he was tempted IN EVERY WAY AND THAT HE KNEW TEMPTATION. It also says that, "God cannot be tempted and therefore cannot sin."

Who's saying that implies God was tempted? He was tempted as a human. Want me to say it differently? His humanity was tempted. Problem?

If Jesus was God that means he could not have sinned anyway. (Back to the only Trinitarian answer of TWO NATURES) That makes the Word of God totally contradictory - makes Jesus a fraud because he never would have to overcome sin since he also being God couldn't have been tempted to sin anyway - ultimately making him a fraud and the cross a complete hoax and the atonement for sin a complete hoax - think about it.

Think about it. One thing that the self-determinists keep claiming is that Calvinism teaches it is automatic. Same goes for you here, you claim trinitarians believe (no you didn't say the word, but it is the sentiment) that if Jesus is God, it is automatic that he cannot sin. WRONG.

It is only SURE that he would not sin. He thus proved, being human and tempted as all humans, yet without sin, that he was God, by never yielding. Only God could do that.

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again Binyawmene,

Why is 'the Christ' called "the LORD Our Righteous Savior?"

Jesus is the central focus and the development of the Yahweh Name, "He who will become". The One God, Yahweh, God the Father in giving birth to the human Jesus, and in his development has extended Himself to incorporate Jesus, the Son of God.

The ultimate purpose and development of the Yahweh Name is
1 Corinthians 15:28 (KJV): And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.

What's your views on (2 Peter 1:1,1:11, 2:20, 3:2, 18)? Most Unitarians goes with the Two-Person view.

Seems a bit ambiguous, but Peter does not try to merge God the Father and Jesus as is evident from his first epistle:
2 Peter 1:1 (KJV): Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ:
1 Peter 1:3 (KJV): Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,

There is also a danger in trying to merge the two words Yahweh and Adon. The One God Yahweh is the Supreme Lord or Ruler:
Matthew 11:25 (KJV): At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes.

But Jesus is also David's Lord and our Lord. The Name and the various Titles of God are to some extent obscured, and we have Adon and Adonai translated as "Lord" in the KJV and Yahweh translated as "LORD" except when we have Adonai Yahweh and this is translated as "Lord GOD". My impression is that some Trinitarians ignore this and try on occasions to merge "Lord" and "LORD". This is to some extent further obscured in the NT. Another interesting exercise is to distingush between the Hebrew Elohim, El and Eloah which are usually all translated as "God" in the KJV.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[makesends]

Jesus is the central focus and the development of the Yahweh Name, "He who will become". The One God, Yahweh, God the Father in giving birth to the human Jesus, and in his development has extended Himself to incorporate Jesus, the Son of God.

Did he do this when Christ was born, or when he created all things, or was Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Word of God by which he spoke creation into existence, or just when/how did this 'person' first show up?

 

[LeviR]

It's impossible for Jesus to be God.

Hebrews 2:17-18 "For this reason he had to be made like them,[k] FULLY HUMAN IN EVERY WAY, in order that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in service to God, and that he might make atonement for the sins of the people. Because he himself suffered when he was tempted, he is able to help those who are being tempted."
___________________________________________________

What you guys need to realize is the hypostatic union destroys the atonement. If Jesus was God that makes him a fraud and the cross a hoax.

The bible says he was tempted IN EVERY WAY AND THAT HE KNEW TEMPTATION. It also says that, "God cannot be tempted and therefore cannot sin."

If Jesus was God that means he could not have sinned anyway. (Back to the only Trinitarian answer of TWO NATURES) That makes the Word of God totally contradictory - makes Jesus a fraud because he never would have to overcome sin since he also being God couldn't have been tempted to sin anyway - ultimately making him a fraud and the cross a complete hoax and the atonement for sin a complete hoax - think about it.

If Jesus was 100% God, I don’t think the Father would have given him 100% of His Holy Spirit.

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings makesends,

Did he do this when Christ was born, or when he created all things, or was Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Word of God by which he spoke creation into existence, or just when/how did this 'person' first show up?

This process came into reality when the One God, Yahweh, God the Father became the father of Jesus the Son of God and Mary his mother in his conception/birth. The process continued on with the God the Father's guidance and education of His Son until his maturity and as a result Jesus was revealed as John records as being "full of grace and truth". This quality of character was developed, not inherent from a pre-existent being.

Kind regards
Trevor
,

 

[LeviR]

If Jesus was 100% God, I don’t think the Father would have given him 100% of His Holy Spirit.

Now that I’ve mentioned it, if Jesus was given 100% of the Spirit of the Father, he could do the same things as the Father. Yes, I believe so.
If Jesus were already 100% God, why would he attribute everything he said and did to the Father?

Interesting.

 

[makesends]

Greetings makesends,

This process came into reality when the One God, Yahweh, God the Father became the father of Jesus the Son of God and Mary his mother in his conception/birth. The process continued on with the God the Father's guidance and education of His Son until his maturity and as a result Jesus was revealed as John records as being "full of grace and truth". This quality of character was developed, not inherent from a pre-existent being.

Kind regards
Trevor
,

So, before Abraham was, Jesus Christ was not? He is not, from everlasting to everlasting, God?

 

[makesends]

LeviR said:
If Jesus was 100% God, I don’t think the Father would have given him 100% of His Holy Spirit.

Now that I’ve mentioned it, if Jesus was given 100% of the Spirit of the Father, he could do the same things as the Father. Yes, I believe so.
If Jesus were already 100% God, why would he attribute everything he said and did to the Father?

Interesting.

Funny about that first statement; take the "don't" out, and it is much better. To me it makes no sense the way you put it.

If Jesus was 100% God, I don’t think the Father would have given him 100% of His Holy Spirit.

As for your distorted notion of how things would be 'if': Being 100% God, he depended on his father as we should, but don't. None of us.

You lay a wooden logic to the wording of he being God, and the Father also being God. Your conflict of identity frankly comes across as mocking-by-ignorance. It doesn't fit your concepts, so you judge it according to your concepts. You reject the trinity, so you judge the scriptures according to your mind's view of the law of identity. God will not fit your logic. He is not like us.

 

[LeviR]

LeviR said:
If Jesus was 100% God, I don’t think the Father would have given him 100% of His Holy Spirit.

Funny about that first statement; take the "don't" out, and it is much better. To me it makes no sense the way you put it.

If Jesus was 100% God, I don’t think the Father would have given him 100% of His Holy Spirit.

As for your distorted notion of how things would be 'if': Being 100% God, he depended on his father as we should, but don't. None of us.

You lay a wooden logic to the wording of he being God, and the Father also being God. Your conflict of identity frankly comes across as mocking-by-ignorance. It doesn't fit your concepts, so you judge it according to your concepts. You reject the trinity, so you judge the scriptures according to your mind's view of the law of identity. God will not fit your logic. He is not like us.

I reject the Trinity in the same way I reject the immaculate conception, immortal soul, transubstantiation, praying to dead saints, indulgences, father priest and Peter the first Pope.

If you can’t see they make stuff up……well…