More Trinity stuff

[Fortigurn]

Can anyone provide a passage which says that saving knowledge includes the conviction that Jesus is God? I find the complete opposite in the Bible.

In his speech to the Jews on the day of Pentecost, the apostle Peter tells them that Jesus is a man attested by God:

Acts 2:
22 “Men of Israel, listen to these words: Jesus the Nazarene, a man clearly attested to you by God with powerful deeds, wonders, and miraculous signs that God performed among you through him, just as you yourselves know—
23 this man, who was handed over by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God, you executed by nailing him to a cross at the hands of Gentiles.

The apostle Peter taught that Jesus is a man, not God, or even a God, or even on the same level as God. Three thousand people were baptized into Christ that day, with the understanding that he was a man. True Christians therefore are baptized with the belief that Jesus is a man.

Note also that Peter distinguishes Christ from God, and says that Christ was a man through whom God worked, not that he was God who became man.

In his speech to the people after he had healed the lame man, the apostle Peter tells them that Jesus was the fulfillment of the prophecy given by Moses, that God would send them a Messiah who was a man like them:

Acts 3:
22 Moses said, 'The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among your brothers. You must obey him in everything he tells you.
23 Every person who does not obey that prophet will be destroyed and thus removed from the people.'

Note that Peter tells the crowd that Jesus was a prophet like Moses, from among their brothers. He does not tell them that Jesus is God, or that he came down from heaven.

In his speech to a law court, the apostle Stephen likewise tells them that Jesus was the fulfillment of the prophecy given by Moses, that God would send them a Messiah who was a man like them:

Acts 7:
37 This is the Moses who said to the Israelites, 'God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among your brothers.

He uses the same quote as the apostle Peter had used, telling them that the prophet God would send (the Messiah), would be 'of your brethren, like unto me' - in other words, a man, a human being.

When he was in Athens, the apostle Paul was speaking to some people about who Jesus was. In his speech, he told them clearly that Jesus was a man who received authority from God:

Acts 17:
30 Therefore, although God has overlooked such times of ignorance, he now commands all people everywhere to repent,
31 because he has set a day on which he is going to judge the world in righteousness, by a man whom he designated, having provided proof to everyone by raising him from the dead.”

Here Paul says that Jesus is a man appointed by God to judge the world. Paul does not preach that Christ is God. He preaches that Christ is a man authorised by God, a man whom God has appointed.

In his first letter to Timothy, the apostle Paul says that there is one God, and that there is one mediator between God and men, and that is Jesus Christ, who he says is a man:

1 Timothy 2:
5 For there is one God and one intermediary between God and humanity, Christ Jesus, himself human,
6 who gave himself as a ransom for all, revealing God's purpose at his appointed time.

Here we have God on one side, and humans on the other. In between we have Christ - a man, not God.

It couldn't be any clearer. The apostles all taught time and time and time again that Jesus was a man at his birth, and was still a man after his resurrection and going to the Father. This is an essential element of the gospel message.

[Pierac]

Zoegirl,

This is a whole other topic, what does a baby know of the Trinity? Yet, many church formulas require that babies confess Jesus as their savior or die in their sins. Yes, according to many church doctrines babies will burn in hell, thus, my comment “hard questions indeed!” Why? Because there is no other way to heaven except through Jesus! The problem lies in the limits we place on Jesus. A man, Yes a man, but O'what a man!

Act 17:31 because He has fixed a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness through a Man whom He has appointed, having furnished proof to all men by raising Him from the dead."

1Co 15:21 For since by a man came death, by a man alsocame the resurrection of the dead.

Zoegirl quoted Your replies continually assume that you must tutor us in matters, assuming an ignorance that isn't there.

Really? Ignorance that isn't there? So, can you show me scriptures that saves babies that can not confess Jesus? No you can not! Or am I just being a tutor in matters, assuming your ignorance?

Yes, we must confess with our mouth that Jesus “the” Christ is Lord! Whoa, not many 18 month yr olds doing that these days!

Would a God of love send a 18 mo old dying of cancer to everlasting hell? Even you would say no. But what about a 22 yr old Jewish woman in a German camp in 1943? Stop and think, what's the difference between a 18mo old and a 22 yr old to a God that is timeless. Even a human life time is but a moment.


Hey, I have a thought, one that assumes that I must tutor you in matters assuming an ignorance,

What is the Gospel of the Kingdom of God? Should be simple enough, yet I have not found anyone who could answer that question. Maybe, you will be the first.

Edit... Hey, this is an idea for a new topic. Don't answer here. Please start a new topic. What is the Gospel of the Kingdom of God. You will see the problem once you try and answer with scriptures!


Peace

Paul

[Fortigurn]

What happens to babies?

They die, turn to dust, end of story.

What is the difference between a baby and a 70yr old man living in South America in 1100 A.D. Neither, has/had a chance to confess Jesus.

Yep, no difference.

Same goes for billions of others that have not had the privilege to hear of Jesus. What happens to them?

They die, turn to dust, end of story.

Would a God of love send billions to hell all because they were born in a time that did not have the knowledge of His son Jesus?

No.

[Jac3510]

K - the question was rigged. I originally asked because I have heard many people, some on this very board, say that if a person rejects the Trinity then they aren't a "real Christian." As a Trinitarian, I don't agree with that position. I would agree that if a person rejects the deity of Christ then they aren't a "real Christian." But that's the point of the poll.

As far as babies go, I think Zoe nailed it on the head. The question has no direct relevance to the topic, because no matter what position you take, you have to answer it, anyway. So far as my position is concerned, I bluntly profess ignorance. We can't speculate on areas the Bible is silent. Contrary to popular belief, there is nothing in Scripture about any "age of accountability." The Bible teaches that all are born in sin, and that we are condemned for being in Adam. We are saved for being in Christ, but to be in Christ, we must believe in Him. Babies can't believe, therefore, they are not in Christ. This would imply that they will go to Hell, except for, say, Eccl 6:3, which says a stillborn is better off then the living. All rhetoric aside, if stillborns end up in Hell, no amount of poetry or hyperbole could render this a true idea.

Pierac - relating to the above, you ask the difference in an infant and a person who has never heard the name of Christ but lives a significant period of time. The short answer is that the adult who dies in ignorance of the name of Jesus Christ finds himself condemned to Hell (Rom 1:20). That is why it is so important for Christians to tell people about the only name by which a man can be saved, which is the name of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who gives everlasting life to all who believe.

As far as your question concerning the Gospel of the Kingdom of God is concerned, I'll just assume that you haven't spent much time researching the question. I spent two seconds googling the question. Here is a link that I skimmed that seems to answer your question pretty well.

http://www.matthewmcgee.org/gos-king.html

Of course, you'll get a different answer if you ask the Covenant Theologian, but that just reinforces my point. Everyone has a solid answer to that very basic question. It is one of the most foundational issues to ANY systematic theology. If you aren't even aware of the positions on that matter, then you have a long way to go, my friend

Fortigurn - You and Pierac seem to be denying not only the Trinity, but even the deity of Christ. What is your view on John 1:1?

Secondly, for those who claim that Jesus never said He was God explicitly, I simply challenge you to look at the text again. He repeatedly made the claim very explicitly. To take but one, John 5:17-18 says:

• My Father is always at his work to this very day, and I, too, am working." For this reason the Jews tried all the harder to kill him; not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God. (NIV)

Bear in mind that John is writing to a predominantly Gentile audience. They would not have understood the nuance of Jesus' words, which is exactly the way Jesus intended them in their original context. Let me briefly explain what I mean.

Those who deny the deity of Christ often claim that Jesus never said "ego theos" ("I am God"). The simple truth is that He could not have said those particular words, nor should we expect Him to have even tried. Why? Because that would have qualified as treason. Under Augustus, the emperor was to be worshiped as God. For an individual to claim absolute divinity would result in his own death, or at best serious hassles from the gov't. It is interesting that Jesus never even used the word s "ego ho christos" ("I am the Christ!") Whyy? Again, for the same reason, it would imply treason.

Now, ultimately, it was for treason that Jesus was technically executed. The charges were trumped up, and He was crucified for claiming to be the "King of the Jews," which, of course, the Romans did not recognize. That made Him a political revolutionary. With that said, Jesus was not at all secretive about His own identity. He did not come to Rome, but to Jerusalem. He came to Jews, not to Gentiles. He used words and phrases that they would absolutely understand, but that the Romans would miss.

A modern analogy might help at this point. Suppose an imam tells his congregation that a certain individual is kafir. An individual not familiar with the term asks for it's definition, to which he receives this reply, "Oh, it just means non-Muslim. Some might with to translate it 'infidel.'" Of course, that is technically true, and our uneducated friend walks away none the wiser. What he does not know is that this imam has just told his own congregation something very important and very significant. Under Islamic law, all kafir are to be either 1) killed, 2) converted, or 3) subjugated and taxed. And so we have men like Abu Hamza saying,

• If a kafir person goes in a Muslim country, he is like a cow . . . Anybody can take him. That is the Islamic law. If a kafir is walking by and you catch him, he's booty . . . You can sell him in the market. Most of them are spies. And even if they don't do anything, if Muslims cannot take them and sell them in the market, you just kill them. It's OK.

Thus, by simply saying, "He is kafir," a VERY explicit statement has just been rendered, and yet, it is one that must be understood in its own context.

John 5:17 includes just such a statement by Jesus. In Jewish thought, if a man claimed that God was His Father, then He was making Himself equal with God. Jesus was telling them very clearly who He was. John explains for us Greek thinkers why the Jews were so upset over Jesus' statement. After all, being good Oprahites, they believed "we are all God's children!" There are other such statements, but the point is that you cannot ask for a ROMAN/GREEK phrasing of the divinity of Christ. You most certain CAN ask for a JEWISH phrasing on the divinity of Christ, and that abounds. Yet it is interesting that it is in John's Gospel, written to Gentiles some forty years after Jesus' death, that we have the plainest Romanized statements concerning the deity of Christ.

Again, from a Scriptural perspective:

1. The Father is God (John 1:1); The Son is God (John 1:1); the Holy Spirit is God (Heb 9:14)
2. There is only One God (Is 43:10)
3. Therefore, the Father, Son, and Spirit exist as one God.

That's the Trinity. Not so hard.

[Fortigurn]

Contrary to popular belief, there is nothing in Scripture about any "age of accountability."

Totally agree.

The Bible teaches that all are born in sin, and that we are condemned for being in Adam.

The Bible does not teach that we are all guilty of sin before we've sinned, and the only condemnation we inherit as a consequence of being in Adam is death (not guilt). We aren't held guilty for Adam's sin.

We are saved for being in Christ, but to be in Christ, we must believe in Him. Babies can't believe, therefore, they are not in Christ.

Agreed.

This would imply that they will go to Hell, except for, say, Eccl 6:3, which says a stillborn is better off then the living. All rhetoric aside, if stillborns end up in Hell, no amount of poetry or hyperbole could render this a true idea.

Keep thinking along those lines. No one goes to a burning underworld called 'hell'.

Fortigurn - You and Pierac seem to be denying not only the Trinity, but even the deity of Christ. What is your view on John 1:1?

Simple, John 1:1 says that the word was divine. I agree. No problem there. But John 1:1 says nothing about Jesus.

Secondly, for those who claim that Jesus never said He was God explicitly, I simply challenge you to look at the text again. He repeatedly made the claim very explicitly. To take but one, John 5:17-18 says:

• My Father is always at his work to this very day, and I, too, am working." For this reason the Jews tried all the harder to kill him; not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God. (NIV)

Bear in mind that John is writing to a predominantly Gentile audience.

That tells us what the Jews thought. It does not tell us what Jesus meant. Jesus explicitly denied that he was equal with God, on a number of occasions.

They would not have understood the nuance of Jesus' words, which is exactly the way Jesus intended them in their original context. Let me briefly explain what I mean.

Those who deny the deity of Christ often claim that Jesus never said "ego theos" ("I am God"). The simple truth is that He could not have said those particular words, nor should we expect Him to have even tried. Why? Because that would have qualified as treason. Under Augustus, the emperor was to be worshiped as God. For an individual to claim absolute divinity would result in his own death, or at best serious hassles from the gov't. It is interesting that Jesus never even used the word s "ego ho christos" ("I am the Christ!") Whyy? Again, for the same reason, it would imply treason.

I need to see evidence for this. It would have been a great charge for the Jews to bring against Christ, but they didn't - not even falsely. I don't believe that the emperor cared tuppence for any two bit wannabe running around and calling himself 'god'. What did concern Rome was any sign of political instability.

Now, ultimately, it was for treason that Jesus was technically executed. The charges were trumped up, and He was crucified for claiming to be the "King of the Jews," which, of course, the Romans did not recognize. That made Him a political revolutionary.

It's clear from the Biblical record that Pilate didn't even consider Christ to be a political revolutionary. Both he and Herod considered Jesus innocent, an irrelevant nuisance.

John 5:17 includes just such a statement by Jesus. In Jewish thought, if a man claimed that God was His Father, then He was making Himself equal with God.

That's simply not true. Adam is clearly called the son of God by Luke, and I don't believe any Jew would have believed that Adam was equal with God.

Again, from a Scriptural perspective:

1. The Father is God (John 1:1); The Son is God (John 1:1); the Holy Spirit is God (Heb 9:14)
2. There is only One God (Is 43:10)
3. Therefore, the Father, Son, and Spirit exist as one God.

That's the Trinity. Not so hard.

That's not the trinity, that's bad exegesis. The fact that the trinity has to be constructed syllogistically is evidence that it is not taught explicitly. The fact that the syllogistic reasoning used to construct the trinity results in a logical contradiction is evidence that this is very bad reasoning. I mean honestly, John 1:1 doesn't even mention Jesus, and Hebrews 9:14 does not call the Holy Spirit 'God'. The Holy Spirit is called the Spirit of God. The fact that it is the Spirit of God means it cannot be God.

And of course, how could the apostles possibly have missed who Christ was? In his speech to the Jews on the day of Pentecost, the apostle Peter tells them that Jesus is a man attested by God:

Acts 2:
22 “Men of Israel, listen to these words: Jesus the Nazarene, a man clearly attested to you by God with powerful deeds, wonders, and miraculous signs that God performed among you through him, just as you yourselves know—
23 this man, who was handed over by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God, you executed by nailing him to a cross at the hands of Gentiles.

The apostle Peter taught that Jesus is a man, not God, or even a God, or even on the same level as God. Three thousand people were baptized into Christ that day, with the understanding that he was a man. True Christians therefore are baptized with the belief that Jesus is a man.

Note also that Peter distinguishes Christ from God, and says that Christ was a man through whom God worked, not that he was God who became man.

In his speech to the people after he had healed the lame mand, the apostle Peter tells them that Jesus was the fulfillment of the prophecy given by Moses, that God would send them a Messiah who was a man like them:

Acts 3:
22 Moses said, 'The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among your brothers. You must obey him in everything he tells you.
23 Every person who does not obey that prophet will be destroyed and thus removed from the people.'

Note that Peter tells the crowd that Jesus was a prophet like Moses, from among their brothers. He does not tell them that Jesus is God, or that he came down from heaven.

In his speech to a law court, the apostle Stephen likewise tells them that Jesus was the fulfillment of the prophecy given by Moses, that God would send them a Messiah who was a man like them:

Acts 7:
37 This is the Moses who said to the Israelites, 'God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among your brothers.

He uses the same quote as the apostle Peter had used, telling them that the prophet God would send (the Messiah), would be 'of your brethren, like unto me' - in other words, a man, a human being.

When he was in Athens, the apostle Paul was speaking to some people about who Jesus was. In his speech, he told them clearly that Jesus was a man who received authority from God:

Acts 17:
30 Therefore, although God has overlooked such times of ignorance, he now commands all people everywhere to repent,
31 because he has set a day on which he is going to judge the world in righteousness, by a man whom he designated, having provided proof to everyone by raising him from the dead.”

Here Paul says that Jesus is a man appointed by God to judge the world. Paul does not preach that Christ is God. He preaches that Christ is a man authorised by God, a man whom God has appointed.

In his first letter to Timothy, the apostle Paul says that there is one God, and that there is one mediator between God and men, and that is Jesus Christ, who he says is a man:

1 Timothy 2:
5 For there is one God and one intermediary between God and humanity, Christ Jesus, himself human,
6 who gave himself as a ransom for all, revealing God's purpose at his appointed time.

Here we have God on one side, and humans on the other. In between we have Christ - a man, not God.

It couldn't be any clearer. The apostles all taught time and time and time again that Jesus was a man at his birth, and was still a man after his resurrection and going to the Father.

[Pierac]

Jac3510,
Thanks for the link. I will read it today.

What is your view on John 1:1?

In the New Testament, “the Word” (Logos) happens to be of the masculine gender. Therefore, it's pronoun -"he" in our English translations - is a matter of interpretation, not translation. Did John write concerning “the word” that “he” was in the beginning with God or did he write concerning “the word” that “it” was in the beginning with God? As already stated, in the NT Greek the logos or word is masculine noun. It is okay in English to use “he” to refer back to his masculine noun if there is good contextual reason to do so. But is there good reason to make “the word” a “he” here?

The English translations before the King James version of 1611 actually read this way: (notice Him and He are now “It”).

Tyndale 1534:
Joh 1:1 In the beginnynge was the worde and the worde was with God: and the worde was God. 2 The same was in the beginnynge with God. 3 All thinges were made by it and with out it was made nothinge that was made. 4 In it was lyfe and the lyfe was ye lyght of men

Bishops 1568:
Joh 1:1 In the begynnyng was the worde, & the worde was with God: and that worde was God. 2 The same was in the begynnyng with God. 3 All thynges were made by it: and without it, was made nothyng that was made. 4 In it was lyfe, and the lyfe was the lyght of men,

Geneva 1587:
Joh 1:1 In the beginning was that Word, and that Word was with God, and that Word was God. 2 This same was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made by it, and without it was made nothing that was made. 4 In it was life, and that life was the light of men.

And now our modern Concordant Literal Version:
Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the word, and the word was toward God, and God was the word. " 2 This was in the beginning toward God. 3 All came into being through it, and apart from it not even one thing came into being which has come into being." 4 In it was life, and the life was the light of men."

The word logos appears many, many more times in this very Gospel of John. And nowhere else do the translators capitalize it or use the masculine personal pronoun "he" to agree with it ! The rest of the New Testament is the same. Logos is variously translated as "statement" (Luke 20:20), “question" (Matt 21:24), "preaching" (1 Tim 5:17), "command" (Gal 5:14), "message" (Luke 4:32), "matter" (Acts 15:6), "reason" (Acts 10:29), so there is actually no reason to make John one say that "the Word" is the person Jesus himself, unless of course the translators are wanting to make a point to. In all cases logos is an “it.”
In the light of this background it is far better to read John's prologue to mean that in the beginning God had a plan, a dream, a grand vision for the world, a reason by which He brought all things into being. This word or plan was expressive of who he is.

"The Word" for John is an “it” not a "he." On one occasion, Jesus is given the name "the word of God" and this is in Revelations 19:13. This name has been given to him after his resurrection and ascension, but we will not find it before his birth. It is not until we come to verse 14 of John's prologue that this logos becomes personal and becomes the son of God, Jesus. "And the Word became flesh." A great plan that God had in his heart from before the creation at last is fulfilled. Be very clear that it does not say that God became flesh. There is even strong evidence suggest the John himself reacted to those who were already misusing his gospel to mean that Jesus was himself the Word who had personally preexist the world. When later he wrote his introduction to 1 John, he clearly made the point that what was in the beginning was not a “who” he put it this way: "What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we beheld and our hands handled, concerning the word of life…"

It was the 1611 Kings James bible that began to change the way we read John 1. Tradition is a hard thing to overcome, at least it is for me!

[Jac3510]

I so don't have time for this . . . it's like a bad addiction.

The Bible does not teach that we are all guilty of sin before we've sinned, and the only condemnation we inherit as a consequence of being in Adam is death (not guilt). We aren't held guilty for Adam's sin.

Actually, in the most technical sense, I agree with you, but for different reasons that you are asserting this. Note that I did not say that we are born guilty of sin. I said we are born in sin. The language comes from Psalms 51, which says we are born in iniquity, or born sinful.

It is my belief that Jesus' death on the cross completely removed ALL sin from ALL people. He is the propitiation for our (Christians') sins, but also for the whole world's (unbelievers') sins. Thus, no man is condemned for sin. He is condemned for his status, that is, for being in Adam and not being in the Book of Life.

Keep thinking along those lines. No one goes to a burning underworld called 'hell'.

Considering the fact that "Hell" is an English word, I'd agree. There was also no man in the first century who died on a cross called "Jesus." He never prayed to a being called "Father." He had no "disciples." Blah, blah, blah.

What we do know is that there is a place called "Sheol," to which the dead went at death. Whereas that is the Hebrew name, the Greek name for it is Hades. John tells us that at the Great White Throne Judgment, Hades will give up the dead in it, and they all will be thrown into the Lake of Fire. So yes, fine, does that mean that the current Sheol/Hades is just a place of sleep for the wicked dead? No, because Jesus tells us that it is even now a place of "flame." (Luke 16:24)

Simple, John 1:1 says that the word was divine. I agree. No problem there. But John 1:1 says nothing about Jesus.

Oh please. Don't patronize me. You know exactly where this is going, so run out your line of thought.

• In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2He was with God in the beginning . . . 14The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us . . . 15John testifies concerning him. He cries out, saying, "This was he of whom I said, 'He who comes after me has surpassed me because he was before me.' "

The Word is Jesus. John attributes divinity to Jesus. Do you deny that or not?

That tells us what the Jews thought. It does not tell us what Jesus meant. Jesus explicitly denied that he was equal with God, on a number of occasions.

No, this does not tell us what the Jews thought. Look at the text again, Fortigurn.

• For this reason the Jews tried all the harder to kill him; not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.

Notice that it does not say "they thought he was making Himself God." Did Jesus break the Sabbath? Yes. He broke their oral traditions concerning it, but of course, He is perfectly allowed to do such things. He is Lord of the Sabbath, which, for the record, is another explicit claim to deity.

Are you aware of the rabbinic background to this account? There had long been a debate over Gen 2:2. The Bible says that God rested from His work on the seventh day, but yet there was continuous evidence throughout Scripture that God Himself worked on the Sabbath. Jesus tapped into that debate in this very passage with the words, "My Father is always at his work to this very day, and I, too, am working." Jesus was saying, "Look - God works on the Sabbath. He can do that. He is God. And I am working on the Sabbath, too. Why? Because I can do that, being God." The Jews understood exactly what was going on here.

Now, beyond this, we have the fact that Jesus legally broke the Sabbath (so far as man's traditions are concerned), we now have the further that that He claimed God was His Father, making Himself equal with God. There is absolutely no exegetical reason to read this as the Jews' thoughts and not as John's explanation of what had happened. You said yourself that the Romans couldn't care less if some man claimed to be God. So you have this book in your hand, called the Gospel of John, and you are reading that this guy Jesus claimed God was His Father. Do you care? No. That isn't such a stretch. But yet, the Jews want to kill him for it? Why? Oh, the author tells you, because the claim to have God as Father is to make yourself equal with God.

Secondly, Jesus never denied He was equal with God. He challenged their reasoning on several occasions, but He never denied divinity. Against this, you have John 1 and Phil 2:6, "[Jesus], existing in the form of God, did not consider equality with God a something worth clinging to" (my translation). I don't know much about your theology, but do you believe there are contradictions in Scripture? Were John and Paul wrong in attributing equality with God to Jesus?

I need to see evidence for this. It would have been a great charge for the Jews to bring against Christ, but they didn't - not even falsely. I don't believe that the emperor cared tuppence for any two bit wannabe running around and calling himself 'god'. What did concern Rome was any sign of political instability.

If Jesus had used the words, "I am God," then yes, it would have been a great charge to bring against Him. But He did not use those words for exactly that reason. He told the Jews in their language and culture that He was Yahweh.

Concerning the validity of making the charge:

1. Emperor worship had long before been instituted. It was common by this point in history to worship deceased emperors, though Augustus and Caligula had brought the practice over in some cases to refer to living emperors. To worship Jesus as God would have been to deny the emperor worship (consider His claims to divinity were exclusive!), and thus, qualify as treason.

2. Practically speaking, the worship of living emperors, while being practiced, was not broadly accepted. Quite the contrary, it was mocked by many critics. The idea, then, that Jesus would promote Himself to God while denying Caesar was God would have not only made Him Caesar's rival, but indeed his superior.

3. Under Roman Law, there were two categories of religion: religio licita and religio illicita (tolerated religion and illicit religion, respectively). R.L. included ONLY the Imperial Religion and Judaism. Anyone outside of Judaism, then, was required to submit to the Imperial Religion, and participation in an R.I. was punishable by law. Jesus' claim to divinity would have placed Him thoroughly outside the scope of classic Judaism, making Him the founder on an illicit religion (which, interestingly enough, is exactly what happened under Domitian in the 80's. He declared Christianity R.I.).

Now, when we turn to the historical account, we see that the Jews did not at first bring up Jesus' claim to divinity. Why? Because it simply could not be proven. Jesus never said "I am God." If He had said that, it would have been an open and shut case. So they tried to get Him on sedition. That didn't work with Pilate or Herod, so eventually they came out with it. He had blasphemed, and according to their law, He should die. Pilate, wanting to avoid political turbulence, agreed to condemn Him on the charge that He claimed to be the King of the Jews.

Therefore, everything we see in my original argument is absolutely true. The Jews wanted Jesus dead because they understood His claim to divinity. Those claims were explicit, directed at the Jewish people. They were hidden from the Romans, exactly as Jesus intended.

Now, you tell me - since you so desperately want to see a Romanized claim to divinity (which I am showing cannot be sought), tell me this: if Jesus was NOT divine, then why did He not just say at His trial, "Guys - ouk ego theos" (I am not God)? I don't see Him saying that anywhere, actually . . .

That's simply not true. Adam is clearly called the son of God by Luke, and I don't believe any Jew would have believed that Adam was equal with God.

Adam was created by God. Jesus was claiming to be born by God. Again, in Jewish thought, you receive the nature of your father. Have you noticed the fact that God is referred to as "Father" in the OT a mere 10 times, and in none of those 10 times is God considered the father of an individual (save one possible Messianic exception)? This is striking, because "father" is the way that most religions referred to their god. Now, against this, Jesus repeatedly refers to God as "father." Further, He repeatedly calls God "my Father."

There is a difference, then, in God as a Creator-Father and God as a Begetting-Father. God was Israel's Creator-Father. He was Adam's Creator-Father. Yet nowhere in the OT, not once, is He the Begetting-Father. Why? Because that would make that individual equal to Himself. And yet, Jesus says that is exactly that to Him!

For a modern illustration, look again to Islam. They have a semitic mindset much like the first century Jews had. They clearly recognize that for God to have a Son in the literal sense would make that Son divine. As they can accept no such idea, they reject Christianity. Nor could the Jews possibly accept that idea. It was simply outrageous!

That's not the trinity, that's bad exegesis. The fact that the trinity has to be constructed syllogistically is evidence that it is not taught explicitly. The fact that the syllogistic reasoning used to construct the trinity results in a logical contradiction is evidence that this is very bad reasoning. I mean honestly, John 1:1 doesn't even mention Jesus, and Hebrews 9:14 does not call the Holy Spirit 'God'. The Holy Spirit is called the Spirit of God. The fact that it is the Spirit of God means it cannot be God.

Forgive me for putting absolutely no stock in this. I couldn't care less what is taught explicitly and what is not. You can't possibly believe that we cannot compare Scripture with Scripture to understand its meaning. A syllogism is nothing more than putting truths together and looking at the necessary results. If you want to challenge the conclusion, you have to challenge the premises.

In fact, let's forget the Trinity. We are having enough a time talking about the Divinity of Jesus without talking about the Divinity of the Holy Spirit. The Bible clearly says that there is only one God. Do you disagree? The Bible clearly says that the Father is God. Do you disagree? The Bible clearly says that Jesus is God. I don't know HOW you can disagree . . . John 1:1,14; Phil 2:6; Col 2:9; etc. You've been through them all before. If the Father is God, and Jesus is God, and if there is only one God, then there is absolutely nothing self-contradictory in positing that God must be a being composed of multiple persons. You know as well as I do that "being" and "person" are not absolutely synonymous. There is nothing in the definition of "being" that says it can only be one "person."

As far as all your verses go on Jesus being a man, you can save them a docetic. I believe that Jesus was a man. I believe He was fully and completely a man. He was 100% human. I further believe that He is STILL a man, even now. I've already said I base my understanding of the propitiation on that fact, so you'll have to find some other line of thought with me.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Pierac:

Your grammatical argument is, very simply, just factually wrong. "Logos" is masculine. The next two pronouns "houtos" and "autos" are also masculine. They are not neuter. Here is a Greek Bible (NA27) complete with parsing for your convenience. Click the word you want to see parsed and it will bring it up. If you don't read Greek, here it is below, and the words you want to click are in bold:

• εν αρχη ην ο λογος και ο λογος ην προς τον θεον και θεος ην ο λογος
  2ουτος ην εν αρχη προς τον θεον
  3παντα δι αυτου εγενετο και χωρις αυτου εγενετο ουδε εν ο γεγονεν

Beyond this, notice verse 14: "The Logos became flesh and dwelt among us." Your interpretation cannot be right because it would mean that a "dream" became a man. The fact that this "dream" actually WAS God (not an idea had by Him) should be enough to demonstrate the flaw in your thinking here.

edit: Regardless of masculine or neuter, anyway, the gender of a noun has no direct bearing on its personality. That is simply a misunderstanding of the function of "gender", anyway. The only way you would have a case is if Logos was neuter, but even then, it wouldn't matter, because just because a word itself is neuter doesn't mean it cannot be a referent to a person. "Demon" is a neuter term, and it refers to persons

Even more, "Autos" has three separate forms. It can be in the masculine form (autos), feminine form (aute), and neuter form (auton). They three forms are not to convey three different ideas regarding sexuality or personality. They are grammatical features. In Greek, a pronoun has to agree with its antecedent is number and gender. It would be grammatically incorrect, then, for John to have used the neuter form of autos to refer back to "Logos." Why? Because, again, "Logos" is a masculine form. Therefore, it requires a masculine pronoun. Hope that helps.

God bless

[Pierac]

Your grammatical argument is, very simply, just factually wrong. "Logos" is masculine. The next two pronouns "houtos" and "autos" are also masculine. They are not neuter. Here is a Greek Bible (NA27) complete with parsing for your convenience.

Here are the simple facts:
The word logos appears many, many more times in this very Gospel of John. And nowhere else do the translators capitalize it or use the masculine personal pronoun "he" to agree with it !

Tyndale and the translators of the Bishops and Geneva bible also understood what Logosmeans. Yet, they translated as an “it” not a “he.” They were not trying to support a doctrine.

Your interpretation cannot be right because it would mean that a "dream" became a man.

I would say more like a “message.” Jesus spoke that message but that message was from the Father. The logos did not belong to Jesus. He even tells us.

John 14:24 "He who does not love Me does not keep My words (Logos); and the word (Logos) which you hear is not Mine, but the Father's who sent Me

John 17:7 "Now they have come to know that everything You have given Me is from You;

John himself even clears it up in First John:1
NASB 1Jo 1:1 What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, whatwe have looked at and touched with our hands, concerning the Word of Life—

So what is First John 1 saying then? Jesus is not a what, but the message is. Joh 7:16 So Jesus answered them and said, "My teaching is not Mine, but His who sent Me.

You asked my thoughts on John 1 and I answered. I'm not asking that you change your beliefs, I just figured you were curious other wise you would not have asked.

Peace
Paul

[Jac3510]

Yes, the word appears many more times. And like all words, context is king. You are aware that the word "Logos" has a very significant Greek philosophical background, right?

The fact is that John says the Logos was actually God. Logos = God. It doesn't say God HAD a Logos. In fact, if you really want to translate John 1:1c into English to catch the proper nuance, I'd suggest this: "And what God was, the Word was."

John 1:14 says the Word became flesh. Now, at this point, you only have two options by your interpretation. Either Jesus was a created being--an idea that God had in His head that He eventually manifested into reality--or Jesus is God. If you choose the former, then you have to explain John 1:1c, "The Word was God."

Also, note that 1:2 says that it was by the Word that all things came into existence. This is a clear reference to Genesis 1. Everything exists exists because Jesus created it, which is consistent with the rest of NT revelation. Paul says the same thing in Colossians. Personality is consistently attributed to the Word.

As far as 1 John 1, that just further emphases my point. I see you picked the NASB. Apparently, you seem to think that "what" implies a non-person. That just isn't true. Besides, "What" is not the Greek there. Again, I'll post it here for your convenience. I've bolded the word translated "what."

• ο ην απ αρχης ο ακηκοαμεν ο εωρακαμεν τοις οφθαλμοις ημων ο εθεασαμεθα και αι χειρες ημων εψηλαφησαν περι του λογου της ζωης

That is called the article. It has many, many purposes in Greek, and is translated "the," "who," "which, "the one," "that," etc. Here, it is standing in as a relative pronoun. It can be translated "That which was." Ah, and just for fun, I'd like to point out that the word there IS masculine, and here John had a choice. He COULD have used the neuter article, but he chose not to.

Secondly, this thing which was was in the beginning. The beginning of what? It is not the beginning of creation, as in Gen 1:1 or John 1:1. This is the beginning of the Christian Church. It is a reference to Jesus' three years of public ministry. Now, it is HE who is the Word of Life.

Now, again, you can believe whatever you want. We all know that. And I did ask for you take on John 1:1. I am always up for refining and even changing my theology when Scripture tells me I must. I've done it in the past. I'm sure I'll do it in the future. But when you present "Scriptural" arguments that are out of line with Scripture, and even more, when they are based on an improper usage of Greek, you are going to get called out on it. I don't know if you read Greek. If you don't, let me politely advise you not to build your theology on it, because a little can be dangerous. I've seen more good conservative preachers butcher and destroy a simple text because they wanted to get cute and pull out their Strong's concordance and apply some Greek rule they read in a popular magazine that they think they understand. I'm sure Fortigurn and Canuckster have seen this happen all too many times as well. Does that make Strong's and other such Greek-English tools bad? Of course not, and for what they are, they are very useful. What I am saying is that you should not build your theology on information derived using those tools, because you are incapable of examining and testing what you find in light of grammar.

God bless

[Pierac]

Thank you for your response, I too “am always up for refining and even changing my theology when Scripture tells me I must. I've done it in the past.” It's just strange that all the bibles based on the Greek text before the King James 1611 read “it.” Like me they probably did not have your word studies to help them. Just kidding.


By the way do you use the Nestle-aland Novum Testamentum Graece by Hendrickson Publishers, or do you have another? I had read this is a good volume. Do you have any input? I was thinking of buying it. I have Bruce Metzger's “A Textual Commentary On The Greek New Testament.” He writes a lot in Greek with out translating into English. I have to take the time to look up the words myself. It's kind of a pain too. Is the critical apparatus in the NA27 all Greek or both Greek and English?

Peace
Paul

[Kurieuo]

K - the question was rigged. I originally asked because I have heard many people, some on this very board, say that if a person rejects the Trinity then they aren't a "real Christian." As a Trinitarian, I don't agree with that position. I would agree that if a person rejects the deity of Christ then they aren't a "real Christian." But that's the point of the poll.

A Christian as I see is anyone whom Christ accepts as His own regardless of belief, works, faith. I am happy to leave it there, but obviously more ought to be said to clarify what I mean.

As far as babies go, I think Zoe nailed it on the head. The question has no direct relevance to the topic, because no matter what position you take, you have to answer it, anyway. So far as my position is concerned, I bluntly profess ignorance. We can't speculate on areas the Bible is silent.

Actually I think it is relevant as your question as posed makes belief "necessary" regardless of whether one is incapable of belief, is unaware to such knowledge, or chooses not to believe. Thus, there are no "special cases" such as babies or what have you. So if one does believe there are special cases, then they have to answer that belief in the Trinity (or Christ's divinity as we have now drifted towards) is not necessary since there are exceptions.

Now I will state quite clearly here that I do not believe belief in Christ's divinity is necessary for salvation. Yet, rejection of Christ's divinity is something else, since I see Christ's divinity as a core component of who He is. If Christ is divine (let's assume Fortigurn that this is the case), and one believes in Christ and not His divinity, then I see one does not really believe in Christ since I see divinity is essential to who Christ is. So belief in Christ's divinity is not necessary for salvation, yet rejection of Christ's divinity is something else.

Contrary to popular belief, there is nothing in Scripture about any "age of accountability." The Bible teaches that all are born in sin, and that we are condemned for being in Adam. We are saved for being in Christ, but to be in Christ, we must believe in Him. Babies can't believe, therefore, they are not in Christ. This would imply that they will go to Hell, except for, say, Eccl 6:3, which says a stillborn is better off then the living. All rhetoric aside, if stillborns end up in Hell, no amount of poetry or hyperbole could render this a true idea.

I see that by the same logic our relationship with God was damaged by original sin, our relationship with God is correctly re-aligned through Christ. I am unsure what you make of this, but I see that just as the first (Adam's sin) was universal, so I see Christ's forgiveness is universal. The Gospel as I see it is a message of forgiveness which applies to everyone - Christian and non-Christian alike. No one is condemned due to an original sin, or even by their own sinful deeds. To say otherwise I see would take away from Christ's payment.

Yet, while all are forgiven I see that not all are reconciled. Reconciliation involves our coming back to God. Some do not know they have been forgiven, and they need to hear the Gospel, the "good news," that God loves them regardless of where they are at. He is not wrathful in response to sin any more like the God we see in the OT. Such has now been quenched by Christ's payment. What Christ accomplished on the cross meant God can accept us as we are and now grave and forgiveness now abounds for all. Yet, some are still lost, do not care, do not see anything wrong with themselves, or what-have-you, and as such have not been reconciled to God. So I see reconciliation involves accepting Christ, since it is only through Christ our forgiveness comes, and our acceptance of such forgiveness allows us to be reconciled. For reconciliation there is no other way but Christ. Yet, to accept Christ, one needs to know who Christ in an essential manner, and I see His divinity as essential.

You might say, "forgiveness, reconciliation... it all amounts to the same thing since in the end as both need to come to Christ." Yet, the distinction as I see it is that given my belief of universal forgiveness but limited reconciliation, if one dies without coming to Christ in this life then their full denial of Christ (and as such reconciliation) is not set in stone until they come into direct contact with Him hereafter. Thus, I see it is very likely for young children and babies who have not had the opportunity to develop set perspectives or become hardened against God, that Christ will take many such persons under His wing given they would desire Him to do so. On the other hand, if forgiveness in only obtained by belief in Christ, then babies I see are indeed condemned to hell for "all have sinned." Christ may offer them forgiveness in the afterlife, but then such is more a nice thought. As you say above, "if stillborns end up in Hell, no amount of poetry or hyperbole could render this a true idea." While it does not necessarily follow, I see a person like someone who accepts the doctrine of total depravity yet maintains those before an "age of accountability" are saved, that such a person must reduce the seriousness of sin to God as portrayed in Scripture.

[Jac3510]

A Christian as I see is anyone whom Christ accepts as His own regardless of belief, works, faith. I am happy to leave it there, but obviously more ought to be said to clarify what I mean.

Wait, what? I would appreciate clarification here . . .

"These things are written that you might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing, you may have life in His name." John 20:31

In your view, what does a person have to believe to be saved, considering your above wording that a person can be saved "regardless of belief"? I mean, I can totally understand saying they don't have to believe in the Trinity proper. I can understand the distinction between accepting divinity and rejecting it (I use the same formula for the doctrine of assurance and the doctrine of eternal security), even as I disagree with it. But to say a person is saved regardless of belief??? I'm sure it's just a matter of misunderstanding . . . I'm just really, really

Actually I think it is relevant as your question as posed makes belief "necessary" regardless of whether one is incapable of belief, is unaware to such knowledge, or chooses not to believe. Thus, there are no "special cases" such as babies or what have you. So if one does believe there are special cases, then they have to answer that belief in the Trinity (or Christ's divinity as we have now drifted towards) is not necessary since there are exceptions.

Yes, belief is necessary, and there are no exceptions. I think what Zoe was saying (and correct me if I am wrong, Zoe!) is that whether you think belief in the Trinity, or even the divinity of Christ, is necessary, you still have to answer the question of what happens to babies in general. If you don't believe any of that is necessary, you still have to account for children. The fact that I don't see the Bible allowing for exceptions to the requirement of faith to be justified, I don't think, really matters . . . maybe I'm just wrong here?

I see that by the same logic our relationship with God was damaged by original sin, our relationship with God is correctly re-aligned through Christ. I am unsure what you make of this, but I see that just as the first (Adam's sin) was universal, so I see Christ's forgiveness is universal. The Gospel as I see it is a message of forgiveness which applies to everyone - Christian and non-Christian alike. No one is condemned due to an original sin, or even by their own sinful deeds. To say otherwise I see would take away from Christ's payment.

I've said before that I believe in universally effectual atonement. That means that everyone is reconciled. I don't think sin is what condemns a person to Hell, and propitiation or even forgiveness are not what get us to Heaven. We are condemned for being in Adam. We are saved by being in Christ. We are born again in Christ the moment we believe that by believing Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, we have everlasting life (John 20:31).

edit:

While it does not necessarily follow, I see a person like someone who accepts the doctrine of total depravity yet maintains those before an "age of accountability" are saved, that such a person must reduce the seriousness of sin to God as portrayed in Scripture.

I'd agree with this. But for one thing, I disagree with TD. For another thing, as I've already said, ALL sin has been paid for by Jesus. All are reconciled. For me, it is not that the seriousness of sin has been reduced. I personally think I hold it to be a much greater problem than the average Christian, considering I believe that genuine believers are capable of walking in habitual sin and even totally losing all faith and in doing so suffer the severe wrath of God, up to and including the eternal loss of rewards! No, for me, it is the value of the Cross has been heightened. Most think the Cross only "took" for Christians. I think it "took" for EVERYONE. Most think the Cross only covered the sins of believers. I think it covered the sins of EVERYONE.

[zoegirl]

jac,

accurate summary of what I said.

Kuriero,

I think I understaned the nuances of what you are saying. There is a difference between understanding or knowing about doctrinal statements or mechanisms of God (i.e whether you are reformed or armenian or somewhere in between, covenant or dispensationalist, pre-mill, preterist...) and denial of the identify and works of God. Whether we understand the trinity or even really know about beyond just knowing it is a statement in the hymanl page is certainly different than outright rejection and denial.

[Jac3510]

By the way do you use the Nestle-aland Novum Testamentum Graece by Hendrickson Publishers, or do you have another? I had read this is a good volume. Do you have any input? I was thinking of buying it. I have Bruce Metzger's “A Textual Commentary On The Greek New Testament.” He writes a lot in Greek with out translating into English. I have to take the time to look up the words myself. It's kind of a pain too. Is the critical apparatus in the NA27 all Greek or both Greek and English?

It is an excellent volume. I actually use the UBS 4th ed., which has the exact same text as the NA27. If a textual issue comes up that require a more extensive apparatus, then I consult NA27. There is no preference to UBS over NA27. That just happens to be the one I bought when I first started studying Greek three years ago and didn't know any different. Red is prettier than green!

Metzger is extremely helpful, and yes, the apparatus in NA27--all apparatuses that I am aware of--use both Greek and English, and sometimes Latin and a little Hebrew, too. If you have taken enough Greek that you are capable of following the grammar, I'd recommend two resources to you. The first is Wallace's Greek Grammar: Beyond the Basics. It's an excellent reference to have on hand so that you can quickly identify syntactical categories for everything from nominatives to paraphrastic participles. I'd also suggest getting a Reader's Greek New Testament. They have one available for the NIV's Greek text, which is not the same as the NA27/UBS4, but it's pretty close, and the benefits outweigh the drawbacks. If a word occurs less than 30 times in the NT, then a brief definition is listed at the bottom of the page on which it is found. Very useful for casual reading.

And beyond all that, if your familiarity with Greek is limited to the alphabet, which is still way more than most have, and you want to press it further, I'd suggest Mounce's Basics of Biblical Greek. You can see everything he has to offer at http://www.teknia.com. I'd get that, along with the workbook, vocab cards, and lectures. You can then work through the language at your own pace, and within six months you should be reading the GNT pretty well--at least well enough to start doing more advanced exegesis. His analytical lexicon is also a great resource . . .

Again, though, I don't want you or anyone to take this as me saying that you can't understand the Bible without knowing Greek. Far from it! English translations say the same thing as the Greek, by and large. Most are very, very good. Knowing the Greek just helps you see translator bias--it always exists, no matter what--and it helps you be more aware of exegetical possibilities.

God bless

[B. W.]

A brief history of the Church after Nicaea Here is a small section of writings… You must realize that in the early days Greek philosophy was the major thought pattern of the civilized world. Anyone who was anyone was educated in Greek philosophy. Another reason why these philosophies were so quick to influence early Christianity is that in the beginning of the church, the leaders were for the most part Jewish, with the Jewish concept of God. …"The Jews conceive God as an absolutely simple unity (inferring absolutely no constituent divisions)." (Jewish Thought 6/12/96)…

Hi Pierac, -- You pointed out in your discourses ably how Greek/Roman scholastic and pragmatic thought was interjected into the Western — Roman Catholic and Protestant Church World. However Platonism is far different than the unity spoken in the bible that we are, one with God, written in John 17 and elsewhere. This too is a great error. To neglect what the bible teaches on being one with the Lord and knowing him by declaring this all as Platonically based on Greek thought is also disingenuous.

There are 3 main branches of the Christian Church — Western which consist of the Roman Catholic and Protestant traditions and the Eastern Church tradition — which is Middle Eastern in origin. You forgot the Eastern Church in your discourse.

You are correct that the ancient Middle Eastern Hebrew line of thought is missed in the modern Western Church. But also note that this ancient Middle Eastern Hebrew line of thought was also corrupted when mixed with world politics in its history same as in the history of the Christian Church both East and West. This is tragic but no one should sweep it under the rug least we repeat this error in the modern world. Let's move on from this topic and get to the meat of the matter or we will waste time discussing Church political history and thus forget the message of and the purpose of the gospel.

The Subject is the Trinity:

There were several basic views of who the messiah would be amongst ancient Hebrew religious leaders. Would the Messiah be a human Prophet like Moses — an agent of God? Would the Messiah be several human agents to deliver Israel that come and go in its history and then finally usher in the Messianic age and keep this age ongoing? Or lastly, would the Messiah be God himself? If so how could this be?

These were the prevailing lines of thought in Jesus' day and time. Pharisees, Scribes, Sadducees, Political Leaders, as well as those human beings with a Messiah complex that are recorded in the bible as well as the works of Josephus. The references are numerous and still discussed today on Jewish websites to list all here — so forgive me for not citing these in detail: research and you will find.

Now was Jesus Messiah? I'll use the same line of thought the ancient Hebrews used —

Here are some interesting scriptures that you may need to know when discussing who Jesus is with those who do not believe the Trinity — I wrote this on another thread and copying it here:

Isaiah 43:10, "Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me. 11 I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour." KJV

Hosea 13:4, “I, the LORD, have been your God since the time you were in Egypt. I am the only God you know, the only one who can save. -- Hosea 13:4, “But I am the LORD your God from the land of Egypt; you know no God but me, and besides me there is no savior.” ESV

Isaiah 53:1-3, "Who hath believed our report? and to whom is the arm of the LORD revealed? 2 For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him. 3 He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not." KJV

Isaiah 59:1, "Behold, the LORD'S hand is not shortened, that it cannot save; neither his ear heavy, that it cannot hear..."

Isaiah 59:15-17, "Yea, truth faileth; and he that departeth from evil maketh himself a prey: and the LORD saw it, and it displeased him that there was no judgment.16 And he saw that there was no man, and wondered that there was no intercessor: therefore his arm brought salvation unto him; and his righteousness, it sustained him.17 For he put on righteousness as a breastplate, and an helmet of salvation upon his head; and he put on the garments of vengeance for clothing, and was clad with zeal as a cloke." KJV

Isaiah 45:21-24, "Tell ye, and bring them near; yea, let them take counsel together: who hath declared this from ancient time? who hath told it from that time? have not I the LORD? and there is no God else beside me; a just God and a Saviour; there is none beside me. 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. 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." KJV

Psalms 65:5, "You will give us an answer in righteousness by great acts of power, O God of our salvation; you who are the hope of all the ends of the earth, and of the far-off lands of the sea." BBE

Isaiah 42:5-8, "Thus saith God the LORD, He that created the heavens, and stretched them forth, He that spread forth the earth and that which cometh out of it, He that giveth breath unto the people upon it, and spirit to them that walk therein: 6 I the LORD have called thee in righteousness, and have taken hold of thy hand, and kept thee, and set thee for a covenant of the people, for a light of the nations; 7 To open the blind eyes, to bring out the prisoners from the dungeon, and them that sit in darkness out of the prison-house. 8 I am the LORD, that is My name; and My glory will I not give to another, neither My praise to graven images. 9 Behold, the former things are come to pass, and new things do I declare; before they spring forth I tell you of them." JPS

Note how the CEV translates verse 8 in Isaiah 42:8, "My name is the LORD! I won't let idols or humans share my glory and praise."

Isaiah 48:11-12, "For Mine own sake, for Mine own sake, will I do it; for how should it be profaned? And My glory will I not give to another. 12 Hearken unto Me, O Jacob, and Israel My called: I am He; I am the first, I also am the last."

Matthew 1:23, "Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us."

Isaiah 7:14, "Therefore the Lord Himself shall give you a sign: behold, the young woman shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel."

Isaiah 9:6, "A child has been born for us. We have been given a son who will be our ruler. His names will be Wonderful Advisor and Mighty God, Eternal Father and Prince of Peace." CEV or as the JPS translates (9:5) "For a child is born unto us, a son is given unto us; and the government is upon his shoulder; and his name is called Pele- joez-el-gibbor-Abi-ad-sar-shalom;"

Isaiah 53:1-3, "Who hath believed our report? and to whom is the arm of the LORD revealed? 2 For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him."

Philippians 2:6-11, "In God's own form existed he, And shared with God equality, Deemed nothing needed grasping. 7 Instead, poured out in emptiness, A servant's form did he possess, A mortal man becoming. In human form he chose to be, 8 And lived in all humility, Death on a cross obeying. 9 Now lifted up by God to heaven, A name above all others given, This matchless name possessing. 10 And so, when Jesus' name is called, The knees of everyone should fall Where'er they are residing. 11 Then every tongue in one accord, Will say that Jesus Christ is Lord, While God the Father praising." ISV

For those of you who do not think the bible teaches the concept of the Trinity? Who was Jesus if only God can save unless the Messiah is God himself?

Isaiah 55:8-9, "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD. 9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts. KJV

Are you and I wiser and smarter than God?

Isaiah 55:6-7, "Seek ye the LORD while he may be found, call ye upon him while he is near: 7 Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts: and let him return unto the LORD, and he will have mercy upon him; and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon."

Isaiah 55:11, “So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.”

You who do not grasp who Jesus is doubt God's word by twisting it to suite your taste? Again, are you wiser and smarter than God? Why do you continue to esteemed him not?

It is plain who Jesus is —

Acts 4:12, “There is no salvation by anyone else, for there is no other name under heaven given among people by which we must be saved." ISV

Acts10:42, He also ordered us to preach to the people and to testify solemnly that this is the one ordained by God to be the judge of the living and the dead. 43 To him all the prophets testify that everyone who believes in him receives the forgiveness of sins through his name." ISV

Note: All Bible quotes from JPS, KJV, ISV, BBE, ESV unless otherwise marked

Who was Jesus if only God can save unless the Messiah is God himself?

This is the same debate we use today. One group will say — you are misreading the scriptures these do not mean what they plainly say as ancient Jewish thought depends on Human Agency and not on God himself so this thought that Messiah is human only must be superior. Enter the modern Pharisees.

Another group says, there is no resurrection of the dead as the Messiah is only Human agent sent to deliver Israel from its enemies during non-ending history as there is no hope of an afterlife; enter the Sadducees. Both sides state that they only can interpret the scriptures correctly and fight each other too no end.

Then there is the Lord — the Messiah Jesus who did save as only God can do, and forgive sins as only God can do, as no human agent will ever be permitted to share this Glory with God.

Lord — who has believed our report?
-
-
-