God will not give His glory to another, or will He?

Rosenritter

New member
The translators added words and punctuation that changes the meaning of the statement... [Isaiah 44:6 KJV] Looks like one to me.

Your first statement seems rather unsupported, considering that you state agreement with your next sentence.

The point being that the passage illustrates the use of English by those that know the English: commas and parallel structuring of titles do not necessarily designate things that are different, rather they can emphasize different aspects of the same thing. Everyone involved in this equation knows this is one God and one being, claims of "added words and punctuation" not withstanding. Need I also remind you that every item of punctuation in our scriptures is added by interpretation, as Hebrew and English lacks that punctuation?

The four beasts and the twenty-four elders are also in the midst of the throne.

And who is in the midst of those beasts and twenty-four elders? Who are they centered on? Who is at the center of all of this?

Rev 5:12-14 KJV
(12) Saying with a loud voice, Worthy is the Lamb that was slain to receive power, and riches, and wisdom, and strength, and honour, and glory, and blessing.
(13) And every creature which is in heaven, and on the earth, and under the earth, and such as are in the sea, and all that are in them, heard I saying, Blessing, and honour, and glory, and power, be unto him that sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb for ever and ever.
(14) And the four beasts said, Amen. And the four and twenty elders fell down and worshipped him that liveth for ever and ever.

Heb 1:4-6 KJV
(4) Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.
(5) For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?
(6) And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him.

Rev 22:8-9 KJV
(8) And I John saw these things, and heard them. And when I had heard and seen, I fell down to worship before the feet of the angel which shewed me these things.
(9) Then saith he unto me, See thou do it not: for I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren the prophets, and of them which keep the sayings of this book: worship God.

Angels are not worshipped, and angels do not worship men, yet of the Son that sits upon that throne it is said "Let all the angels of God worship him" and the angels of God do worship him. "Worship God" we are told, and "for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve." (Matthew 4:10). The commandment is easily understood, all things are to worship God and God exclusively.

Him that liveth for ever and ever is none other than He which we called Jesus. Is it necessary to barrage passages demonstrating this as well?

Do the scriptures state that Jesus sits on the throne with God or in place of God?

"With" is appropriate for designating the same, "against" or "in place of" would indicate that one or the other was false or being deposed.

According to the plain reading of what Jesus said, Jesus said that mankind is the master (אָדוֹן 'adown) of the sabbath because the sabbath was made for mankind and mankind was not made for the sabbath.

No, Jesus did not say that mankind was the master of the sabbath. The Sabbath was made for man, not that man is the master of the Sabbath. If man was the master of the sabbath, he has the power to change its meaning, redefine its use, or abolish it altogether. Jesus demonstrated that he had the power and authority to define its use and meaning, consistent with his status as Lord and Creator of the Sabbath.
 

genuineoriginal

New member
Your first statement seems rather unsupported, considering that you state agreement with your next sentence.
Maybe you missed the difference between the phrases: "the King of Israel, and his redeemer" and "King and Redeemer"?
"the King of Israel, and his redeemer" is speaking about two.
"King and Redeemer" is speaking about one.

Need I also remind you that every item of punctuation in our scriptures is added by interpretation, as Hebrew and English lacks that punctuation?
(Did you mean English or Greek?)
I already pointed that the translators added the punctuation and extra words to make the translation easier to understand in English.

"With" is appropriate for designating the same, "against" or "in place of" would indicate that one or the other was false or being deposed.
You have been speaking as if Jesus is seated on the throne in place of God instead of sitting with God on His right hand side.
No, Jesus did not say that mankind was the master of the sabbath. The Sabbath was made for man, not that man is the master of the Sabbath.
Jesus said that the reason the Son of man is master of the Sabbath is because the Sabbath was made for man.
By implication, every man is master of the Sabbath for that same reason.

If man was the master of the sabbath, he has the power to change its meaning, redefine its use, or abolish it altogether. Jesus demonstrated that he had the power and authority to define its use and meaning, consistent with his status as Lord and Creator of the Sabbath.
Jesus did not redefine the Sabbath.

Mark 2:23-26
23 And it came to pass, that he went through the corn fields on the sabbath day; and his disciples began, as they went, to pluck the ears of corn.
24 And the Pharisees said unto him, Behold, why do they on the sabbath day that which is not lawful?
25 And he said unto them, Have ye never read what David did, when he had need, and was an hungred, he, and they that were with him?
26 How he went into the house of God in the days of Abiathar the high priest, and did eat the shewbread, which is not lawful to eat but for the priests, and gave also to them which were with him?​

 

Rosenritter

New member
Maybe you missed the difference between the phrases: "the King of Israel, and his redeemer" and "King and Redeemer"? "the King of Israel, and his redeemer" is speaking about two. "King and Redeemer" is speaking about one.

Then how come that every person I have encountered that reads that passage as written in the King James English has no trouble understanding that it is speaking of one and the same?

You have been speaking as if Jesus is seated on the throne in place of God instead of sitting with God on His right hand side.

There is more than one analogy, but Jesus is seated on that throne. Do you remember who judges the quick and the dead? Therefore who sits on that throne in the judgment? "The Father judges no man" ... remember? Jesus judges, and Revelation 20:12 identifies him as GOD within that context. Yes, Jesus is on that throne... Jesus is one of his names.

Jesus said that the reason the Son of man is master of the Sabbath is because the Sabbath was made for man.
By implication, every man is master of the Sabbath for that same reason.

If that was the case, then every commandment of how the sabbath was to be kept holy is for naught. How can one possibly transgress the Sabbath if one has the power to redefine it?

Jesus did not redefine the Sabbath.

He said that He was the Lord of that Sabbath (the Creator) and as even the priests profaned the Sabbath in service of the temple, his disciples were also held blameless if they profaned the Sabbath while in his service. Think about that please.
 

genuineoriginal

New member
Then how come that every person I have encountered that reads that passage as written in the King James English has no trouble understanding that it is speaking of one and the same?
The Trinity doctrine has become so widespread that few people realize when they are misreading the scriptures because of it.

There is more than one analogy, but Jesus is seated on that throne.
Jesus is seated next to God.

Do you remember who judges the quick and the dead? Therefore who sits on that throne in the judgment? "The Father judges no man" ... remember? Jesus judges, and Revelation 20:12 identifies him as GOD within that context. Yes, Jesus is on that throne... Jesus is one of his names.
Did you skip over the part where Jesus said that God the Father is not doing the judging?

If that was the case, then every commandment of how the sabbath was to be kept holy is for naught. How can one possibly transgress the Sabbath if one has the power to redefine it?
Once again, you are trying to redefine being master of the Sabbath as being able to reject all the commandments of the Sabbath.
That is not what Jesus taught.

He said that He was the Lord of that Sabbath (the Creator)
That is not what Jesus said, you are adding your own thoughts to His words.
Jesus stated that the "Son of man" is lord (master) of the Sabbath.

Try to figure out why Jesus uses the phrase "Son of man" instead of "Son of God".
 

Rosenritter

New member
The Trinity doctrine has become so widespread that few people realize when they are misreading the scriptures because of it.

So while you might apply this the many vague "others" I mentioned I am not sure why this would apply to me. Regardless, when you say the passage is supposed to mean one subject (that is God) and everyone else (including the alleged Trinitarians) read the same passage and also conclude one subject (that is God) I don't understand how you can continue an objection at this instance.

Did you skip over the part where Jesus said that God the Father is not doing the judging?

Did you forget the part about "God judges among the gods?" "The Father" is Jesus's reference to God that is out of reach of humanity. The Son of God is God as he revealed himself to us in the flesh. God is not judging from a distance, we stand in front of him and are judged by Him, by the same one who tasted death for us and felt our infirmities and who is also willing to make intercession for us.

Try to figure out why Jesus uses the phrase "Son of man" instead of "Son of God".

Unless you want to contend that these are different beings because of different titles, one title emphasizes one aspect and the other title emphasizes another... of the same being. He was both manifest in the flesh and yet the incarnation and the image of the invisible God.
 

Rosenritter

New member
I am not selling a Unitarian package.
I am simply maintaining that "Scripture does not emphatically say this" so therefore "Let us not form any other views on what is not actually said."

The scripture has some passages that appear to imply that Jesus is God.
The scripture does not state anywhere that Jesus is God.
The scripture states over and over that Jesus is the Son of God.

That is where I am starting from.

You may not call yourself Unitarian, but even some of the seasoned Unitarians (I have read and talked with some) that the Bible does literally call Jesus God in at least two places.
 

genuineoriginal

New member
So while you might apply this the many vague "others" I mentioned I am not sure why this would apply to me. Regardless, when you say the passage is supposed to mean one subject (that is God) and everyone else (including the alleged Trinitarians) read the same passage and also conclude one subject (that is God) I don't understand how you can continue an objection at this instance.
Maybe you missed the difference between the phrases: "the King of Israel, and his redeemer" and "King and Redeemer"?
"the King of Israel, and his redeemer" is speaking about two different beings with different titles, but people that read those words with the belief that both the Father and the Son are a single being can't seem to understand what "and his" means in the phrase.
"King and Redeemer" is speaking about only one being that has two (or more) titles.

Unless you want to contend that these are different beings because of different titles,
No, that is what the phrase "the King of Israel, and his redeemer" does, not what the title "Son of man" does.

one title emphasizes one aspect and the other title emphasizes another... of the same being.
Which aspect of Jesus is emphasized by the phrase "Son of man"?
Is it His divinity that Jesus is claiming makes Him LORD of the Sabbath?
Or is it His humanity that Jesus is claiming makes Him master of the Sabbath?
 

genuineoriginal

New member
You may not call yourself Unitarian, but even some of the seasoned Unitarians (I have read and talked with some) that the Bible does literally call Jesus God in at least two places.
That doesn't seem to be a sufficient argument if the Bible ever literally calls any other man "god".
Jesus even points that out.

John 10:34
34 Jesus answered them, [JESUS]Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?[/JESUS]​

 

Rosenritter

New member
Maybe you missed the difference between the phrases: "the King of Israel, and his redeemer" and "King and Redeemer"?
"the King of Israel, and his redeemer" is speaking about two different beings with different titles, but people that read those words with the belief that both the Father and the Son are a single being can't seem to understand what "and his" means in the phrase.
"King and Redeemer" is speaking about only one being that has two (or more) titles.

Do you have any evidence (something that you can show) that would demonstrate that anyone is interpreting that passage as you suggest? Or short of evidence that can be directly shared, do you have personal experience with someone explaining that passage to you in that way? I don't mean Unitarian websites grasping at straw men creating arguments for others (because I just found a few of those), I mean do you know anyone that actually presents such an argument?

... because that clearly isn't what it means. It is using the parallel structure that occurs throughout scripture of repetition and equivalence.
No, that is what the phrase "the King of Israel, and his redeemer" does, not what the title "Son of man" does. The LORD the King of Israel (one) and his redeemer (the redeemer of Israel) the LORD of Hosts (the same).

Regardless, attempting to form a "Trinity" from that passage would produce the problem that two is clearly not three, the Trinity does not admit three different beings but rather argues three different persons ... and good luck getting a definition of person by the way. It seems to be one of those purposely vague terms so that one can sometimes be three (or the other way around) on demand.The reason why I bring this passage to bear is because these twin titles of the same God are also used with his unique identification of "the first and the last" trice repeated in Isaiah, and four times used to show the identify of Jesus and Christ as God in Revelation. Jesus identifies himself with multiple titles including "the first and the last" and the meaning of that "first and the last" includes "beside me there is no God." The only reason titles exist is to identify He who bears that title. To ignore the scriptures in this aspect would be purposely omitting evidence.

Which aspect of Jesus is emphasized by the phrase "Son of man"?
Is it His divinity that Jesus is claiming makes Him LORD of the Sabbath?
Or is it His humanity that Jesus is claiming makes Him master of the Sabbath?

The "Son of man" emphasizes that aspect that Jesus was literally manifest in the flesh, he was among us and endured all things as we. See Matthew 16:13, where Jesus asks "Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?" ... .followed by their responses, finally ending with Peter's (correct) answer that "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God." The title of the Son of man emphasizes the more obvious human aspects of Jesus, that are easily seen enough as to be used in the question, whereas "the Son of the living God" is the ultimate answer that is revealed not by flesh and blood, but by God above.

Jesus states that even in his current form, he is also (which means in addition to) the Lord of the Sabbath, with more right to be served on the Sabbath than the temple of God by its priests, with every right to state the intended meaning and application of the Sabbath or even to change its commanded practice. As the Creator of all things and He who made the Sabbath day, this is his innate right. Jesus uses a similar tactic to connect the link between the "Son of man" to "God" when he heals the man sick of palsy.

Mark 2:5-11 KJV
(5) When Jesus saw their faith, he said unto the sick of the palsy, Son, thy sins be forgiven thee.
(6) But there were certain of the scribes sitting there, and reasoning in their hearts,
(7) Why doth this man thus speak blasphemies? who can forgive sins but God only?
(8) And immediately when Jesus perceived in his spirit that they so reasoned within themselves, he said unto them, Why reason ye these things in your hearts?
(9) Whether is it easier to say to the sick of the palsy, Thy sins be forgiven thee; or to say, Arise, and take up thy bed, and walk?
(10) But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins, (he saith to the sick of the palsy,)
(11) I say unto thee, Arise, and take up thy bed, and go thy way into thine house.

The detractors saw only the Son of man, but said that when he called himself the Son of God that it was blasphemy, making himself God (John 10:33-36).

If Jesus was attempting to declare humanity... or as I suspect you mean, mere exclusive humanity, these would not be the statements and actions to support such a claim. Created man is not master of the Sabbath... this is a basic Old Testament understanding:

Exodus 31:14-15 KJV
(14) Ye shall keep the sabbath therefore; for it is holy unto you: every one that defileth it shall surely be put to death: for whosoever doeth any work therein, that soul shall be cut off from among his people.
(15) Six days may work be done; but in the seventh is the sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD: whosoever doeth any work in the sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death.

So how did this apply to Jesus? Simply put, the LORD of the Sabbath is is immune to charges of breaking the Sabbath.

John 5:16-18 KJV
(16) And therefore did the Jews persecute Jesus, and sought to slay him, because he had done these things on the sabbath day.
(17) 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.

Let's review this for a moment. Jesus said that the priests of the temple were held blameless when they profaned the sabbath in service of the temple. If he meant to say he was merely a man, then his answer need only have continued onward that as a priest serving God he was likewise blameless. Instead he chose to say that he (the son of Man) was also the Lord of the Sabbath. He did not say that "man" was Lord of the Sabbath, because there is only one such Lord. Any man who chose to work on the Sabbath was under the divine sentence of death.

This also applies to the example where he healed the man sick of palsy. He could have said that he did not work, but it was his Father above in heaven... but rather in response to their murmurs that "only God can forgive sin" instead he reinforced the accusation with "so that you may know the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins..." (Mark 2:10) and demonstrates that even his command to "rise up and walk" must be obeyed and would even heal sickness.

At this point... just stop for a moment. If Jesus was merely a man (as you have suggested) then why did he continue to antagonize these Jewish leaders and lead them on in this fashion? Where he could have claimed to be a priest, he declared himself Lord of the Sabbath. Where he could have said that he was healing no one, but God above, he instead said that he would now demonstrate that he had the power to forgive sin. When he was to be stoned for "making himself God" after declaring that he was the judge of the living and the dead, he answered that they were the little gods that would die like men, whereas the context of the psalm was that God would judge among those gods.

At any point Jesus could have said, "I am your fellow man" ...

Acts 10:25-26 KJV
(25) And as Peter was coming in, Cornelius met him, and fell down at his feet, and worshipped him.
(26) But Peter took him up, saying, Stand up; I myself also am a man.

But what was the reaction of Jesus to worship?

Matthew 8:2-3 KJV
(2) And, behold, there came a leper and worshipped him, saying, Lord, if thou wilt, thou canst make me clean.
(3) And Jesus put forth his hand, and touched him, saying, I will; be thou clean. And immediately his leprosy was cleansed.

Matthew 9:18-19 KJV
(18) While he spake these things unto them, behold, there came a certain ruler, and worshipped him, saying, My daughter is even now dead: but come and lay thy hand upon her, and she shall live.
(19) And Jesus arose, and followed him, and so did his disciples.

Matthew 14:32-33 KJV
(32) And when they were come into the ship, the wind ceased.
(33) Then they that were in the ship came and worshipped him, saying, Of a truth thou art the Son of God.

Matthew 15:25-28 KJV
(25) Then came she and worshipped him, saying, Lord, help me.
(26) But he answered and said, It is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it to dogs.
(27) And she said, Truth, Lord: yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters' table.
(28) Then Jesus answered and said unto her, O woman, great is thy faith: be it unto thee even as thou wilt. And her daughter was made whole from that very hour.

Matthew 28:9 KJV
(9) And as they went to tell his disciples, behold, Jesus met them, saying, All hail. And they came and held him by the feet, and worshipped him.

Matthew 28:16-17 KJV
(16) Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them.
(17) And when they saw him, they worshipped him: but some doubted.

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.

Men of God and angels do not accept worship. If Jesus was not worthy of worship, given so many occurrences like the above, why is there no record of Jesus ever refusing worship?

Revelation 22:8-9 KJV
(8) And I John saw these things, and heard them. And when I had heard and seen, I fell down to worship before the feet of the angel which shewed me these things.
(9) Then saith he unto me, See thou do it not: for I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren the prophets, and of them which keep the sayings of this book: worship God.

By the way... sorry for the "wall of scripture" approach, but there is no shortage of such instances, and it is important to realize that this is not one isolated instance but rather the intended and intentional emphasis of these gospels.
 

Rosenritter

New member
That doesn't seem to be a sufficient argument if the Bible ever literally calls any other man "god".
Jesus even points that out.

John 10:34
34 Jesus answered them, [JESUS]Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?[/JESUS]​


Do you know the difference between "God" and "gods?" God judges among the gods, and they shall die like men.

Psalms 82:1 KJV
(1) A Psalm of Asaph. God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods.

John 5:22-23 KJV
(22) For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son:
(23) That all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him.

The Bible calls Jesus "God" (CAPITAL G) in more than those two places.

Can you honestly say that you honor the Son even as you honor the Father? Aren't you spending an awful lot of time denying that the Son is worthy of that same honor?
 
Last edited:

Rosenritter

New member
Methuselah name means, “his death shall bring.” Noah's name means, "repose."

His death shall bring / repose.

Do you see any legitimate merit in combining Methuselah name with Noah in the context of revealed events?

By this I also ask, do you see these names as being essentially random with no overarching purpose or names that may have been chosen by design? We know that God can quietly influence the choosing of a name (like Cyrus of Isaiah 44:28 who was prophesied by name) and he change of someone's name (like Jacob to Israel in Genesis 32:28) and even force the parent to pick a particular name (like John of Luke 1:63)... is it reasonable to think that the name Methuselah could be related to the flood.... with the benefit of our hindsight?
 
Last edited:

glorydaz

Well-known member
Do you know the difference between "God" and "gods?" God judges among the gods, and they shall die like men.

Psalms 82:1 KJV
(1) A Psalm of Asaph. God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods.

Not only will they die like men....they were men.

That Psalm is talking about the Judges of Israel who spoke for God when making their decisions.

2 Chronicles 19:6 And said to the judges, Take heed what ye do: for ye judge not for man, but for the Lord, who is with you in the judgment.
 

Rosenritter

New member
Do you know the difference between "God" and "gods?" God judges among the gods, and they shall die like men.

Psalms 82:1 KJV
(1) A Psalm of Asaph. God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods.

John 5:22-23 KJV
(22) For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son:
(23) That all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him.

The Bible calls Jesus "God" (CAPITAL G) in more than those two places.

Can you honestly say that you honor the Son even as you honor the Father? Aren't you spending an awful lot of time denying that the Son is worthy of that same honor?

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.

Joh 20:28 KJV
(28) And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.

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.

Those statements are fairly direct.... to add to the many deeds and statements that require at least a little bit of scriptural tie-in (and there's more of those we haven't touched on yet.)
 

genuineoriginal

New member
the phrase "the King of Israel, and his redeemer" . . . The LORD the King of Israel (one) and his redeemer (the redeemer of Israel) the LORD of Hosts (the same).
A boy, and his dog. (his = the boy, his dog = the boy's dog)
A father, and his child. (his = the father, his child = the father's child)
A King, and his redeemer. (his = the king, his redeemer = the king's redeemer)

Want to try again?

Regardless, attempting to form a "Trinity" from that passage would produce the problem that two is clearly not three, the Trinity does not admit three different beings but rather argues three different persons ... and good luck getting a definition of person by the way. It seems to be one of those purposely vague terms so that one can sometimes be three (or the other way around) on demand.
Yes, the Trinity doctrine has problems.

The reason why I bring this passage to bear is because these twin titles of the same God are also used with his unique identification of "the first and the last" trice repeated in Isaiah, and four times used to show the identify of Jesus and Christ as God in Revelation. Jesus identifies himself with multiple titles including "the first and the last" and the meaning of that "first and the last" includes "beside me there is no God." The only reason titles exist is to identify He who bears that title. To ignore the scriptures in this aspect would be purposely omitting evidence.
I do not deny that there are passages in the Bible that can support a Binity doctrine (Jesus and the Father are both the same God).
I do say we have to be suspicious of those passages because they appear to contradict the vast majority of scripture.

If Jesus was attempting to declare humanity... or as I suspect you mean, mere exclusive humanity, these would not be the statements and actions to support such a claim. Created man is not master of the Sabbath... this is a basic Old Testament understanding:

Exodus 31:14-15 KJV
(14) Ye shall keep the sabbath therefore; for it is holy unto you: every one that defileth it shall surely be put to death: for whosoever doeth any work therein, that soul shall be cut off from among his people.
(15) Six days may work be done; but in the seventh is the sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD: whosoever doeth any work in the sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death.

So how did this apply to Jesus? Simply put, the LORD of the Sabbath is is immune to charges of breaking the Sabbath.
Jesus was declaring that he was a man (Son of man) and that as a man He is a master of the Sabbath and can eat grain off the stalk without violating the commandments.
Jesus was not declaring Himself to be God and that by being God He was not subject to the Law that God gave to Moses.

Do you really believe that Jesus would allow His disciples to break the Sabbath commandments?
 

genuineoriginal

New member
Let's review this for a moment. Jesus said that the priests of the temple were held blameless when they profaned the sabbath in service of the temple. If he meant to say he was merely a man, then his answer need only have continued onward that as a priest serving God he was likewise blameless.
Jesus was not a Levitical priest, so there was no way He would have lied by claiming that He was a priest.
Were the priests of the temple men or gods?
If the priests were men, then the example Jesus is giving is of how men can still be blameless when they do certain things that can be considered to be profaning the Sabbath.

If Jesus was merely a man (as you have suggested) then why did he continue to antagonize these Jewish leaders and lead them on in this fashion?
Jesus continued to antagonize the self-proclaimed experts of the Law by revealing their errors relating to the Law.
I can provide dozens of examples of Jesus doing that very thing, if you want.
 

genuineoriginal

New member
Acts 10:25-26 KJV
(25) And as Peter was coming in, Cornelius met him, and fell down at his feet, and worshipped him.
(26) But Peter took him up, saying, Stand up; I myself also am a man.

But what was the reaction of Jesus to worship?

Matthew 8:2-3 KJV
(2) And, behold, there came a leper and worshipped him, saying, Lord, if thou wilt, thou canst make me clean.
(3) And Jesus put forth his hand, and touched him, saying, I will; be thou clean. And immediately his leprosy was cleansed.

Matthew 9:18-19 KJV
(18) While he spake these things unto them, behold, there came a certain ruler, and worshipped him, saying, My daughter is even now dead: but come and lay thy hand upon her, and she shall live.
(19) And Jesus arose, and followed him, and so did his disciples.

Matthew 14:32-33 KJV
(32) And when they were come into the ship, the wind ceased.
(33) Then they that were in the ship came and worshipped him, saying, Of a truth thou art the Son of God.

Matthew 15:25-28 KJV
(25) Then came she and worshipped him, saying, Lord, help me.
(26) But he answered and said, It is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it to dogs.
(27) And she said, Truth, Lord: yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters' table.
(28) Then Jesus answered and said unto her, O woman, great is thy faith: be it unto thee even as thou wilt. And her daughter was made whole from that very hour.

Matthew 28:9 KJV
(9) And as they went to tell his disciples, behold, Jesus met them, saying, All hail. And they came and held him by the feet, and worshipped him.

Matthew 28:16-17 KJV
(16) Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them.
(17) And when they saw him, they worshipped him: but some doubted.

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.

Men of God and angels do not accept worship. If Jesus was not worthy of worship, given so many occurrences like the above, why is there no record of Jesus ever refusing worship?

If Jesus will be sitting on the throne of David, He is worthy of worship as a king without needing to be worthy of worship as a god.
 

genuineoriginal

New member
Do you know the difference between "God" and "gods?"
Here are both uses in the same Psalm.

Psalm 82:6,8
6 I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.
אֲֽנִי־אָמַרְתִּי אֱלֹהִים אַתֶּם וּבְנֵי עֶלְיֹון כֻּלְּכֶֽם׃
8 Arise, O God, judge the earth: for thou shalt inherit all nations.
קוּמָה אֱלֹהִים שָׁפְטָה הָאָרֶץ כִּֽי־אַתָּה תִנְחַל בְּכָל־הַגֹּויִֽם׃​

I highlighted God and gods in both verses.
Please note that the Hebrew word is EXACTLY the same in both verses.

The Bible calls Jesus "God" (CAPITAL G)
You do realize that the capital G in God was added by the translators, right?
 

Rosenritter

New member
A boy, and his dog. (his = the boy, his dog = the boy's dog)
A father, and his child. (his = the father, his child = the father's child)
A King, and his redeemer. (his = the king, his redeemer = the king's redeemer)

Want to try again?

No, I think you are arguing by reflex here. I'll use the same explanation a second time and maybe you'll see it.

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.

Identity: the LORD.
Title / role 1: the LORD the the King of Israel,
Title / role 2: the redeemer of Israel, the LORD of hosts

God as the redeemer is well established in scripture already: Job 19:25, Psalms 19:14, and many more besides.

Psalms 78:35 KJV
(35) And they remembered that God was their rock, and the high God their redeemer.

Surely you wouldn't say that is a "Trinitarian" edit to try to make two Gods (please say no?) Because that's an almost identical structure to the passage in Isaiah. That isn't a "Trinitarian edit" but rather a consistent means of translation of the Hebrew.

Identity: God
Title / role 1: their rock
Title / role 2: the high God their redeemer

Yes, the Trinity doctrine has problems.

One of which that I have seen is that some people react to its flaws and then deny that Jesus is our Lord and our God. It leaves such an impression that they just can't get "Trinity" out of their heads to evaluate the text clearly... and I even say this of a friend who debated with me for a whole month before he finally recognized that I was not arguing a "Trinity."

I do not deny that there are passages in the Bible that can support a Binity doctrine (Jesus and the Father are both the same God).
I do say we have to be suspicious of those passages because they appear to contradict the vast majority of scripture.

I don't argue a Binity (Trinity Lite) model... but there are certain facts and certain statements that are made that are clear and definitive. Our understanding must first accommodate those items and only afterwards do we have the luxury of constructing a model for the benefit of analogy and comprehension. We should never filter the facts to match our understanding (that would be backwards.)

Jesus was declaring that he was a man (Son of man) and that as a man He is a master of the Sabbath and can eat grain off the stalk without violating the commandments. Jesus was not declaring Himself to be God and that by being God He was not subject to the Law that God gave to Moses.

Do you really believe that Jesus would allow His disciples to break the Sabbath commandments?

Jesus had the authority to interpret the Sabbath commandment, by right of being the Creator of the Sabbath commandment. Man is not the master of the Sabbath, and that claim would have had you rightfully stoned under Mosaic law. But did Jesus argue that his disciples were not breaking the Sabbath under their interpretation or the interpretation of Moses or the prophets... as would a man? No... he didn't both with such trivialities and and said that He has the right to interpret the meaning by virtue of being its Lord....

.... and used the analogy that the priests of the temple profaned the sabbath and were held blameless, because it was in service to the temple. And did he not also say that a greater than the temple is here? His servants are also held blameless in his service. That's a tall statement.
 
Top