Reniaa, thank you for taking the time to reply to my post. I really do enjoy discussing, studying, and researching the Holy Scriptures with you.
Reniaa said:
"Jesus prophesised in the first person and as I established God had already allowed this with other prophets and also Jesus fulfilled the requirements to be the first ressurrected so in that sense he did raise himself by doing what was needed. When someone takes an exam they will say I passed it even if the examiners are who gave him the pass. the moses situation didn't involve prophecy at all, I compare people prophecying like Jesus so apples and apples and you compare apple and oranges to make you point hmmm"
My Reply:
According to the Watchtower Society, "prophecy" is speaking for God in God's Name, and its primary meaning is NOT predicting the future. The Scriptures declare that Moses was "a prophet" of God, in fact Moses was "a prophet like Jesus." (See Acts 3:22)
Even if "prophecy" does mean "predicting the future" (which is NOT its primary meaning), Moses announed to the Israelites that HE was going to bring the water out of the rock in the future (even if it was only a matter of minutes, it was still the future, technically).
So, if you can explain why it was wrong for Moses (God's spokesman, "a god," and a prophet like Jesus) to take credit for something God did, but it was a good thing for Jesus (God's spokesman, "a god," and a prophet like Moses) to take credit for something God did, then I will consider your explanation.
Reniaa said:
"Paul separates Jesus not to call him God but to call him Lord he puts him again separate from God, I do not argue that as the firstborn of creation Jesus is unique only that the bible uses 'a god' or Godlike' if you prefer for those that are not god and Jesus himself is put into the 'a god' catagory as well as been said to be WITH god therefore definitely separate from God. Your reasoning that separating Jesus makes him God is flawed unless Paul ascribe the One God to Jesus but HE DOESN'T he goes on separate Jesus again and gives him the LORD. The use of pauls grammer keeps God and Jesus firmly in separate catagories you just blur this by saying by you own rules if they are not in the first one they must be together in nature but it is faulty reasoning because he doesn't put them together under Godship AT ALL in fact his words show Jesus isn't god. but as a trinitarian you have to persuade yourself there is no separateness when you read that scripture which is sad."
My Reply:
Look closely again, please, at the context of Paul's words at 1st Corinthians 8:4-6 (I will use the New World Translation):
4 Now concerning the eating of foods offered to idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is no God but one. 5 For even though there are those who are called “gods,” whether in heaven or on earth, just as there are many “gods” and many “lords,” 6 there is actually to us one God the Father, out of whom all things are, and we for him; and there is one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things are, and we through him.
If you look closely, you will see that Paul was not making two different categories of so-called gods and so-called lords. He was not saying there's one class of so-called gods, and another class of so-called lords. He lumped them both together in one class of so-called gods and lords.
The reason for this is because Pagan Kings, idols, and false gods in those days were referred to as BOTH "My Lord" and "My God." Both were titles of Pagan deities or gods.
Not only that, the word "Kyrios" (the word "Lord" in Greek) was used about 6,000 times in place of the Divine Name YHWH in the Septuagint Translation (which was used by the Apostles). Among the Jewish people, that title "Kyrios" came to have the added meaning of "YHWH," depending on the context and how the word was used.
So, Paul put both the so-called gods and lords into ONE category, and then he put BOTH The One True God and the One True Lord into ONE category, separate from the so-called gods and lords.
I am confident that if you read over those verses closely, with an open mind, and a prayerful heart, God will show you the truth.
I do agree that Paul teaches that The Father and The Son have different roles or positions (for example, everything comes FROM The Father but comes THROUGH The Son). I agree wholeheartedly with that. But it doesn't change the fact that The Father and The Son share equally the Nature of God.
Once again, if Paul was saying that only The Father can be our God (and not Jesus), then he was also saying only Jesus can be our Lord (and not The Father).
But that cannot be true because the New Testament teaches that The Father is our Lord as well.
Do Christians serve TWO Lords (The Father and The Son as separate beings), or do they serve ONE Lord (The Father and The Son together as ONE LORD)?
You tell me, Reniaa, does the New Testament teach that Christians serve TWO Lords?
In addition to this, you claimed that Paul does not put The Father and The Son together in the GODSHIP.
Well, I would ask you to please read Romans 1:20 and Colossians 2:9 in the New World Translation Reference Bible (and please look at the Footnotes). The Footnote on Colossians 2:9 says that Paul literally said that all of the fullness of the GODSHIP dwells in Christ.
Reniaa said:
"there are many expressions in the greek sriptures in line of with blessing to God and his son Jesus some have been blurred by trinity to be try and make them refering to one person but in the majoroty they are kept separate, translation errors I think are the issue here."
My Reply:
Which verses are you specifically speaking about here? Which verses have "translation errors"? And does the New World Translation have the same "translation errors"? I am asking this because I always try to use the New World Translation when speaking to Jehovah's Witnesses.
Is it only the verses where it says Jesus is God that have "translation errors"? Is John 20:28 and Colossians 2:9 a "translation error" in the New World Translation?
Reniaa said:
Acts 2:36 "Therefore let all Israel be assured of this: God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ."
Romans 1:7 To all in Rome who are loved by God and called to be saints: Grace and peace to you from God our Father and from the Lord Jesus Christ.
My Reply:
I agree totally. God the Father exalted the Man Christ Jesus to His positions of Lord, Christ, Mediator, and High Priest.
Reniaa said:
"Paul wrote 13 books of the 27 book New Testament. He uses the word theos ("God") over 500 times in the New Testament. In all these instances, Paul nowhere else refers to Jesus as "God." And as highly respected scholar J. Jeremias has pointed out, the phrase "the great God," is not a term a Jew such as Paul would apply to anyone but his Abba Father."
My Reply:
From all of the studying and research I have done, the best scholarship says that Paul referred to Jesus as God in Titus 2:13 and Romans 9:5. If that is true, it doesn't matter HOW MANY TIMES he refers to him as God. What difference does that make? Are you saying we shouldn't believe what Paul wrote about anything unless he mentions it a certain number of times? (How many times does he have to say something before we can accept it as truth?)
How in the world would J. Jeremias know what kind of term Paul would or would not have used for Jesus? What is he basing that conclusion on? Can he read Paul's mind? The only thing we can use to determine what Paul would or would not have said is by looking at what Paul DID actually say in the Greek! And since I cannot read Greek, I rely upon the Greek experts.
If you use the same logic as you claim J. Jeremias did, then Thomas would have never referred to Jesus as "The God of me," but he definitely DID according to the New World Translation of John 20:28.
Please read this Footnote from Titus 2:13 in the NET Bible:
"The terms “God and Savior” both refer to the same person, Jesus Christ. This is one of the clearest statements in the NT concerning the deity of Christ. The construction in Greek is known as the Granville Sharp rule, named after the English philanthropist-linguist who first clearly articulated the rule in 1798. Sharp pointed out that in the construction article-noun-κα?-noun (where κα? [kai] = “and”), when two nouns are singular, personal, and common (i.e., not proper names), they always had the same referent. Illustrations such as “the friend and brother,” “the God and Father,” etc. abound in the NT to prove Sharp’s point. The only issue is whether terms such as “God” and “Savior” could be considered common nouns as opposed to proper names. Sharp and others who followed (such as T. F. Middleton in his masterful The Doctrine of the Greek Article) demonstrated that a proper name in Greek was one that could not be pluralized. Since both “God” (θε?ς, qeos) and “savior” (σωτ?ρ, swthr) were occasionally found in the plural, they did not constitute proper names, and hence, do fit Sharp’s rule. Although there have been 200 years of attempts to dislodge Sharp’s rule, all attempts have been futile. Sharp’s rule stands vindicated after all the dust has settled. For more information on Sharp’s rule see ExSyn 270-78, esp. 276. See also 2 Pet 1:1 and Jude 4."
Reniaa said:
"Moreover, Paul is here addressing and trying to persuade the Jewish audience in the Roman church (also see 2:17; 3:9; 4:1; 7:1; 8:3-4, 36). For Paul, there is one God, the Father (1 Cor 8:6; Eph 4:6) and he identifies "God" as "the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ," a statement he makes numerous times."
My Reply:
In Romans Chapter 9, verse 5, it seems like a very strange place for Paul to switch and start praising God the Father, and it fits much more naturally with the context that Paul was praising Christ as God since he had just mentioned the fact that Christ (in the flesh) was a Jew.
Again, please see the NET Bible's Footnote on Romans 9:5:
"The translational difficulty here is not text-critical in nature, but is a problem of punctuation. Since the genre of these opening verses of Romans 9 is a lament, it is probably best to take this as an affirmation of Christ’s deity (as the text renders it). Although the other renderings are possible, to see a note of praise to God at the end of this section seems strangely out of place. But for Paul to bring his lament to a crescendo (that is to say, his kinsmen had rejected God come in the flesh), thereby deepening his anguish, is wholly appropriate. This is also supported grammatically and stylistically: The phrase ? ?ν (Jo wn, “the one who is”) is most naturally taken as a phrase which modifies something in the preceding context, and Paul’s doxologies are always closely tied to the preceding context. For a detailed examination of this verse, see B. M. Metzger, “The Punctuation of Rom. 9:5,” Christ and the Spirit in the New Testament, 95-112; and M. J. Harris, Jesus as God, 144-72."
Reniaa said:
"Of course, the Trinitarian will point to Titus 2:13, another seriously flawed Trinitarian interpretation which is variously interpreted among Trinitarians who dispute this passage among themselves. This is the typical way of the Trinitarian, that is, to pile one feeble argument upon another in an attempt to create an illusion of validity. Now if Paul had only written a letter or two there would be little weight in saying he never refers to Jesus as "God." But the plain fact that he wrote over half of the New Testament books, covers all kinds of theological questions, and uses the word "God" over 500 times is very telling. Perhaps, just perhaps, unlike the Trinitarian, Paul did not have a Trinitarian concep of God as the central doctrine of his faith because he had never heard of such a thing. I think we all know how peppered the New Testament books would be with descriptions of Jesus as "God" and "God the Son" if Paul's letters had been written by a person with the mind of today's Trinitarian. The Trinitarian would have us believe that Paul understood Jesus was "God" and the Trinity stood at the center of his faith but he just neglected to mention this concept in all his writings except for two isolated occasions where he makes purely incidental passing remarks describing Jesus as "God," and in passages with grammatical structures that cast serious doubt on the interpretation on top of it all."
My Reply:
Once again, let me explain that the Greek word "Kyrios" was used 6,000 times in place of "YHWH" in the Septuagint, which the Apostle Paul used. Paul referred to Jesus as "Kyrios" in his letters (not counting Hebrews) about 260 times. In fact, Paul quoted Old Testament passages which, in the Septuagint, referred to Jehovah as "Kyrios," and Paul applied them specifically to Jesus:
Romans 10:9, 12-13 (ESV): because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord [Kyrios] and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. [...] for the same Lord [Kyrios] is Lord [Kyrios] of all, bestowing his riches on all who call on him. For "everyone who calls on the name of the Lord [Kyrios] will be saved."
So, Reniaa, please explain which Kyrios was spoken of by Paul at Romans 10:9-13? Was it The Father or The Son? (Hint: Verse 9 says it was Jesus.)
Philippians 2:9-11 (ESV): Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord [Kyrios], to the glory of God the Father. Paul quoted (or alluded to) both Joel 2:32 and Isaiah 45:23-24 and applied them to Jesus. How do you explain that?
Reniaa said:
"here is the problem for trinity is the gramatically challenged examples they use are the exception not the norm."
My Reply:
Once again, what about John 20:28? Is that a "gramatically-challenged example"? Are the New World Translation and Kingdom Interlinear Translation correct on John 20:28?
Reniaa said:
"You then go on to say believing in One almighty God Jehovah is a logical construct I had to lol at that, Did the Jews logically construct him? Did Paul who believed in the One God the father also construct him, if you can honestly look at the first jewish commandment acd say believing 'YHWH is One YHWH' is a construct then you really are reading a different bible to me."
My Reply:
No, again, you misunderstand what I said.
I said that Unitarianism was a logical construct, the belief that ONLY The Father is God Almighty and NOT The Son as well. The Bible says The Son has the Nature of God, not me.
Reniaa said:
"God calls Jesus his son not me, that he uses the term son implies birth (and god later uses many words signifying jesus birth) and that his how God shows his relationship is to his son. Who is putting limits on God now? by saying there must be a female involve? it's clear with god and the angels gender isn't revealed or kept masculine by default it is humans that were made 'male and female'"
My Reply:
I think you missed my point. (Maybe I didn't make it clear enough)
Where does the Bible say that Jesus is called "Son" because He was "created"? Where does it even say that He is called "Son" because He was "born"?
That was my point. How do you know that "Son of God" is talking about Jesus being "created" or "born" and is not instead simply referring to the fact that they share the same Nature and they share a relationship somewhat similar to that of a human father and son?
I was trying to say, "How far should we push the Father-Son illustration?"
Reniaa said:
"You then have to jump into oxymoron rhetoric to try and explain how only Jesus refers to God as 'My God' you sa he is equal but not equal stuff which is fine but NOT BIBLICAL. Show me the scriptures that say this, I already know there are none."
My Reply:
Well, I'm glad you ruled out the possibility that I am right in advance. That saves me the time in posting the relevant Scriptures (again). If you have already ruled out the possibility that you are wrong, then nothing will convince you, no matter what the Bible says.
Reniaa said:
"This for me is a massive problem for trinity that isn't modalism, by making God an IT and jesus, father and ghost Gods in it. you are describing a race of God's. Your God is a polytheistic God if you can say there are three of them and they are with each other exactly like the example you use humans are a race too."
My Reply:
The Trinity is NOT polytheistic, but for the sake of argument, let's say you're right, let's say that we do teach that The Father and The Son were two different Gods that should be served (which is NOT what we teach).
What would be the difference between us teaching that, and you teaching that we should serve One Almighty God (The Father) and One Mighty God (The Son)? No matter how you describe it, I don't see how you can get away from 1+1=2, with your belief in One Almighty God and One Mighty God.
I find it ironic that someone who serves Two different Gods (Father and His created Son) would accuse Trinitarians (who serve One God who is Father, Son, and Spirit) of being polytheists.
In addition, the Watchtower Society teaches that God and Jesus share the same Nature:
Reasoning Book, Page 421:
"According to Liddell and Scott’s Greek-English Lexicon, the·o´tes (the nominative form, from which the·o´te·tos is derived) means “divinity, divine nature.” (Oxford, 1968, p. 792) Being truly “divinity,” or of “divine nature,” does not make Jesus as the Son of God coequal and coeternal with the Father, any more than the fact that all humans share “humanity” or “human nature” makes them coequal or all the same age."
While the Reasoning Book does not agree with Trinitarians on Jesus being eternal or equal to The Father, the Reasoning Book definitely DOES agree with
Trinitarians when it comes to teaching that The Father and The Son share the SAME Nature -- that they both belong to the "Race" of God (if you want to call it that), just as human beings all belong to the "race of mankind."
Reniaa, you are even arguing against the Reasoning Book when you argue that Jesus does not share God's Nature. Did you know that?
Reniaa said:
"I would like to wade through all your points but time limits me, trinitarianism has tried to put a triad God in the bible but Jews didn't believe it, early christians didn't believe it. So I don't believe it. Almighty God Jehovah the blessed one is not a Multiple choice answer he is not an IT either. Amen"
My Reply:
It doesn't matter whether the Jews accepted it or not. That has no bearing on whether it is true or not. The Jews (in general) rejected Jesus completely.
Have you actually read the writings of the early Christians (before the time of Nicea)? They believed in Three Divine Persons who shared the same Nature and who should be worshiped as God.
I understand not having enough time. But I will pray to The Father that He will open your eyes to see the truth about His Son and His Spirit.