Revelation 1:1?

[Daniel_Marsh]

Ah, Isaiah uses the phrase “mighty God” to refer to God, thus the “almighty” vs “mighty” is a false comparsion.

Isaiah 9:6
For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

Isaiah 10:21
A remnant will return, a remnant of Jacob will return to the Mighty God.

Second, John applies “almighty” to Jesus

Revelation 1:8
“I am the Alpha and the Omega,” says the Lord God, “who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty.”

Revelation 4:8
Each of the four living creatures had six wings and was covered with eyes all around, even under his wings. Day and night they never stop saying: “Holy, holy, holy is the Lord God Almighty, who was, and is, and is to come.”

Concerning John 1:1, a word gets its meaning from its context.
forananswer.org/John/Jn1_1.htm

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

Hi Catholic your copy and paste article demonstrates very poor word study skills, the author needs to learn about,

Exegetical Fallacies (by DA Carson)

WORD-STUDY FALLACIES: (condensed from Carson’s book)

1)The root fallacy – “pineapple” is not an apple growing on a pine

2)Semantic anachronism – dynamite is etymologically derived from “dunamis”, then, the idea of dynamite is read back into dunamis.

3)Semantic obsolescence – Is “head of the family” origin or source? It’s not so in Hellenistic Greek, only in classical Greek.

4)Appeal to unknown or unlikely meanings – ‘The law’ refers to rabbinic tradition?

5)Careless appeal to background info – born of water and Spirit (water can be referred to sperm) so physical birth and spiritual birth? Purification by water and new spirit in Ezekiel 36:25-27.

1. Verbal parallelomania – John’s prologue is compared to other remote literature to prove dependency – Bultmann and Dodd?

1. Link of language and mentality – Ancient Hebrews unable to understand past, present and future because only two aspects in their language? False assumption about technical terms – ‘sanctification’ and ‘baptism of Spirit’

8)Problems with synonyms and componential analysis – agape and phileo?

9)Selective use of evidence - Hebrew knowing is experiential, not intellectual? Knowing God is obeying and loving others but also content in John 4:50, 5:47, 13:19, 17:21)

10)Unwarranted semantic disjunctions/restrictions – false either/or meanings. E.g. the headship of Jesus – either He as Head has authority to control and demand obedience OR as Head, He is source/origin and stoops to lift us up?

11)Unwarranted restriction of semantic field – Judaism is only a technical term for a sectarian exclusiveness against Hellenist and not religion of the Jews? This is my body? “IS” could mean Fulfillment, Resemblance, Cause, Attribute or identity?

12)Unwarranted broadening of semantic range – ‘church’ (universal?) in Acts 7:38

13)Problems relating to Semitic background of Greek NT – Methodologically irresponsible to read Hebrew word into Greek equivalent

14)Neglect distinguishing peculiarities of a corpus – a fallacy that one NT writer uses a word (call/justification) with the same meaning as other NT writers

15)Unwarranted linking of sense and reference – The meaning of words in a grammatically coherent array (Three is a prime number) is different from the theoretical referent of each word (Plato, Aristotle, Aquinas, Locke, Berkeley)

hedonese1.blogspot.com/2004_07_01_hedonese1_archive.html

 

[yngwie7]

Even if you think the “him” is Jesus, then read Phil 2, the Son of God set aside the practice of his willful attributes as God at his incarnation.

Jesus himself, told us that only the Father knows when his second coming will be.

I think these two sentences of your lengthy e-mail are the only ones that apply to what I was saying or to the discussion in general. Who is the “him” then if it is not Jesus? And yes Jesus doesn’t doesn’t know the hour. God knows the hour, therefore Jesus isn’t God.

Thank you and God bless you

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

You wrote: And I know that “theos” as used in St. John "And the Word was
“theos” can be explained as not Eternal God, as the same word is used refering
to Satan in “The god “theos” of this age.”

The use of theos in John 1:1 or elsewhere, gets its meaning from its imediate context, not from
how it is used in other contexts thus the author is commenting a word study fallacy and is in
fact begging the argument. Simply, quote church fathers as to how they understood
“the word was God” His examples are useless.

check out how theos is used in John 1:1
forananswer.org/John/Jn1_1.htm

I would interpret this verse as: “the word was Godly” or “the word was Divine”

Ah, Divine means he is God.

One has the definite article “The” before the word “God” and the other doesn’t

The author demonstrates that he does not understand greek grammar, follow the link above
forananswer.org/John/Jn1_1.htm

But even if there was no distinction between definite article I wouldn’t interpret this
verse as saying that there was a distinct person in the beginning with God that was also
God and still distinct. “The word” is a personified concept much like wisdom is in

A personication can not be “face to face” with God. The second clause of John 1:1 means

The Word was [face to face] with God. You can appeal to Thayer an unitarian Greek scholar
for the “face to face” ( Thayer happens to be the lexicon used for Strong’s Concordance
online ) blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/words.pl?strongs=4314

Look for greek word “pros” in forananswer.org/John/Jn1_1.htm

If the third phrase The Word was God read “the word was the God” it would contradict the
second phrase “the word was face to face with God”.

Montgomery translates “The logos was face to face with God”

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

John 20:28:
…

addressing Christ as “My Lord” and the Father as “My God”.

The context makes it plain that only Jesus is being addressed.

The author repeats the fallacy that he started with. The fact remains a word gets its meaning
from its imediate context. Quote the Fathers to show that John 1:1 means God.

Both Rev 1:8 and 4:8 make Jesus almighty God.

John 8:58:

Some translators translate .γ. ε.μι as “I am he”

To a Jewish person in that historical context “I am he” refers directly to God’s name.

Isaiah 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.

note: in Revelation Jesus is the First and Last, the Aplha and Omega.

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.

Isaiah 43:13
Yea, before the day was I am he; and there is none that can
deliver out of my hand: I will work, and who shall let it?

Isaiah 48:12
Hearken unto me, O Jacob and Israel, my called; I am he;
I am the first, I also am the last.

Isaiah 52:6
Therefore my people shall know my name: therefore they shall know in that day
that I am he that doth speak: behold, it is I.

See also, Exodus 3:14.

Now let’s look at the same passage in Matthew 24:5:

for many will come in my name saying: I am the Christ…
Luke simply says many will come saying “I am” but Matthew says that they will say
“I am the Christ”. Therefore it seems clear to me that “I am” means “I am he” or “I am
the Christ”. Having said that, I would interpret the verse as saying: "Even before
Abraham came into being, I am he or I am Christ (being the pre-incarnate Divine Logos
{word, plan, decree of God} as described in John 1).

Simply demonstrates word study fallacies. Stick to the context of John 8:58,

The Jews picked up stones to stone Jesus for Blaspheme.

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

John 10:30:
.γ. κα. . πατ.ρ .ν .σμεν .
I and the father are one.
Later in the same Gospel, Jesus uses the same language:
.να π.ντες .ν .σι
That they all may be one. (Jn. 17:21)
Jesus is speaking to the disciples here. I’ve never heard anyone say that Peter is
Andrew or that John is James. It means that they should be united or be one in spirit as
Paul also says:
. δ. κολλ.μενος τ. Κυρ… .ν πνε.μ. .στι .
He who joins himself to the Lord is one spirit. (1 Cor. 6:17)
Colossians 2:9
.τι .ν α.τ. κατοικε. π.ν τ. πλ.ρωμα τ.ς θε.τητος σωματικ.ς ,
For in him dwells all the fullness of Deity in bodily form.
But Paul also says to Christians in Ephesians 3:19:

If Jesus were saying that he is one in purpose or of one mind, the Jews would have replied,
so are we. But, the context makes it plain that they picked up stones to kill Jesus for
Blasphemy. Stick to the context of John 10.

Matthew 26:63-66 (King James Version)

63But Jesus held his peace, And the high priest answered and said unto him, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God.

64Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.

65Then the high priest rent his clothes, saying, He hath spoken blasphemy; what further need have we of witnesses? behold, now ye have heard his blasphemy.

66What think ye? They answered and said, He is guilty of death.

At this point, I would say look up each “proof text” for context and stick to the context.
The author of the article has demonstrated poor bible study skills, and does nothing but
very poor word study fallacies.

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

Ephesians 3:19
and to know this love that surpasses knowledge—that you may be filled to the
measure of all the fullness of God.

Colossians 2:9
For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

Read for context.

The phrase “Son of God”:
I’m sure you’ve heard that Jesus, angels and men are all called sons of God in the bible,
so I won’t go into that. But I would like to talk about the phrase “the only begotten son”:
(Jn. 1:18)

He is begging the argument again. Read John 5:18-19 for context. John is not saying that
Jesus is only an angel ( messenger ).

John 5:18-19 (King James Version)

18Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God.

19Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.

John 1:18 mongenesis means “unique one” simply quote other translations of John 1:18

Note: there is a textual problem on this very phrase that your author is using.

45tc The textual problem μονογενὴς θεός (monogenh" qeo", “the only God”) versus ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός (Jo monogenh" Juio", “the only son”) is a notoriously difficult one. Only one letter would have differentiated the readings in the mss, since both words would have been contracted as nomina sacra: thus qMs or uMs. Externally, there are several variants, but they can be grouped essentially by whether they read θεός or υἱός. The majority of mss, especially the later ones (A C3 Θ Ψ Ë1,13 Ï lat), read ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός. Ì75 א1 33 pc have ὁ μονογενὴς θεός, while the anarthrous μονογενὴς θεός is found in Ì66 א* B C* L pc. The articular θεός is almost certainly a scribal emendation to the anarthrous θεός, for θεός without the article is a much harder reading. The external evidence thus strongly supports μονογενὴς θεός. Internally, although υἱός fits the immediate context more readily, θεός is much more difficult. As well, θεός also explains the origin of the other reading (υἱός), because it is difficult to see why a scribe who found υἱός in the text he was copying would alter it to θεός. Scribes would naturally change the wording to υἱός however, since μονογενὴς υἱός is a uniquely Johannine christological title (cf. John 3:16, 18; 1 John 4:9). But θεός as the older and more difficult reading is preferred. As for translation, it makes the most sense to see the word θεός as in apposition to μονογενής, and the participle ὁ ὤν (Jo wn) as in apposition to θεός, giving in effect three descriptions of Jesus rather than only two. (B. D. Ehrman, The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture, 81, suggests that it is nearly impossible and completely unattested in the NT for an adjective followed immediately by a noun that agrees in gender, number, and case, to be a substantival adjective: “when is an adjective ever used substantivally when it immediately precedes a noun of the same inflection?” This, however, is an overstatement. First, as Ehrman admits, μονογενής in John 1:14 is substantival. And since it is an established usage for the adjective in this context, one might well expect that the author would continue to use the adjective substantivally four verses later. Indeed, μονογενής is already moving toward a crystallized substantival adjective in the NT [cf. Luke 9:38; Heb 11:17]; in patristic Greek, the process continued [cf. PGL 881 s.v. 7]. Second, there are several instances in the NT in which a substantival adjective is followed by a noun with which it has complete concord: cf., e.g., Rom 1:30; Gal 3:9; 1 Tim 1:9; 2 Pet 2:5.) The modern translations which best express this are the NEB (margin) and TEV. Several things should be noted: μονογενής alone, without υἱός, can mean “only son,” “unique son,” “unique one,” etc. (see 1:14). Furthermore, θεός is anarthrous. As such it carries qualitative force much like it does in 1:1c, where θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος (qeo" hn Jo logo") means “the Word was fully God” or “the Word was fully of the essence of deity.” Finally, ὁ ὤν occurs in Rev 1:4, 8; 4:8, 11:17; and 16:5, but even more significantly in the LXX of Exod 3:14. Putting all of this together leads to the translation given in the text.

tn Or “The unique one.” For the meaning of μονογενής (monogenh") see the note on “one and only” in 1:14.

bible.org/netbible/index.htm

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

Mark 2:3
Mt. 28:18
Jn. 20:23
Mark 13:32
Revelation 1:1
Jn.14:12

Your author simply does not understand Phil 2 the incarnation.

Philippians 2:5-11 (King James Version)

5Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:

6Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:

7But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:

8And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.

9Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:

10That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;

11And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

Basically, the Son of God set aside the willful attibutes of God.

God cannot be tempted by evil (Ja. 1:13) Jesus was tempted by the devil so he can’t be
Almighty God.

carm.org/doctrine/obj_Jesus_sin.htm

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

What Does the Bible Mean by Temptation?
by Bob and Gretchen Passantino.

…

Can Jesus Be God and Be Tempted?

Jesus is God and so he cannot be tempted in the sense that he cannot be enticed to sin, but he can be tempted in the sense that he can be tested, even with the evil lures of Satan (Matthew 4), and found to be true to his character. This is the context of Hebrews 4:15, which says, “For we do not have a high priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who has been tempted (peiraz ) in all things as we are, yet without sin.”

Jesus was tested by Satan’s enticements concerning his obedience to the Father and his commitment to his messianic mission, yet he did not succumb to the temptation. (A related issue concerns the dynamics between Christ’s human and divine natures, under the subjection of his one divine person. See The Impeccable Christ by W. E. Best, Zondervan, 1971).

Does God Tempt People?

Look again at James 1:13. Just as God cannot be enticed into sinning, so God does not entice anyone else into sinning. That is what is meant by “and He Himself does not tempt anyone.” James warns us not to blame our own fall into sin on God. God does not persuade us to sin, we willingly fall to the lure of our own sinful nature (Romans 3:23), the sinfulness in the world (Titus 2:12), and/or the false promises of Satan (Genesis 3:1-5).

When 2 Samuel 24:1 says God provoked or tempted David to number Israel, it means God made use of David’s action to manifest David’s disobedience to God. The parallel passage in 1 Chronicles 27:23-24 credits Satan with provoking David to take the census. Putting the two passages together shows that, while Satan may have enticed David into sin, it was God who tested David and used that occasion to show both David and the Israelites the consequences of David’s sin.

God tests us to reveal to ourselves and the world our true characters.

God has always tested each order of rational beings that He has created. This test has consisted of proof of perfect trust and obedience. A test in itself is not a cause of sin. Only the action of the one tested can turn it into an occasion to sin. . . . Adam and Eve faced a test of obedience, and disobeyed and fell. Christ, in order to redeem men, faced testing, and came out victorious (Hebrews 5:7-9) (Wycliffe Bible Encyclopedia, Vol. 2, Charles Pfeiffer, Howard Vos, and John Rea, eds., Moody, 1975, p. 1680).

Summary

There are various meanings for the word temptation. Usually it means either an enticement to sin or a test or trial. God never entices anyone to sin, but uses testing to reveal his justice and challenge believers to faithfulness (2 Corinthians 13:5-8).

answers.org/theology/is_god_tempted.html

follow link and read full article

 

[yngwie7]

Isaiah 9:6
For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And (HIS NAME) will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

I altered your quotation of Isaiah in favor of a more accurate translation. This is a name given to the Messiah. It doesn’t necessarily mean that the messiah was all of those things. For example: Joshua’s name in the old testament was: “YHWH saves”. that doesn’t mean he was YHWH.

But even if he was Mighty God, as I’ve shown elsewhere men and angels are also called God. And there is a distinction between Almighty and Mighty. Almighty in greek is παντοκράτορα. Mighty in Isaiah 9:6 in greek (Septuagint) is ἰσχυρός.

God bless you

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

Hi yngwie7, you need to start with the word “revelation” itself. It simply means to “unveil” something that is hidden like a statue. Something hidden does not mean “unknown” by the one who is being “unveiled” or by the one unveiling the staute.

Both the artist and the one who sponsered the statue both have knowledge about the statue, and the sponser could have viewed the statue before it was unvieled to a third party like John in our case. If you study how the phrase “revelation of” is used in the NT, it is often objective genitive.

There simply is not any reference to knowledge know by Jesus here. In this text, we are not told what knowledge Jesus had. The arian argument is based on the text in the gospel about the Father knowing the day and hour. That is being read into Rev 1:1 by the arian.

Since the phrase “Revelation of Jesus Christ” is an objective genitive in greek grammar. It is information about Jesus that is being “unveiled” thus the him is John not Jesus. The last phrase of the verse makes it plain that the one recieving the revelation is John, not Jesus.

The “him” is the difficult part of the text. One must read the difficult in light of the clear part of the text.

The clear parts are:

It is Jesus Christ who is being unveiled ( the subject of the genitive grammar in greek )

It is John in the last phrase that is recieving the revelation.

Going from clear to unclear, the unclear becomes clear.

The revelation or unveiling is about Jesus, the reciever is John, a bond servant.

If you read onto Rev 1:8 and Rev 4:8 it is made plain that Jesus is Almighty God. Jesus is the one who is to come again.

Also, the distinction by arians is made on Isaiah 9:6 where Jesus is called “mighty God”, but, in Isaiah 10, God the Father himself is called “mighty God”.

Revelation 1:8
I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.

The precise meaning turns on the genitive “of Jesus Christ,” which, if taken as the objective genitive, denotes the manifestation, or disclosure, of Jesus Christ, but if taken as the subjective or possessive genitive, denotes Jesus Christ merely as the medium of the revelation.

If Jesus is only the medium the text does not say Jesus does not know the details.

At worse, one can arguee that Jesus is the means of unveiling himself to John with the message orginating with the Father.

At best, Jesus is the subject being unveiled to John.

It is John that is gaining knowledge, not Jesus.

If you sponser an artist to make a statue of an dolphin, both the artist and sponser know that the statue is an dolphin.

Revelation 1: 1 The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show to his servants the things that must soon take place. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John,

The angel can also be the “him”.

The two basic readings I see,

Jesus is being unveiled like an statue

The angel recieves that revelation to give to John

And, John recieves that revelation from John

Or The “him” could be John

Jesus is the subect of the unveiling

John recieves the knowledge

Or the “him” is Jesus

Jesus is both the subject and Means of unveiling himself

both the angel and John recieves the knowledge,

with this third interpretation, one must prove that the means does not know what he is unveiling.

Simply put, one can not “unveil” what he does not have or know.

reguardless of interpretation, we are told in Rev 1:8 and 4:8 that Jesus is the Almighty!!! thus our interpretation of Rev 1:1 must take that into account. An interpretation of Rev 1:1 that ignores Rev 1:8 and ignores Rev 4:8 will be the wrong interpretation.

Thus the argument that Jesus is not God based on Rev 1:1 contradicts directly Rev 1:8 and Rev 4:8.

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

Yes, my name means “God is Judge” and it does not mean that I am God’s judge. But, verse 7, makes this a text about the Messiah. The fact that Isaiah uses the phrase “mighty God” in chapter ten, also means that “mighty God” in chapter nine also refers to God and does not refer to a mere angel. The distinction of mighty God and almighty God disappears because “mighty God” also refers to God, just as does “almighty”.

What you are missing is that Isaiah 9:6 is recognized as the 72 letter name of God by Jewish scholars thus to say it only means an angel is “mighty God” is funny.

And what is the greek in Isaiah 10 for “mighty God”?

Is not the hebrew in both gibbor?

**Show where Isaiah refers to angels as “mighty God”, **he does not. The author of Isaiah is not the same man who wrote Genesis. It is how the phrase “mighty God” is understood by Isaiah, not how David used “gods” in Psalms or how Moses used “god” in Genesis. My point being language changes over time, and there are hunreds of years between each author. So, it is how Isaiah uses the phrase “mighty God” that matters, not how another author uses simply “god” or “gods” hundreds of years before or later.

Also, if you read the following you will see that historically, some of the Jewish people were expecting a Messiah who is divine, God.

Messiah Texts (Paperback)
by Raphael Patai

What the Rabbis Know About the Messiah: A Study of Genealogy and Prophecy
Rachmiel Frydland

Jesus: Divine Messiah A New and Old Testament Witness
by Robert L. Reymond

Now the point of Matthew quoting Isaiah 7:14 was not to emphasize the word “virgin” as the LXX translates it. But is to emphasize that “God with Us”. Read Matthew 1:23

Revelation 1:8
I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.

Revelation 4:8
And the four beasts had each of them six wings about him; and they were full of eyes within: and they rest not day and night, saying, Holy, holy, holy, LORD God Almighty, which was, and is, and** is to come.**

Who is to come? Jesus!!! In both these texts he is called Almighty God.

The Linkage Between Isaiah 7:14 and 9:6
journalofbiblicalstudies.org/Issue1/Articles/linkage_between_isaiah_7.htm

What is different about Matthew’s quote? There is extra emphasis on the meaning “Immanuel - a word which means ‘God with us.’” The prophetic fulfillment was in the meaning of the name “Immanuel,” a fact that has been over looked. Critics are quick to point out that Jesus is never called “Immanuel,” but Matthew seems to be emphasizing the meaning in the name and applying it to Christ in his narrative. Matthew interprets “Immanuel” to mean “God with us,” and John seems to be aware of its implications by writing: “And the Word [Jesus] became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory…” (John 1:14). The confirmations of Christ’s deity are replete through-out the New Testament in His adult life. The meaning “God with us” set’s the tone for that in the virgin birth conception recorded by the writer of Matthew roughly thirty-five years after Jesus death. **Jesus’ testimony and deeds probably seemed to fit the predictive prophecy given by Isaiah for a boy that would later be looked at as “God with us” (Matt. 1:23). **The inherent characteristics of such a meaning seems to be applied to Jesus else where in the New Testament (John 1:1-3, John 1:14, John 20:28, Col. 2:9, etc…).

frontline-apologetics.com/virgin_birth_revisited.htm

If you read those texts in context, John 10:30, John 8:58, John 5:18 it is clear that those contexts make Jesus God.

 

[The_Catholic]

Interesting.

 

[The_Catholic]

I’ve been reading this book lately about all of these things and I will share some of it to perhaps shed some more Light upon these conversations and mysteries

"The use of words translated “God,” “god,” and “gods.” When Scripture uses words for God in a singular form, it almost always refers to Jehovah, the Lord God. The unqualified singular “God” (Hebrew el or elohim; Greek theos) is always, or virtually always, used of the Almighty God. For example, the singular theos is used of God about 1,400 times in the New Testament, and of a false god only six times, always clearly so by the context (Acts 7:43; 12:22; 28:6; 2 Cor. 4:4; Phil. 3:19; 2 Thess. 2:7). Given this almost uniform usage of the singular theos for “God” by all of the New Testament writers, we ought to assume that this usage applies in all cases where context does not clearly rule it out. The Bible says repeatedly that there is only one God, and specifically only one true God (Isa. 43:10; 44:6-8; Jer. 10:10; John 17:3; 1 Tim. 2:5; James 2:19; 1 John 5:20). It also repeatedly states that all other so called gods (1 Cor. 8:5) are false gods (Deut. 32:21; Ps. 96:5; Isa. 41:23-24). Creatures are on occasion called “gods” in the plural, usually taken to mean they are representatives of God (most notably Pss. 8:5; 82:1, 6). The burden of proof is on (those who deny Christ is God) to show that in such passages as John 1:1 and John 20:28, they admit the singular theos is used of Jesus Christ, the word does not have its customary denotation of “God.”

Be right back with a few more interesting paragraphs…

 

[The_Catholic]

"Isaiah 9:6–Just a few paragraphs after the coming Messiah is called “Mighty God,” Jehovah, the God of Jacob, is called the Mighty God (Isa. 10:21). Since Jehovah is called Mighty God in such CLOSE CONTEXT to Isaiah 9:6, without any indication of a difference in meaning, we must conclude that Isaiah 9:6 is an affirmation of the full deity of the Messiah.

John 1:1–So much has been said about this verse that an exhaustive discussion here is impossible. Some basic and essential points can, however, be made. The Greek word theos, usually translated “God,” does indeed lack the definite article. However, in Greek, as in English and other languages, the presence OR absence of the definite article does not alter the fundamental meaning of a noun. Specifically, the presence or absence of the article in the Greek New Testament is essentially irrelevant to the meaning of the word theos. For example, Satan is called "the god (ho theos) of this age (2 Cor. 4:4) but the presence of the article does not mean that the word refers to the true God. The singular theos–both with and without the article–is almost always used to mean “God” unless the context makes it obvious that a false god is meant. In John 1 theos is used four other times without the article and is always translated “God” (John 1:6, 12, 13, 18). It is true that the word “God” in the clause “and the Word was with God” does have the definite article. However, the word theos often appears in the same sentence both with and without the article with no discernible shift in meaning.

 

[The_Catholic]

It is right in saying that the Word, whoever and whatever he was, could not be “with” himself. That, however, is not what Trinitarians think John 1:1 means. When John says that “the Word was with God (ho theos),” the word God here is understood to refer to the specific person most often called God in Scripture, namely, the Father. When he says that “the Word was God (theos),” the word God here is understood not as identifying the Word as a specific person but as classifying or describing him as God; the meaning of the word “God” does not change (i.e., God Almighty vs. "a mighty one"0, but its use in the sentence changes. thus, on this view John 1:1 is saying that the Word was with God (the Father) and was himself God, that is, God by nature, God in person of the Word. Since John had just referred to the Father as ho theos, had he written, “and the Word was ho theos,” this would have implied that the Word was God the Father. John avoids this idea–one also rejected in Trinitarian theology–while affirming the full deity of the Word by omitting the definite article.

 

[yngwie7]

What you are missing is that Isaiah 9:6 is recognized as the 72 letter name of God by Jewish scholars thus to say it only means an angel is “mighty God” is funny.

The name in Isaiah 9:6 is only 24 letters long. When did I say that Isaiah 9:6 refers to an angel? It refers to a man, Jesus. I’m glad that you at least got some entertainment out of my words.

God bless you.

 

[The_Catholic]

This one I find very interesting.

"Jesus is always careful to distinguish his relationship with God the Father from that of his disciples’ relationship with God: he refers to God as “my Father,” or speaks to the disciples of “your Father,” or teaches them to address God as “our Father” (Matt. 6:9), but never speaks of God as “our Father” where “our” refers to Jesus and his disciples. So careful is Jesus in this regard that in John 20:17 he speaks of returning to “my Father and your Father, to my God and your God,” instead of saying simply “to our Father and our God.”

There is much, much more in this book with very interesting insights such as these. But I mainly only wanted to list these paragraphs.

To me I see evidence in the Scriptures of Christ’s Divinity and the Trinity. I admit there are “few” verses that I ponder upon, but mainly there are so many proof texts as I can see that clearly show that Jesus Christ is God in the flesh.

I understand others opinons on this though too, like my friend Yngwie7, and I respect that.

God bless you all

 

[The_Catholic]

The name in Isaiah 9:6 is only 24 letters long. When did I say that Isaiah 9:6 refers to an angel? It refers to a man, Jesus. I’m glad that you at least got some entertainment out of my words.

God bless you.

lol

 

[Nita]

Welcome yngwie7,

John 10:30:
.γ. κα. . πατ.ρ .ν .σμεν .
I and the father are one.
Later in the same Gospel, Jesus uses the same language:
.να π.ντες .ν .σι
That they all may be one. (Jn. 17:21)
Jesus is speaking to the disciples here. I’ve never heard anyone say that Peter is
Andrew or that John is James. …

You are very right. Peter is not Andrew, they are two separate persons. Jesus is not the Father, they are two separate Persons (in the One Godhead). Jesus is asking a oneness for human persons that will reflect or image (on a human level) the oneness between the divine persons of the Trinity (the divine level). The doctrine of the Trinity just defines what is expressed in Scripture (eg. the Father and I are one; another advocate; Spirit of God; Spirit of Christ; in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit; Let us make man; God is one; etc) Accepting the Trinity makes those passages understandable. Rejecting the Trinity requires one to search for ways to rationalize why the obvious meaning does not apply.

Exodus 7:1 Then the LORD said to Moses, “See, I make you God (elohim) to Pharaoh.

I don’t think anyone would argue that Moses consisted of more than one person.

Of course not - but then the passage doesn’t mean that Moses ceased to be Moses and was changed into God.
The words of the LORD however, again express the mysterious, coexisting, oneness (“I”) and plurality (plural “elohim”) that God applies to Himself.

Genesis 1:26 Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness"

When God said “us” he could have been refering to Himself and the angelic host who are also made in his image because they are also called sons of God

“Let us make…” I would not consider the “us” to include the angels since we do not believe that they were co-creators with God.

However, I think you missed my overall point. After each of those sections I said that even if these verses are understood to be calling Jesus God, it is clear from many other verses that the word God (theos) is used in reference to men and angels. Therefore I conclude that these verses do not necessarily prove that Jesus is Almighty/Eternal God

I could only find a very, very, few out of the hundreds of uses of theos. (Would be more precise, but didn’t take the time to read thru all of the hits on “theos”.

God bless you too - and it’s good to have you with us,
Nita