Jesus is God !
- Thread starter beloved57
- Start date
NWL
Active member
Most unitarians do not deny the diety of Christ, they deny his is the 'one deity', or better put, the 'one God'. I do not fully know what keypurr believes, but know him well enough to know he doesn't deny Jesus is referred to as a G-god, even as I, a unitarian, do not deny Jesus is G-god in some sense.
Last edited:
Nanja
Well-known member
Amen Brother, yes Jesus Christ is Claiming to be God here.
For the Title of Alpha and Omega belongs to Jehovah God.
Isa. 41:4 Who hath wrought and done it, calling the generations from the beginning? I the LORD, the first, and with the last; I am he.
Also, Jesus is the beginning and the end Rev. 21:6-7 which Title belongs to Jehovah:
Trump Gurl
Credo in Unum Deum
Lonster
Member
It does, as any man-made fabrication against scriptural, grammatical clarity, does. Your truth is man-made immature rationalization, not the explicit word. You don't understand something very important about us: our theology isn't as deductive, thus isn't as complex as Arian/Unitarian models of God. You guys have an entire convolution of ideology that 'explains' scripture by commentary, thus a faith based twice-removed from scriptures. There are all kinds of missing gaps in your constructs as well as veneers that ruin conveyances in scripture. You call that "better at theology." We call that "better at making things up that 'seem' on a less educated, less astute level, to 'make sense.'" Just as an arrogant child would try and correct his algebra teacher with a basic math construct: It may make sense to them, but it is completely wrong. This is how bad your childish "I'm better than all of you at theology" actually is. It is dismal and childish arrogance in ignorance. I don't know if you get that: You, keypurr, with your lacking education and academic shortcoming, are completely arrogant and blind in all your ignorance. You'll never grasp how dismal your education actually is, because prideful delusion (a strong one) has made you so arrogant, that your ignorance is untouchable. Even if I had ten MORE years, I cannot break through someone's facade that is so cemented, then metal covered and welded. There is a very strong delusion in the Watchtower and Unitarian shortsighted theology that only God very God can break through. I can't. It is as clear as "Jesus, You are the Lord of Me, and God of Me!" John 20:28
Never-the-less, non-truth is offensive to those who can actually grasp grammatical structures correctly. JW's have it exactly backwards: It isn't offensive because it is true, it is offensive because it is childish and wrong, so much so that even an unbeliever can see it, in grammatical constructs. They think we are all caught in a fantasy, so bin us all together, but they do notice particularly those who have no academic tools for grammatical understanding. Dedicated Reformed, Evangelical, and Catholic scholars are seen 'as scholars' the the community at large. None of this will make a dent in your veneer, I'm sure, but for any 'capable' of learning, it will certainly give pause and a moment to reflect on proper knowledge, ignorance, and the difference.
Sorry, that is a delusion. The ONLY thing it does, is either exasperates, or in grace, gives yet another opportunity to extend scripture knowledge to those who aren't as astute at reading comprehension.
It isn't derivative, Keypurr. You make all kinds of wrong assumptions and then stick with that made-up story (the EXACT same reason nobody trusts or believes your 'ideas' about the Bible). If I remember, it was because you were not civil to a mod, NOT because of scripture. I believe Squeeky received an infraction for scripture spamming, but not because of the scriptures themselves, but because he was asked not to, and to engage a thread with substance rather than repeated spamming, and he would have been the closest I ever remember of anyone receiving an infraction for posting scripture. You make stuff up in your head, then believe what you made-up is true, just the same as you do with the scriptures as well. EVERY idea someone gives regarding scripture is offered up to the rest of those reading their bibles to scrutinize. The difference between you and I is that I love the scrutiny! It allows me to seek the mind of God in another and get their input. I admit I find it a chore and lose joy often, when talking with ignorant arrogant Unitarians, though. You folks simply have a LOT of disdain, very little love, and it always shows. Conversely, I disagree with RD, JR, and Trump girl, but genuinely enjoy the disagreement specifically because I 1) see care and concern for me (genuinely, not just feigned in a passing "kind regards" or "love" from most Unitarians. It reads as 'false' so false teacher sticks specifically because we wonder if you are even capable, let alone sincere with such. You guys(and gals) attack attack, then attack and afterward tape an insincere 'kind regards' sticker on the closing comments. Oddly, as given in thread, there is then a two-faced accusation that the other person is 'mean' or 'hateful' when they respond. Maybe Unitarians truly are oblivious and obtuse to their 'bull in a china shop' damage and destruction, but when a china shop owner (one who preserves God's word) calls on you, the bull, to get your hooves and horns out of the shop, it shouldn't be seen as 'hateful' or 'mean.' That's an inept (means immaturely wrong) assessment. No, Keypurr. You were not 'blocked' for posting scripture verses. You really have juvenile thoughts that need a lot of correcting, both in theology, and in the rest of life in the real world. You don't grasp half of what you believe you do. Mean? No, you are just going to be somebody, for the rest of your life, that actually needs others to tell you what is true, and what is incorrect and made-up incorrectly, in your head. You are wrong. You don't have to believe me. You do have to suffer the consequences, regardless if you put the wrong blame in the wrong places, even with and against the Lord Jesus Christ. Even if none of us can correct you, that day is assured and it is the only comfort I have in talking with the obtus-ion of you.
Last edited:
Lonster
Member
More specifically and destructively, it is polytheism against God:
Exodus 20:3 "Hear O Israel, the Lord, Our God is One." Deuteronomy 6:4
Isaiah 45:5 "I alone am the Lord, beside me, there is no other god!"
Hosea 13:4 Isaiah 43: 11 "I am the Lord, there is no other Savior. You shall know of no other God!"
Do you understand the incredible damage you do to scriptures, in the eyes of Trinitarians? Do you realize how offensive trampling, or seeming at the very least, to trample scripture is to one who holds scriptures as the accurate and grammatically true, conveyance of God to man? One Unitarian told me John 20:28 was Thomas saying "Oh my G--!" That's blasphemy, taking the Lord's name in vain. A good many of you literally believe that Thomas uttered God's name in vain which is 1) absurd because "Oh my G!" is a modern usage of taking His name in vain (invoking His name for a common thus profaned ordinary usage) and 2) that it is accusing Thomas of a grievous sin, all so a Unitarian can deny the absolutely clarity of John 20:28.
It means, literally, that instead of 'believing' a scripture, it is profaned for the SOLE and ONLY purpose of shoring up an man-held construct that .01% of anyone that reads a bible, believes.
That's incredible to me. Can a Unitarian NOT see that is exactly what they are doing (denial or not, that is exactly, grammatically, structurally, the essence of the argument)? Who would want to hold to a man-held idea, SO STRONGLY, they are willing to malign God very God to do so? How does that even make any kind of holy righteous sense, in a Unitarian's mind?
Do Unitarians not care about maligning God and/or Thomas' character? Do they not really care about Holiness and righteousness and standing before a Holy God? How does this even make any kind of 'acceptable' sense in a Unitarians mind? Do Unitarians not see that they become an unholy affront to Trinitarians at that point?
Keypurr doesn't. He has gone on record defending that one who was 1) dirty and 2) actually did say these words he accuses Thomas of ( a blasphemous double-whammy as far as I assess), that Mr. Dirty and blaspheming God Mouth, somehow knows God 'better' than the rest of us :doh:! This Unitarian on here has said a good many foul things in one of my threads. He was rightly banned for both of them YET other Unitarians hold 'dirty blasphemy mouth' in esteem on TOL. That, frankly, shocks me. Mr. dirty mouth represents their ideal of God????
Holiness only goes as far as the most holy example of the teachers of one's flock. If it ain't there, it cannot be found. "Without holiness, no one shall see God." My holiness rests on the One who is Holy, but I dare not lean so heavily on grace, that it excuses, rather than washes away, my unrighteousness. I am ashamed at my unholiness, nor would want to be seen as 'godly' after I knew myself to have ruined a holy testimony of my Lord Jesus Christ, If I'd cast such unholy shadow, I'd leave TOL in shame. I've never said such filthy things, nor has "Oh my G--! passed my lips. How could I ever try to lead another to the Lord Jesus Christ if I'd done that? I'm not talking about my holiness, but humbly representing His,t ever falling into the grace and identity of my Only Holy Savior Isaiah 43:11. Does any of this make sense to you? Do you grasp any of what I'm saying here? -Lon
Last edited:
Greetings again Lonster,
Psalm 8:4–6 (KJV): 4 What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him? 5 For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honour. 6 Thou madest him to have dominion over the works of thy hands; thou hast put all things under his feet:
John 12:27–28 (KJV): 27 Now is my soul troubled; and what shall I say? Father, save me from this hour: but for this cause came I unto this hour. 28 Father, glorify thy name. Then came there a voice from heaven, saying, I have both glorified it, and will glorify it again.
Kind regards
Trevor
We could discuss many Scriptures, but I most probably have a different understanding of what you are suggesting and Colossians 1:15-20. I do not consider that these alter my perspective on the promise to David. I consider that I have a reasonable overall perspective and on the subject of “glory” the following are interesting:
Psalm 8:4–6 (KJV): 4 What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him? 5 For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honour. 6 Thou madest him to have dominion over the works of thy hands; thou hast put all things under his feet:
John 12:27–28 (KJV): 27 Now is my soul troubled; and what shall I say? Father, save me from this hour: but for this cause came I unto this hour. 28 Father, glorify thy name. Then came there a voice from heaven, saying, I have both glorified it, and will glorify it again.
The following from that wiki article is sufficient for me to reject that concept.
I have reread your explanation, and the impression is that you are saying that there are two meanings, “I will be” and “I am”. I only accept “I will be” as the correct translation of “Ehyeh” in Exodus 3:14.
Kind regards
Trevor
Lonster
Member
These parts of discussion leave me believing you've a ways to go in your learning and are probably fairly young in age. My question was whether your 'theology' does any damage to the rest of the Bible. It was asking if you acknowledge the Lord Jesus was with God the Father before any of creation. Some Unitarians believe so, others believe no, that there was not a very long time (let alone forever) because they believe Jesus is created, and most Unitarians believe created physically, as 'part' of Creation being the 'first born' as they say it. It is truly naive and incomplete (and impossible) theology. Anyone able to see that Jesus wasn't part of 'creation' as a 'creation' but was creator, realizes this by necessity. Unitarians that don't grasp this have Jesus being 'firstborn' as part of creation, then 'born' yet again at incarnation. They never fully realize how awkward their own theology belief is, they have the Lord Jesus Christ being 'created' two different times, awkwardly and with no scriptural support. I was asking where you stood on the matter and you didn't answer the question. "Does your theology stance, purposefully, or inadvertently, do damage to any other scripture?" was the question.
No, it would be sufficient to reject Kierkegaard (where I share reservation) but you are rejecting the whole article? Kierkegaard was a very little portion of that link which I've given for your education. Wiki's intent was not to favor any particular take, but share a bit of historical context including a few points where that the author of the wiki article may or may not agree. Pertinent to you, should have been the historical teaching of the Hypostatic union. The tenor of the Wiki piece was to give a history, including proponents and disagreements, not fodder for a full dismissal of all of it altogether. Its like rejecting an encyclopedia because it contains a story of any particular president you don't like. Such is an immaturity.
Both are evidenced and given. Your teachers cannot disagree (I'm very sure they do not). It leaves you very much alone, and rejecting TO build YOUR construct. That isn't wise or good theology. In your persistence, you are going to quickly become unteachable, where the only thing left is the judgement. I want my theology to be "His" theology. Any arrogant anybody can make up a theology that fits them. I don't want that for me. I certainly don't want that for you. The 'loner' approach to 'I only accept' or 'pick and choose like in a deli' theology is not acceptable theology to God (nor Christendom either).
Last edited:
Greetings again Lonster,
Kind regards
Trevor
I do not endorse this view. My understanding is that Jesus did not exist before he was conceived and born. Normally when two parents have a child, we do not speak of the child being created. With Jesus he was conceived by the Holy Spirit and thus the One God, God the Father is the father, while Mary is the mother Matthew 1:20-21, Luke 1:34-35, John 1:14. Jesus was not “created” as such, but conceived and born, but the whole process of God being involved in his conception and birth, and his moral development and his resurrection makes Jesus the Firstborn of the New Creation Psalm 8.
Yes, I am rejecting the whole concept that Jesus had two natures, and I am not willing to go against reason to accept such an impossibility.
I do not accept that “Ehyeh” in Exodus 3:14 has both meanings despite your many words. I accept “I will be”.
Kind regards
Trevor
Lon
Well-known member
There are a good many of those from fragments. There is no 'forensic' but rather deduction when trying to piece together differences from manuscript.
Again, such points to deduction on the part of any scholar which is not forensic. It is 'an educated guess.' Frankly, we don't know why there are differences, just that their are. If this were a legal matter in a court case, there would be no way a Judge could rule in favor.
Whereas none of your above is debatable, this certainly is. MOST scholars, men and women of God who have been through languages and contextual grammar disagree, and say it is a clear indication (because IT IS). It means, with all my academics behind me with all the degrees etc. that you are incorrect. It IS seen as EITHER direct by some and implied and odd when in the first breath you are attempting to show it isn't biblical but an addition. Its become a convolution of thought. What is the point of all this, then?
Link, please.
Link please. I know of no commentary that says either nor does the context suggest either. It is a violence to rip meaning from a text and contrive a meaning and far removed, drawn assumptions bordering on bizarre. There is NO way to directly derive either from the text and you literally had to jump the bible to other books to make such a case.
Lon
Well-known member
Essence. He's using it correctly (good to see you Pneuma). How do you use it?
Colossians 1:27
Man separated from God is certainly broken thus the need and reason for Christ, but if originally immortal, and there is every reason to think so since 'death impermanence was the curse, then while it is true that grace is of necessity, it wasn't the sole means of immortality of humans. In discussing the nature of God and man in these threads, there is a need for being exacting in these. It is the nature of this thread to show, in clarity, biblical necessities without doing damage to those texts.
I believe this needs a postulation for inspection before pronouncement. Iow, it needs to be a question, not a statement, that way the rest of the forum could weigh in without challenging your conclusions, but instead help. Immortality is defined 'the ability to live forever' thus God can and has made beings that are/were immortal.
Lon
Well-known member
Sigh, I know you believe it. It isn't true, but I know what you believe.
Understood. You've a long lonely road ahead of you as you Maverick through your theology...
Sadly, I realize that too. There is very little to talk about with you. You make up your own mind with very few tools to do so. Suggestion: Get the tools, then learn from master wood carvers before thinking you are as capable. Theology is the same.
Right Divider
Body part
You need to correct your incorrect understanding.
Greetings again Lon (Lonster) and Right Divider,
Psalm 8:4-6 (KJV): 4 What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him? 5 For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honour. 6 Thou madest him to have dominion over the works of thy hands; thou hast put all things under his feet:
John 12:27-28 (KJV): 27 Now is my soul troubled; and what shall I say? Father, save me from this hour: but for this cause came I unto this hour. 28 Father, glorify thy name. Then came there a voice from heaven, saying, I have both glorified it, and will glorify it again.
Kind regards
Trevor
I agree we have covered our differences, but I have not seen much evidence of your superior scholarship, but you have been verbose and other features. I also mentioned your name (Lonster - have you had a shave? Or a change of heart?) in the JW thread.
My only explanation at the moment (and I am reasonably happy with this) is that the glory was in prospect, in that when God started on the Creation of this earth, hence “before the world was”, he had in mind that Jesus would be born, that he would suffer and die and be crowned with glory and honour. Even the following speaks in the past tense, as if it had already occurred, but it is the prophetic past, in that it was sure to be accomplished.
Psalm 8:4-6 (KJV): 4 What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him? 5 For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honour. 6 Thou madest him to have dominion over the works of thy hands; thou hast put all things under his feet:
John 12:27-28 (KJV): 27 Now is my soul troubled; and what shall I say? Father, save me from this hour: but for this cause came I unto this hour. 28 Father, glorify thy name. Then came there a voice from heaven, saying, I have both glorified it, and will glorify it again.
Kind regards
Trevor
Lon
Well-known member
Er, what would I use? Fancy Greek? Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ Λόγος, καὶ ὁ Λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν Θεόν, καὶ Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος. (actually just common Koine Greek). A lot of intellectual term like Hypostatic Union or Antidisestablishmentarianism? Perhaps a copy of my diplomas? Maybe I'm just not working hard enough. How about we both take an IQ test and an online Theology test and see how we both conversely do? What are you looking for? Is there even a need? How about I just post what the Bible says and perhaps explain from any of these backgrounds I have that may help, and show you why any particular is important? I'll leave 'superior' to your evaluation. You've a right to choose your own professor (though a good many colleges don't allow that and place you, even if you prefer another :Z ). At least here, you are free to choose your own and I'm not slighted in the least.
:chuckle: Sorry, that was funny on a couple of levels. I am remiss and it does give you grounds to question my academic prowess, but I've a little ADHD, thus 'squirrel' and this tickled my funny bone.
I need a bit more to go on. Without a lot to go on: 1) I've had a few issues on TOL with my login but it seems okay for now. 2) I do have changes of heart. I want to be pleasing both to God and man, so look for ways, creatively or by eating crow, to engage another concerning love for the Savior and His words. In the JW thread? Yes, I trimmed a bit there too. Initially I wanted you to address your own 'snarky.' I can call it out as poor behavior or try subtly to bring out the better parts. Sometimes we need a thump, sometimes we need a gracious word. Wisdom is discerning which is needed at the right moment.
Lon
Well-known member
I'm not sure I'll ever quite 'get you,' Trevor. You are a bit of an enigma.
Nanja
Well-known member
Amen to the Truth, Brother !
NWL
Active member
I can say the same thing in regard to Trinitarians.
I can say the same thing in regard to Trinitarians.
I don't have that understanding. A number of unitarians do not share in all the same beliefs as me the same way a number of Trinitarians do not share in all the same beliefs as you. Perhaps you should complain to the one who made such a comment, if you haven't already, rather than complaining to me.
You literally believe in a doctrine that was not taught by Jesus or the apostles, everything I believe the scriptures literally state.
