Your mistake is in asserting that "Son of God" means "Not our God" without evidence. It is a clarification that he is indeed God. Jesus already gave the means of interpretation in the 82nd Psalm. Out of "God" and "gods" he is not the "gods" but the "God." The only way I could see you denying the force of that passage is if you also deny that Jesus claimed that he was the judge of the living and the dead.
Daniel 3:24-25 KJV
(24) Then Nebuchadnezzar the king was astonied, and rose up in haste, and spake, and said unto his counsellors, Did not we cast three men bound into the midst of the fire? They answered and said unto the king, True, O king.
(25) He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God.
I cited this to demonstrate the term's first usage: Granted that these are heathen speaking when they use the term "Son of God" here, but do you really think they thought that the fourth man was anything other than a god of the Hebrews?
Matthew 4:3 KJV
(3) And when the tempter came to him, he said, If thou be the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread.
The devil recognized that the Son of God can command reality and creation. He didn't ask him to "pray" that the stones be transformed, but rather recognized that the true "Son of God" could create and destroy with a word.
1 John 5:20 KJV
(20) And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life.
Grammatically, John says that the Son of God is the true God and eternal life. It is hardly surprising considering how direct he was in the gospel of John, first chapter.
Hebrews 7:1-3 KJV
(1) For this Melchisedec, king of Salem, priest of the most high God, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings, and blessed him;
(2) To whom also Abraham gave a tenth part of all; first being by interpretation King of righteousness, and after that also King of Salem, which is, King of peace;
(3) Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually.
Paul says that the Son of God has neither beginning of days nor end of life.. how many beings can both create and are uncreated?
If you want to say that the logic does not hold up, please address the supporting points I made for the logical statement. Do you contend that Jesus did not (and had not already) established himself as the judge of all? That was one of the points.
I am not doing this "without evidence."
The evidence I am using is that there is no possible reading of the words "Son of" that means "same as".
Is Shem also Noah?
Is Ham also Noah?
Is Japheth also Noah?
Genesis 10:1
1 Now these are the generations of the sons of Noah, Shem, Ham, and Japheth: and unto them were sons born after the flood.
Did God Himself come in unto the daughters of men and get them pregnant before the flood?
Genesis 6:4
4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.
It is a clarification that he is indeed God. Jesus already gave the means of interpretation in the 82nd Psalm. Out of "God" and "gods" he is not the "gods" but the "God."
Jesus corrected any misinterpretation that someone would think Jesus was saying He is indeed God by clearly stating that His claim is that He is the Son of God.
Daniel 3:24-25 KJV
(24) Then Nebuchadnezzar the king was astonied, and rose up in haste, and spake, and said unto his counsellors, Did not we cast three men bound into the midst of the fire? They answered and said unto the king, True, O king.
(25) He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God.
I cited this to demonstrate the term's first usage: Granted that these are heathen speaking when they use the term "Son of God" here, but do you really think they thought that the fourth man was anything other than a god of the Hebrews?
Yes, there is precedent that shows that they would not think the son of God seen in the furnace was God Himself.
Job 2:1
1 Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them to present himself before the LORD.
Matthew 4:3 KJV
(3) And when the tempter came to him, he said, If thou be the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread.
The devil recognized that the Son of God can command reality and creation. He didn't ask him to "pray" that the stones be transformed, but rather recognized that the true "Son of God" could create and destroy with a word.
1 John 5:20 KJV
(20) And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life.
Grammatically, John says that the Son of God is the true God and eternal life. It is hardly surprising considering how direct he was in the gospel of John, first chapter.
Grammatically, John is saying that the Father of Jesus Christ is the true God and eternal life.
All the words I highlighted are referring to the same person.
"The Son of God" as used by Jesus was a title, not as a description to indicate lineage or creation status. Don't confuse titles with mundane adjectives. In application it means God in the flesh.
Jesus corrected any misinterpretation that someone would think Jesus was saying He is indeed God by clearly stating that His claim is that He is the Son of God.
Very strange how none of his audience gathered that meaning. That declaration infuriated them more.
Yes, there is precedent that shows that they would not think the son of God seen in the furnace was God Himself.
Job 2:1
1 Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them to present himself before the LORD.
Assuming the Babylonians were familiar with the book of Job? Please pick which angle you are using. If you are claiming that "the sons of God" are angelic beings, I remind you that "sons of God" is not the same as "the only begotten Son of God" but if you are using the original point of the use of the term by the Babylonians, we are back to the understanding that they say the manifestation of a god. I only say "god" lowercase here because the Babylonians were polytheistic.
There was no "create and destroy" involved in the request to transform the stones into bread.
Right... so you want to argue that transmutation of solid mineral into baked foodstuffs doesn't involve creating and destroying? Is this the theory at Hogwartz?
According to your logic, Jesus lied in this statement:
John 5:22
22 [JESUS]For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son:[/JESUS]
Seems to me that passage is a problem for your current position (not mine!)
Psalms 82:1 KJV
(1) A Psalm of Asaph. God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods.
I already showed how Jesus used this passage to defend the Son of God from charges of blasphemy. If you're going to make that not Jesus, then you've got a conflict with John 5:22.
John 20:28-29 KJV
(28) And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.
(29) Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.
Genuine, I have heard almost every Unitarian argument before. I can say this because a friend of mine was formerly Unitarian and he literally went through almost every argument (from a list) at one point. What is the response for John 20:28 above? Was Thomas swearing?
Genuine, I apologize if that last bit seemed antagonistic. Usually you have a pretty good consistency with accepting scripture as written and only now it seems to be starting to deviate, and it was a little surprising.
1Ti 3:16 KJV
(16) And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.
This theme: that God himself came to us and walked among us, the Creator of all things speaking to us and calling himself the Son of God is reinforced and proven through so many ways in scripture, from Genesis, to the minor prophets, linking major prophets to Revelation, direct and indirect statements of Jesus, the Psalms, very plain statements in the gospel of John, acknowledgments from Paul in his epistles... this is not a wild crazy doctrine. It was planned from the beginning.
Perhaps those with an outside of time theory might escape this, but how could God vouch his entire reputation of prophecy on a prediction that someone else would be sinless as God is sinless, to be a sacrifice for sins? The only way to guarantee something like that which requires the heart and free will of the person is to do it yourself.
1Jn 3:16 KJV
(16) Hereby perceive we the love of God, because he laid down his life for us: and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren.
How would God sending someone else to die for us show that God loves us? It would show that the one who endured the dying loved us to be certain, but there is certainly less love demonstrated by sending someone else off to do the dying that you're unwilling to do yourself. And the denial of Jesus as God prevents one from knowing the character of God, because he was already right in front of us so we could see who he was. The perception of "God" will remain some sort of distant hazy notion because of the inability to see the clear Logos in the flesh.
What do you believe is at stake here? Was Jesus deficient in any way, somehow less than perfect? Jesus was Good as God is Good, as in "There is none good but one, that is, God." Would you be upset to find that Jesus is that Only God because of some deficiency in his love or character?
Joh 14:9 KJV
(9) Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?
Jesus did stay low-key during his ministry, and he did allow people to reach their own conclusions without necessarily correcting them. There are enough statements even then that it can be detected providing one has a knowledge of the other scriptures, but the subtle approach starts dissolving as the New Testament progresses, folding back into the Old Testament, proclaimed plainly by John and Paul, and proclaimed in very uncertain terms in Revelation. This is something we were meant to know.
"The Son of God" as used by Jesus was a title, not as a description to indicate lineage or creation status. Don't confuse titles with mundane adjectives. In application it means God in the flesh.
Please look at all the other uses of "son of God" in the Bible.
In each of them, the application appears to be "someone that is not God that has the power of God".
There is no way to make the claim that the application of any of them into meaning "God in the flesh".
You are attempting to make the scriptures say something that it doesn't say because you want the term to mean something different for Jesus than it does throughout the rest of the Bible.
Spoiler
Genesis 6:2
2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.
Genesis 6:4
4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.
Job 1:6
6 Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan came also among them.
Job 2:1
1 Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan came also among them to present himself before the Lord.
Job 38:7
7 When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?
John 1:12
12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
Daniel 3:25
25 He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God.
Luke 3:38
38 Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.
Romans 8:14
14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.
Romans 8:19
19 For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God.
Galatians 4:7
7 Wherefore thou art no more a servant, but a son; and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ.
Philippians 2:15
15 That ye may be blameless and harmless, the sons of God, without rebuke, in the midst of a crooked and perverse nation, among whom ye shine as lights in the world;
Hebrews 7:3
3 Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually.
1 John 3:1-2
1 Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not.
2 Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.
The Trinitarian position is that the verse says "I judge no one, but I have given authority to judge to Me".
To me, there is a problem with that.
My position is that the only way to read the New Testament with understanding is to read it as if Jesus is a man that God has chosen to honor.
That means that the verse would be read: "God has stopped judging mankind because God has given a man, Jesus, the authority to judge mankind."
That supports my position.
Please look at all the other uses of "son of God" in the Bible.
In each of them, the application appears to be "someone that is not God that has the power of God".
There is no way to make the claim that the application of any of them into meaning "God in the flesh".
You are attempting to make the scriptures say something that it doesn't say because you want the term to mean something different for Jesus than it does throughout the rest of the Bible.
Spoiler
Genesis 6:2
2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.
Genesis 6:4
4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.
Job 1:6
6 Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan came also among them.
Job 2:1
1 Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan came also among them to present himself before the Lord.
Job 38:7
7 When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?
John 1:12
12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
Daniel 3:25
25 He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God.
Luke 3:38
38 Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.
Romans 8:14
14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.
Romans 8:19
19 For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God.
Galatians 4:7
7 Wherefore thou art no more a servant, but a son; and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ.
Philippians 2:15
15 That ye may be blameless and harmless, the sons of God, without rebuke, in the midst of a crooked and perverse nation, among whom ye shine as lights in the world;
Hebrews 7:3
3 Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually.
1 John 3:1-2
1 Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not.
2 Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.
I already acknowledge that Adam ... the son of God is used in a difference sense, not as a title. Clearly Jesus and John use "the Son of God" as a unique title and in a difference sense.
The Trinitarian position is that the verse says "I judge no one, but I have given authority to judge to Me".
To me, there is a problem with that.
My position is that the only way to read the New Testament with understanding is to read it as if Jesus is a man that God has chosen to honor.
That means that the verse would be read: "God has stopped judging mankind because God has given a man, Jesus, the authority to judge mankind."
That supports my position.
I don't claim to be Trinitarian. It is a model meant to answer some questions but it has a few flaws and can create a few problems. But the New Testament can be read in the sense that Jesus is God our Creator (and this is stated several times in various places, not just John).
Joh 1:1-3 KJV
(1) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(2) The same was in the beginning with God.
(3) All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
"Father" and "Son" are figurative terms. It has nothing to do with a literal father and son, it is not an indicator of Creator and Created. I think you will find that it is more accurate to observe that "the Father" is how God is referred to as God distant and away from us, whereas the Son refers to God as we knew him in the flesh. There's less precise need for that distinction now, but those terms were introduced for the purpose of the Incarnation. And as far as the title "Father" goes, it's first (and only) use as an actual Title (not merely as adjectives) before the New Testament was in a prophetic reference to that time, and it is applied to the Son.
Isa 9:6 KJV
(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.
You'll find Jesus using the title "the Father" to refer to God without directly referring to himself. Yes, it may seem a bit confusing. It could be Jesus being indirect, or it is possible that God was actually in two different states at the same time: above, in heaven; and beneath, on earth; both true to his essence and character, but one form in full glory and the second in less than full glory. This practical distinction would dissolve when Jesus ascended to the glory which he said he once had, and it would also explain how come so many references seem to blend and point both ways. A reference now to "the Son" or "the Father" would point back to the same unified God, a God which was both in heaven and on the cross, a feat that is impossible for us but possible for God.
My approach to this is to establish first what the Bible gives us as absolutes (and assume that the scripture is true) and only afterwards allow our models to fall into place. We have so many ways shown us that Jesus who ascended is returning and He is returning as our God, and that even before he was conceived by the Holy Spirit that he created the worlds. And if Jesus is not God, then why does he call himself by all the unique names and titles of God in Revelation and appear to take over as the true God?
Usually you have a pretty good consistency with accepting scripture as written and only now it seems to be starting to deviate, and it was a little surprising.
I am not deviating.
When I read the scriptures, I try to understand how the people writing would understand what they wrote and how the audience they were writing for would understand what they wrote.
There are a few passages in the Bible that can be used to defend that doctrine, and a couple of handful of passages that can be used to defend a Binity doctrine.
It took three hundred years for the Binity doctrine to be developed (325 CE), and another fifty years after that for the Trinity doctrine to be developed (381 CE).
I have to consider the mindset of the Jews during the time of Christ in order to understand what they were writing.
During the forty years between the crucifixion and the destruction of Jerusalem, not even one of the writers of the New Testament could even have conceived of the idea of the Trinity.
If Jesus had told His disciples that He was God, they would have turned away from Him and refused to accept Him as the Messiah (Christ).
1Ti 3:16 KJV
(16) And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.
Paul would not have used the word "God" (θεός) in that statement.
1 Timothy 3:16 NET
16 And we all agree, our religion contains amazing revelation:
He was revealed in the flesh,
vindicated by the Spirit,
seen by angels,
proclaimed among Gentiles,
believed on in the world,
taken up in glory.
The change in the verse appears to have happened over two hundred years after Paul wrote the epistle.
1 Timothy 3:16 NET notes
The Byzantine text along with a few other witnesses (אc Ac C2 D2 Ψ [88 pc] 1739 1881 �� vgms) read θεός (theos, “God”) for ὅς (hos, “who”). Most significant among these witnesses is 1739; the second correctors of some of the other mss tend to conform to the medieval standard, the Byzantine text, and add no independent voice to the discussion. A few mss have ὁ θεός (so 88 pc), a reading that is a correction on the anarthrous θεός. On the other side, the masculine relative pronoun ὅς is strongly supported by א* A* C* F G 33 365 pc Did Epiph. Significantly, D* and virtually the entire Latin tradition read the neuter relative pronoun, ὅ (ho, “which”), a reading that indirectly supports ὅς since it could not easily have been generated if θεός had been in the text. Thus, externally, there is no question as to what should be considered original: The Alexandrian and Western traditions are decidedly in favor of ὅς. Internally, the evidence is even stronger. What scribe would change θεός to ὅς intentionally? “Who” is not only a theologically pale reading by comparison; it also is much harder (since the relative pronoun has no obvious antecedent, probably the reason for the neuter pronoun of the Western tradition). Intrinsically, the rest of 3:16, beginning with ὅς, appears to form a six-strophed hymn. As such, it is a text that is seemingly incorporated into the letter without syntactical connection. Hence, not only should we not look for an antecedent for ὅς (as is often done by commentators), but the relative pronoun thus is not too hard a reading (or impossible, as Dean Burgon believed). Once the genre is taken into account, the relative pronoun fits neatly into the author’s style (cf. also Col 1:15; Phil 2:6 for other places in which the relative pronoun begins a hymn, as was often the case in poetry of the day). On the other hand, with θεός written as a nomen sacrum, it would have looked very much like the relative pronoun: Θ̅Σ̅ vs. ΟΣ. Thus, it may have been easy to confuse one for the other. This, of course, does not solve which direction the scribes would go, although given their generally high Christology and the bland and ambiguous relative pronoun, it is doubtful that they would have replaced θεός with ὅς. How then should we account for θεός? It appears that sometime after the 2nd century the θεός reading came into existence, either via confusion with ὅς or as an intentional alteration to magnify Christ and clear up the syntax at the same time. Once it got in, this theologically rich reading was easily able to influence all the rest of the mss it came in contact with (including mss already written, such as א A C D). That this reading did not arise until after the 2nd century is evident from the Western reading, ὅ. The neuter relative pronoun is certainly a “correction” of ὅς, conforming the gender to that of the neuter μυστήριον (mustērion, “mystery”). What is significant in this reading is (1) since virtually all the Western witnesses have either the masculine or neuter relative pronoun, the θεός reading was apparently unknown to them in the 2nd century (when the “Western” text seems to have originated, though its place of origination was most likely in the east); they thus supply strong indirect evidence of ὅς outside of Egypt in the 2nd century; (2) even 2nd century scribes were liable to misunderstand the genre, feeling compelled to alter the masculine relative pronoun because it appeared to them to be too harsh. The evidence, therefore, for ὅς is quite compelling, both externally and internally. As TCGNT 574 notes, “no uncial (in the first hand) earlier than the eighth or ninth century (Ψ) supports θεός; all ancient versions presuppose ὅς or ὅ; and no patristic writer prior to the last third of the fourth century testifies to the reading θεός.” Thus, the cries of certain groups that θεός has to be original must be seen as special pleading in this case. To argue that heretics tampered with the text here is self-defeating, for most of the Western fathers who quoted the verse with the relative pronoun were quite orthodox, strongly affirming the deity of Christ. They would have dearly loved such a reading as θεός. Further, had heretics introduced a variant to θεός, a far more natural choice would have been χριστός (Christos, “Christ”) or κύριος (kurios, “Lord”), since the text is self-evidently about Christ, but it is not self-evidently a proclamation of his deity. (See ExSyn 341–42, for a summary discussion on this issue and additional bibliographic references.)
This theme: that God himself came to us and walked among us, the Creator of all things speaking to us and calling himself the Son of God is reinforced and proven through so many ways in scripture, from Genesis, to the minor prophets, linking major prophets to Revelation, direct and indirect statements of Jesus, the Psalms, very plain statements in the gospel of John, acknowledgments from Paul in his epistles... this is not a wild crazy doctrine. It was planned from the beginning.
God walked with Adam in the beginning.
God had His chosen people build a dwelling place for Him to meet with them.
God will come down to earth with New Jerusalem and will dwell in the temple in the midst of the Temple there.
The only part of your theme that does not match is the idea that God called Himself the Son of God.
Perhaps those with an outside of time theory might escape this, but how could God vouch his entire reputation of prophecy on a prediction that someone else would be sinless as God is sinless, to be a sacrifice for sins? The only way to guarantee something like that which requires the heart and free will of the person is to do it yourself.
No, there is another way that neither relies on God to become flesh or God to be outside of time.
Matthew 21:33-41
33 Hear another parable: There was a certain householder, which planted a vineyard, and hedged it round about, and digged a winepress in it, and built a tower, and let it out to husbandmen, and went into a far country:
34 And when the time of the fruit drew near, he sent his servants to the husbandmen, that they might receive the fruits of it.
35 And the husbandmen took his servants, and beat one, and killed another, and stoned another.
36 Again, he sent other servants more than the first: and they did unto them likewise.
37 But last of all he sent unto them his son, saying, They will reverence my son.
38 But when the husbandmen saw the son, they said among themselves, This is the heir; come, let us kill him, and let us seize on his inheritance.
39 And they caught him, and cast him out of the vineyard, and slew him.
40 When the lord therefore of the vineyard cometh, what will he do unto those husbandmen?
41 They say unto him, He will miserably destroy those wicked men, and will let out his vineyard unto other husbandmen, which shall render him the fruits in their seasons.
Is it the love that money has for us, or our love for money that is the root of all evil?
1 Timothy 6:10
For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.
If "love of money" is not referring to the love that money has for us, then we should be cautious in assuming that "love of God" is referring to the love that God has for us.
Does the love God has for us need to be perfected, or is it our love for God that needs to be perfected?
1 John 2:5
5 But whoso keepeth his word, in him verily is the love of God perfected: hereby know we that we are in him.
How would God sending someone else to die for us show that God loves us? It would show that the one who endured the dying loved us to be certain, but there is certainly less love demonstrated by sending someone else off to do the dying that you're unwilling to do yourself.
I already acknowledge that Adam ... the son of God is used in a difference sense, not as a title. Clearly Jesus and John use "the Son of God" as a unique title and in a difference sense.
I don't claim to be Trinitarian. It is a model meant to answer some questions but it has a few flaws and can create a few problems. But the New Testament can be read in the sense that Jesus is God our Creator (and this is stated several times in various places, not just John).
I have never said that the New Testament can't be read as if Jesus is God Himself.
However, reading the New Testament as if Jesus is God Himself does not lead to understanding what is written, since that reading is opposed to the mindset of the writers.
Joh 1:1-3 KJV
(1) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(2) The same was in the beginning with God.
(3) All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
At the time this passage was written, the concept of "logos" to mean reason/logic/purpose was common knowledge.
The Greek has the first verse ending with "and God was the Word", not "and the Word was God".
Jesus said that He was the Son of God.
Jesus said that God is our Father.
Jesus said that the father of the Pharisees was the devil.
It is only with Jesus that people are willing to throw away everything they know about the relationship of a father and a son and reach the illogical conclusion that the Father and the Son of the Father are both the same being.
My point is that there is no need to do this at all.
And if Jesus is not God, then why does he call himself by all the unique names and titles of God in Revelation and appear to take over as the true God?
Is Jesus speaking His own words or God's words in Revelation?
Revelation 1:1
1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John:
Was Isaiah speaking his own words of God's words in Isaiah?
Isaiah 48:12
12 Hearken unto me, O Jacob and Israel, my called; I am he; I am the first, I also am the last.
I am not deviating.
When I read the scriptures, I try to understand how the people writing would understand what they wrote and how the audience they were writing for would understand what they wrote.
That isn't a pure mechanism... because you are layering that with your idea of what you think those people understood. It seems you have less willingness to grant that they might mean exactly what it sounds like they were saying.
There are a few passages in the Bible that can be used to defend that doctrine, and a couple of handful of passages that can be used to defend a Binity doctrine. It took three hundred years for the Binity doctrine to be developed (325 CE), and another fifty years after that for the Trinity doctrine to be developed (381 CE).
Of which I consider irrelevant on multiple counts: first, it might legitimately take a long time for people to come up with a proper working model that explains the incarnation; and second, Trinity and Binity doctrines have no actual relation to what I was trying to convey.
I have to consider the mindset of the Jews during the time of Christ in order to understand what they were writing.During the forty years between the crucifixion and the destruction of Jerusalem, not even one of the writers of the New Testament could even have conceived of the idea of the Trinity. If Jesus had told His disciples that He was God, they would have turned away from Him and refused to accept Him as the Messiah (Christ).
Again, why this fascination with "Trinity?" That's a straw man right now. Regardless, his disciples couldn't even grasp that he was going to die and raise his body after three days, to the extent that they fought with swords and then ran and denied him three times. Most of his initial disciples turned away when he said that they must eat his flesh and drink his blood so speculation as to the anticipated limits of their understanding isn't a good measure.
However, far less than the forty years to the destruction of Jerusalem you can see Peter and Paul both identifying Jesus as God. For examples in Acts 2 where his resurrection is compared against David in the tomb to identify Jesus as Lord and Christ, and the way Paul freely exchanges "God" and "Jesus" in his quotes of Isaiah when he writes to the Philippians.
1Ti 3:16 KJV
(16) And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.
He most certainly would, and the statement is somewhat nonsensical without it. I am quite aware of the Unitarian argument of necessity (it's a deadly ground survival issue for that doctrine) against this passage, and it argues that there must be several (or as many as four or five) authentic passages and that the rest in existence were "hacked." There's a whole world of evidence on the side of the Byzantine and Received Text if you really want to go there and fight on that hill.
1 Timothy 3:16 NET
Spoiler
16 And we all agree, our religion contains amazing revelation:
He was revealed in the flesh,
vindicated by the Spirit,
seen by angels,
proclaimed among Gentiles,
believed on in the world,
taken up in glory.
Spoiler
[/BOX]
The change in the verse appears to have happened over two hundred years after Paul wrote the epistle.
1 Timothy 3:16 NET notes
The Byzantine text along with a few other witnesses (אc Ac C2 D2 Ψ [88 pc] 1739 1881 �� vgms) read θεός (theos, “God”) for ὅς (hos, “who”). Most significant among these witnesses is 1739; the second correctors of some of the other mss tend to conform to the medieval standard, the Byzantine text, and add no independent voice to the discussion. A few mss have ὁ θεός (so 88 pc), a reading that is a correction on the anarthrous θεός. On the other side, the masculine relative pronoun ὅς is strongly supported by א* A* C* F G 33 365 pc Did Epiph. Significantly, D* and virtually the entire Latin tradition read the neuter relative pronoun, ὅ (ho, “which”), a reading that indirectly supports ὅς since it could not easily have been generated if θεός had been in the text. Thus, externally, there is no question as to what should be considered original: The Alexandrian and Western traditions are decidedly in favor of ὅς. Internally, the evidence is even stronger. What scribe would change θεός to ὅς intentionally? “Who” is not only a theologically pale reading by comparison; it also is much harder (since the relative pronoun has no obvious antecedent, probably the reason for the neuter pronoun of the Western tradition). Intrinsically, the rest of 3:16, beginning with ὅς, appears to form a six-strophed hymn. As such, it is a text that is seemingly incorporated into the letter without syntactical connection. Hence, not only should we not look for an antecedent for ὅς (as is often done by commentators), but the relative pronoun thus is not too hard a reading (or impossible, as Dean Burgon believed). Once the genre is taken into account, the relative pronoun fits neatly into the author’s style (cf. also Col 1:15; Phil 2:6 for other places in which the relative pronoun begins a hymn, as was often the case in poetry of the day). On the other hand, with θεός written as a nomen sacrum, it would have looked very much like the relative pronoun: Θ̅Σ̅ vs. ΟΣ. Thus, it may have been easy to confuse one for the other. This, of course, does not solve which direction the scribes would go, although given their generally high Christology and the bland and ambiguous relative pronoun, it is doubtful that they would have replaced θεός with ὅς. How then should we account for θεός? It appears that sometime after the 2nd century the θεός reading came into existence, either via confusion with ὅς or as an intentional alteration to magnify Christ and clear up the syntax at the same time. Once it got in, this theologically rich reading was easily able to influence all the rest of the mss it came in contact with (including mss already written, such as א A C D). That this reading did not arise until after the 2nd century is evident from the Western reading, ὅ. The neuter relative pronoun is certainly a “correction” of ὅς, conforming the gender to that of the neuter μυστήριον (mustērion, “mystery”). What is significant in this reading is (1) since virtually all the Western witnesses have either the masculine or neuter relative pronoun, the θεός reading was apparently unknown to them in the 2nd century (when the “Western” text seems to have originated, though its place of origination was most likely in the east); they thus supply strong indirect evidence of ὅς outside of Egypt in the 2nd century; (2) even 2nd century scribes were liable to misunderstand the genre, feeling compelled to alter the masculine relative pronoun because it appeared to them to be too harsh. The evidence, therefore, for ὅς is quite compelling, both externally and internally. As TCGNT 574 notes, “no uncial (in the first hand) earlier than the eighth or ninth century (Ψ) supports θεός; all ancient versions presuppose ὅς or ὅ; and no patristic writer prior to the last third of the fourth century testifies to the reading θεός.” Thus, the cries of certain groups that θεός has to be original must be seen as special pleading in this case. To argue that heretics tampered with the text here is self-defeating, for most of the Western fathers who quoted the verse with the relative pronoun were quite orthodox, strongly affirming the deity of Christ. They would have dearly loved such a reading as θεός. Further, had heretics introduced a variant to θεός, a far more natural choice would have been χριστός (Christos, “Christ”) or κύριος (kurios, “Lord”), since the text is self-evidently about Christ, but it is not self-evidently a proclamation of his deity. (See ExSyn 341–42, for a summary discussion on this issue and additional bibliographic references.)
God walked with Adam in the beginning.
God had His chosen people build a dwelling place for Him to meet with them.
God will come down to earth with New Jerusalem and will dwell in the temple in the midst of the Temple there.
The only part of your theme that does not match is the idea that God called Himself the Son of God.
And why would that not match? He embedded it into the prophecy of the Christ child already (showing prior intent for those that searched the scripture) and his audience could relate to the concept of one going before and in behalf of someone in authority. It doesn't matter if they might have confusion then, that would actually be the intended result.
No, there is another way that neither relies on God to become flesh or God to be outside of time.
Spoiler
Matthew 21:33-41
33 Hear another parable: There was a certain householder, which planted a vineyard, and hedged it round about, and digged a winepress in it, and built a tower, and let it out to husbandmen, and went into a far country:
34 And when the time of the fruit drew near, he sent his servants to the husbandmen, that they might receive the fruits of it.
35 And the husbandmen took his servants, and beat one, and killed another, and stoned another.
36 Again, he sent other servants more than the first: and they did unto them likewise.
37 But last of all he sent unto them his son, saying, They will reverence my son.
38 But when the husbandmen saw the son, they said among themselves, This is the heir; come, let us kill him, and let us seize on his inheritance.
39 And they caught him, and cast him out of the vineyard, and slew him.
40 When the lord therefore of the vineyard cometh, what will he do unto those husbandmen?
41 They say unto him, He will miserably destroy those wicked men, and will let out his vineyard unto other husbandmen, which shall render him the fruits in their seasons.
I didn't see any alternative explanation in that passage. If God made the prophecy, and God must vouch for the prophecy, he cannot guarantee that a second entity will resist the devil and be perfect as God is perfect if that is truly another free-willed entity. Either the future is closed and can be divined thus the prophecy is sure, or God makes it happen because he makes it happen. That leaves us with the Messiah was either without free will, or that he did not have a separate will from God for the reason that he was actually God.
Is it the love that money has for us, or our love for money that is the root of all evil?
1 Timothy 6:10
For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.
I don't see how that would make sense applying it to 1 John 3:16. The entire chapter is about "Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us..." (verse 1) and by verse 16 is tells us that "Hereby we perceive the love of God, because he laid down his life for us..."
The subject is clearly about the love that the Father hath for us, and it says that we perceive this because he laid down his life for us. The only argument I can see anyone attempting to bring to bear here would be that John was very bad at grammar.
Does the love God has for us need to be perfected, or is it our love for God that needs to be perfected?
1 John 2:5
5 But whoso keepeth his word, in him verily is the love of God perfected: hereby know we that we are in him.
The love God has for us is perfected in that it accomplishes what it was meant to accomplish. That's the way I would have always read that before, but I can see your reading of that passage now also. I think both possible meanings can work concurrently in that example.
Wouldn't Jesus dying for us show how much Jesus loves God instead of how much God loves us?
1 John 3:16
16 Hereby perceive we the love of God, because he laid down his life for us: and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren.
That would be instead "Hereby we perceive his love of God..." but again, the subject being discussed (see verse 1) is the love of God for us. Regardless, here's what I am suggesting. Let's try reading the bible as if it actually meant to say what it seems it is trying to say. Don't get distracted by slogans like "to Trinity and Beyond!" I'm talking about is Jesus was the creator of all things, if he was the LORD of the Sabbath.
Exo 20:10-11 KJV
(10) But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:
(11) For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
Luk 6:5 KJV
(5) And he said unto them, That the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath.
I cannot think of any other "lords" that the Jew would associate with the Sabbath day, and I'm sure they had that commandment memorized. Did they "get it" then? No. Of course not. But they "got it" after his resurrection.
Joh 20:28 KJV
(28) And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.
Jesus frequently claimed to be God... just not the Father. Jesus is God the Son.
Joh 5:17-18 KJV But Jesus answered them, My Father worketh hitherto, and I work. (18) Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God.
Critical reading
Critical reading is the process of reading that goes beyond just understanding a text.
Spoiler
Critical reading involves:
carefully considering and evaluating the reading
identifying the reading's strengths and implications
identifying the reading's weaknesses and flaws
looking at the 'big picture' and deciding how the reading fits into the greater academic context (the understandings presented in other books and articles on this topic)
In brief, you are actively responding to the reading. Critical reading is useful at all stages of academic study, but is particularly important when writing an article critique or a literature review.
Critical reading often involves asking questions about the reading. In particular, you are examining the strengths and weaknesses of the reading's argument.
To do this, you need to consider
the reading's background
its purpose and overall conclusion (claim)
the evidence used in the reading
the logical connections between the claim and the evidence
the reading's balance
its limitations
how it relates to other sources and research
if the reading is based on research, how this research was conducted
Each of these affects how 'strong' the argument is, that is, how convincing it is.
I work on a majority vs. minority principle for that.
I am willing to grant that the text teaches a doctrine when the majority of the text about that doctrine is in agreement, even if something is stated in different ways.
I am skeptical when the doctrine is based on a minority of the text being in agreement but the majority of the text is in opposition.
first, it might legitimately take a long time for people to come up with a proper working model that explains the incarnation; and second, Trinity and Binity doctrines have no actual relation to what I was trying to convey.
you can see Peter and Paul both identifying Jesus as God. For examples in Acts 2 where his resurrection is compared against David in the tomb to identify Jesus as Lord and Christ, and the way Paul freely exchanges "God" and "Jesus" in his quotes of Isaiah when he writes to the Philippians.
Peter does not appear to be identifying Jesus as God.
Acts 2:32
32 This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses.
33 Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear.
Paul does not appear to be identifying Jesus as God.
Philippians 2:9-11
9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:
10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;
11 And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
I didn't see any alternative explanation in that passage. If God made the prophecy, and God must vouch for the prophecy, he cannot guarantee that a second entity will resist the devil and be perfect as God is perfect if that is truly another free-willed entity. Either the future is closed and can be divined thus the prophecy is sure, or God makes it happen because he makes it happen. That leaves us with the Messiah was either without free will, or that he did not have a separate will from God for the reason that he was actually God.
We know from scripture that Jesus is a free-willed entity with a separate will from God who subjected His own will so He could do the will of the Father.
Matthew 26:39
39 And he went a little farther, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt.
Therefore, your conclusion does not match up with scripture.
I don't see how that would make sense applying it to 1 John 3:16. The entire chapter is about "Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us..." (verse 1) and by verse 16 is tells us that "Hereby we perceive the love of God, because he laid down his life for us..."
The subject is clearly about the love that the Father hath for us, and it says that we perceive this because he laid down his life for us. The only argument I can see anyone attempting to bring to bear here would be that John was very bad at grammar.
Compare these two passages where John is saying if we truly love God then we will also love our fellow man:
1 John 3:16-17
16 Hereby perceive we the love of God, because he laid down his life for us: and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren.
17 But whoso hath this world's good, and seeth his brother have need, and shutteth up his bowels of compassion from him, how dwelleth the love of God in him?
1 John 4:20-21
20 If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar: for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen?
21 And this commandment have we from him, That he who loveth God love his brother also.
When John was talking about the love God has for us, he made sure we knew it.
1 John 4:9
9 In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him.
When John just uses the phrase "love of God" without saying it is "towards us", it is our love towards God that is being mentioned:
1 John 5:3
3 For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous.
If our understanding is so clouded by what we have been taught that we miss the obvious, are we really reading the Bible as if it says what we think it says?
Jesus was the creator of all things, if he was the LORD of the Sabbath.
Exo 20:10-11 KJV
(10) But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:
(11) For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
Luk 6:5 KJV
(5) And he said unto them, That the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath.
I cannot think of any other "lords" that the Jew would associate with the Sabbath day, and I'm sure they had that commandment memorized. Did they "get it" then? No. Of course not. But they "got it" after his resurrection.
When you see LORD in all capital letters in the KJV, it means that the word in Hebrew is the tetragrammaton: יהוה in Hebrew and YHWH in Latin script.
This is different from אָדוֹן 'adown, which also is translated as lord and master.
Also notice that Jesus did not call Himself by the phrase "Son of God", but by the phrase "son of man" and explained that the Sabbath was made for man.
Mark 2:27-28
27 And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath:
28 Therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath.
There is only one place in the Old Testament that uses both "son of man" and "Sabbath" together, and it is speaking about the Messiah.
Isaiah 56:1-2
1 Thus saith the Lord, Keep ye judgment, and do justice: for my salvation is near to come, and my righteousness to be revealed.
2 Blessed is the man that doeth this, and the son of man that layeth hold on it; that keepeth the sabbath from polluting it, and keepeth his hand from doing any evil.
I have never said that the New Testament can't be read as if Jesus is God Himself.
However, reading the New Testament as if Jesus is God Himself does not lead to understanding what is written, since that reading is opposed to the mindset of the writers.
You just invoked circular logic. To support your conclusion that Jesus is not God, you have invoked a reasoning that Jesus is God is opposed to the mindset (intent) of the writers of scripture. One could support any fallacy with that method.
It is only with Jesus that people are willing to throw away everything they know about the relationship of a father and a son and reach the illogical conclusion that the Father and the Son of the Father are both the same being.
A metaphor has one meaning and is incorrectly applied when it one attempts to force it to have perfect application. The scripture tells us in several places that Jesus created all things. He therefore cannot be a creation. Jesus identifies himself as the being that created all things as in Genesis, "God created the heavens and the earth" and as he who spoke with Abraham and Moses. God is big enough and powerful enough to exist in more than one form at a time, and he can call himself Father and Son, Head and Hand, or whatever metaphor he wishes.
Is Jesus speaking His own words or God's words in Revelation?
That you'd even ask that question in that form indicates that you haven't actually wrapped your mind around what's being challenged. If you want a short answer, the answer is "Yes."
Revelation 1:17-18 KJV
(17) And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as dead. And he laid his right hand upon me, saying unto me, Fear not; I am the first and the last:
(18) I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.
Any question of who is speaking there? That's a pretty unique identification. No angel meets those qualifications. No angel is able to make that claim of being the first and the last without blasphemy.
Isaiah 41:4 KJV
(4) Who hath wrought and done it, calling the generations from the beginning? I the LORD, the first, and with the last; I am he.
Isaiah 44:6 KJV
(6) Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.
Isaiah 48:12-13 KJV
(12) Hearken unto me, O Jacob and Israel, my called; I am he; I am the first, I also am the last.
(13) Mine hand also hath laid the foundation of the earth, and my right hand hath spanned the heavens: when I call unto them, they stand up together.
Again, a pretty unique identification. Jesus links this unique identification directly to himself not once, not twice, not three times, but four times in Revelation, a nice total of seven times for the entire scripture.
Was Isaiah speaking his own words of God's words in Isaiah?
Isaiah 48:12
12 Hearken unto me, O Jacob and Israel, my called; I am he; I am the first, I also am the last.
Already preempted this counter-argument. Jesus introduces himself at the beginning of Revelation linking He who was Dead and is now Alive with the same as the First and the Last. No remaining squiggle room to claim that he is saying someone else's words for them. That was done on purpose.
I have never said that the New Testament can't be read as if Jesus is God Himself.
However, reading the New Testament as if Jesus is God Himself does not lead to understanding what is written, since that reading is opposed to the mindset of the writers.
You just invoked circular logic. To support your conclusion that Jesus is not God, you have invoked a reasoning that Jesus is God is opposed to the mindset (intent) of the writers of scripture. One could support any fallacy with that method.
Not at all.
One can support any Biblical fallacy they want to support when they refuse to consider the cultural context of people writing the Bible.
The Jewish people writing the New Testament grew up in an extremely Monotheistic culture.
This is the mindset I am referring to: one that can be supported by historical evidence.
Paul's writing is a bit more open to interpretation because most of the people he wrote to came from a Grecian/Roman Polytheistic culture.
Peter complained that the twisting of Paul's writing using a Grecian/Roman understanding instead of a Jewish understanding was a path to destruction.
Not at all.
One can support any Biblical fallacy they want to support when they refuse to consider the cultural context of people writing the Bible.
The Jewish people writing the New Testament grew up in an extremely Monotheistic culture.
This is the mindset I am referring to: one that can be supported by historical evidence.
Paul's writing is a bit more open to interpretation because most of the people he wrote to came from a Grecian/Roman Polytheistic culture.
Peter complained that the twisting of Paul's writing using a Grecian/Roman understanding instead of a Jewish understanding was a path to destruction.
If we are talking scripture, supposition of pagan influence goes out the window. Scripture is inspired by the Holy Spirit, thus it's God speaking, and it is meant to weave together.
2 Timothy 3:16 KJV
(16) All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
2 Peter 1:20-21 KJV
(20) Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
(21) For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
Besides, it is hardly twisting Paul to see that he was quick to substitute "Jesus" for "God" when quoting scripture:
Isaiah 45:22-23 KJV
(22) Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else.
(23) I have sworn by myself, the word is gone out of my mouth in righteousness, and shall not return, That unto me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear.
Philippians 2:10 KJV
(10) That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;
Besides, it is hardly twisting Paul to see that he was quick to substitute "Jesus" for "God" when quoting scripture:
Isaiah 45:22-23 KJV
(22) Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else.
(23) I have sworn by myself, the word is gone out of my mouth in righteousness, and shall not return, That unto me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear.
Philippians 2:10 KJV
(10) That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;
What is the context of this passage? It is introduced as "saith the LORD" in verse 1 and it continues throughout.
Zec 12:1 KJV
(1) The burden of the word of the LORD for Israel, saith the LORD, which stretcheth forth the heavens, and layeth the foundation of the earth, and formeth the spirit of man within him.
Zec 12:9-10 KJV
(9) And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will seek to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem.
(10) And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn.
Why is this significant?
Joh 19:33-37 KJV
(33) But when they came to Jesus, and saw that he was dead already, they brake not his legs:
(34) But one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and forthwith came there out blood and water.
(35) And he that saw it bare record, and his record is true: and he knoweth that he saith true, that ye might believe.
(36) For these things were done, that the scripture should be fulfilled, A bone of him shall not be broken.
(37) And again another scripture saith, They shall look on him whom they pierced.
In Zechariah the LORD says "They shall look upon me whom they have pierced" and we are told by John that Jesus was pierced for its fulfillment. We have the statement spoken by and applied to the LORD, and we have the inspired gospel writer telling us that Jesus is the LORD.
Rev 1:7-8 KJV
(7) Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen.
(8) I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.
Rev 1:11-18 KJV
(11) Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and, What thou seest, write in a book, and send it unto the seven churches which are in Asia; unto Ephesus, and unto Smyrna, and unto Pergamos, and unto Thyatira, and unto Sardis, and unto Philadelphia, and unto Laodicea.
(12) And I turned to see the voice that spake with me. And being turned, I saw seven golden candlesticks;
(13) And in the midst of the seven candlesticks one like unto the Son of man, clothed with a garment down to the foot, and girt about the paps with a golden girdle.
(14) His head and his hairs were white like wool, as white as snow; and his eyes were as a flame of fire;
(15) And his feet like unto fine brass, as if they burned in a furnace; and his voice as the sound of many waters.
(16) And he had in his right hand seven stars: and out of his mouth went a sharp twoedged sword: and his countenance was as the sun shineth in his strength.
(17) And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as dead. And he laid his right hand upon me, saying unto me, Fear not; I am the first and the last:
(18) I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.
Even if you go back to the 22nd Psalm which says "they pierced my hands and my feet" it continues through the "valley of the shadow of death" leads into the 24th Psalm identifying he who ascends to heaven as being none other than the LORD of Hosts. If you borrow a bible from a Jehovah's Witness and read the 24th Psalm to them and stop halfway where it asks, "Who is this King of Glory?" do you know what they say?
"Sounds like Jesus."
... followed by their utter shock as continuing to read aloud from their (heavily edited) Bible as it goes on to say "He is Jehovah of Armies" etc... Some things are so woven in that they cannot be edited out, it seems.
If we are talking scripture, supposition of pagan influence goes out the window. Scripture is inspired by the Holy Spirit, thus it's God speaking, and it is meant to weave together.
2 Timothy 3:16 KJV
(16) All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
2 Peter 1:20-21 KJV
(20) Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
(21) For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
Besides, it is hardly twisting Paul to see that he was quick to substitute "Jesus" for "God" when quoting scripture:
Isaiah 45:22-23 KJV
(22) Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else.
(23) I have sworn by myself, the word is gone out of my mouth in righteousness, and shall not return, That unto me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear.
Philippians 2:10 KJV
(10) That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;
By removing the verse from the context, you are attempting to twist Paul's word into claiming Jesus is God, when Paul seems to be stating that every knee will bow at the name of Jesus because God highly exalted Jesus.
Philippians 2:9-11
9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:
10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;
11 And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
Also, look carefully at what God says in Isaiah, since you are missing the critical verse:
Isaiah 45:23-24
23 I have sworn by myself, the word is gone out of my mouth in righteousness, and shall not return, That unto me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear.
24 Surely, shall one say, in the Lord have I righteousness and strength: even to him shall men come; and all that are incensed against him shall be ashamed.
Jesus is the one that says "In the LORD have I righteousness and Strength."
Jesus is the one that men shall come to.
All that are incensed against Jesus shall be ashamed.
