Did ANYONE In Scripture (Including Jesus), Claim Jesus IS God?

[Wrangler]

Scripture is equivocal on the subject.

To say some Scripture is equivocal on the subject of the trinity does not mean:

1. There is any unequivocal Scripture in support of the trinity.
2. There are not mountains of unequivocal Scripture against the trinity, e.g., every epistle teaches there is only God the Father.

 

[RedFan]

Still they attempt to force larger squares into smaller circles, or force scripture verse puzzle pieces into place not meant to be attached, and to have dog ears - the pieces just don't fit! And they still call it all good....

Are you including me in this? I've been saying forever that Scripture does not prove the Trinity -- often to the chagrin of my fellow Trinitarians.

 

[APAK]

Are you including me in this? I've been saying forever that Scripture does not prove the Trinity -- often to the chagrin of my fellow Trinitarians.

That an honest reply Red, and no, for the reason you gave me..thx

 

[RedFan]

That an honest reply Red, and no, for the reason you gave me..thx

I appreciate that, APAK. There are lots of posters on this site who are convinced that I am depriving a village somewhere of an idiot.

 

[Taken]

The word Trinity is not mysterious…
Three United equal to One.

Trinity…Tri-three…United…= ONE God.

Word…Maker…Jesus…………Lord
Heavenly…Creator……………..God
Spirit…Christ…Power…………Almighty

No beginning …no ending.
IS….WAS…IS to come.

Trinity…Tri-three..United…. = ONE man

Body
Soul
Spirit

Trinity…Tri-Three…United….= US Branches

Legislative
Executive
Judicial

Glory to God,
Taken

 

[face2face]

One can marshal verses on both sides.

You and I both know that there is a single, all-powerful truth that saves. God knows it, the Apostles knew it, and I believe I possess that original saving Gospel.

It’s only a matter of time before we all come to know the truth.

F2F

 

[RedFan]

there is a single, all-powerful truth that saves

That "there is a single, all-powerful truth that saves" is unhelpful in wrestling with apparent conflicts in Scripture. That's true of the Trinity. It's even true of the contention that "there is a single, all-powerful truth that saves." (One can marshal verses on both sides of that one too!)

 

[Wrangler]

It's even true of the contention that "there is a single, all-powerful truth that saves." (One can marshal verses on both sides of that one too!)

You keep implying there is some kind of equal ambiguity on both sides. 1st, that’s not true. 2nd, you know the burden is on the one making the positive claim, I.e., both sides do not have equal burden to make its case. See post #787.

What is the trinitarian counterpoint to Romans 10:9, such as if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that Jesus raised himself from the dead, you will be saved?

 

[RedFan]

What is the trinitarian counterpoint to Romans 10:9, such as if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that Jesus raised himself from the dead, you will be saved?

I don't think there is a Trinitarian (or even a Binitarian) counterpoint to that one.

But is that the "single" truth that F2F suggests is the exclusive means to salvation? We can't know one way or the other just by reading the verse, because Rom. 10:9 portrays itself as a sufficient condition for salvation, but not a necessary one. And there are other Scriptural passages which might suggest alternative paths.

 

[Wrangler]

But is that the "single" truth that F2F suggests is the exclusive means to salvation? We can't know one way or the other just by reading the verse, because Rom. 10:9 portrays itself as a sufficient condition for salvation, but not a necessary one.

I don’t understand how you are parsing sufficient with necessary? At first, it seems like sophistry, an artificial dichotomy, to side step THE condition of salvation.

 

[RedFan]

I don’t understand how you are parsing sufficient with necessary? At first, it seems like sophistry, an artificial dichotomy, to side step THE condition of salvation.

I'm just pointing out that Rom. 10:9 says "If X, then salvation." It doesn't say "ONLY if X, then salvation." And other Xs are also of the form "If X, then salvation."

 

[Wrangler]

I'm just pointing out that Rom. 10:9 says "If X, then salvation." It doesn't say "ONLY if X, then salvation." And other Xs are also of the form "If X, then salvation."

It doesn’t have to say only X. The fact that other conditions are absent from the text tells the story.

Boy, the sophistry to NOT reject the trinity is something to behold! Invent a specific formulation of words designed to defeat the obvious, explicit and repeatedly given truth from God’s words.

 

[RedFan]

It doesn’t have to say only X. The fact that other conditions are absent from the text tells the story.

There are no other conditions in the verse. (That's what "sufficient" means.) But nothing in the verse gainsays other paths to salvation.

Jesus is quoted as saying “For if you forgive others their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you” (Matt. 6:14). Is forgiving others, without more, enough to be judged positively on Judgment Day and have our own sins forgiven? Taken literally, Matt. 6:14 is absolute, in the form “If X, then Y,” i.e., if we forgive, we will be forgiven. Period. Without more. If the “more” that others suggest is necessary for forgiveness of sin is indeed necessary, then Matt. 6:14 is literally untrue! Can you imagine Paul, if he were in the crowd, jumping up and down screaming "NOT TRUE, JESUS! NO FORGIVENESS EXCEPT THROUGH CONFESSING YOU AS LORD! THAT'S WHAT I'M GONNA TELL THE ROMANS, AND I'M STICKING TO IT!"

Or how about this one. John 5:28-29 quotes Jesus as saying "Do not be astonished at this; for the hour is coming when all who are in their graves will hear his voice and will come out—those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of condemnation." This is literally a reference to salvation BY WORKS! A reference only to those who died pre-Jesus? Maybe. But IT DOESN'T SAY SO IN THE TEXT! And therein lieth the dilemma.

I can keep doing this all night, but my point is very simple. Whether it's the Trinity, or salvation exclusively through faith in Christ, or whatever the topic -- it is often possible to find verses that support both sides of an issue.

 

[Wrangler]

There are no other conditions in the verse.

Why are you only looking at this verse?

You keep implying there is some kind of equal ambiguity on both sides. 1st, that’s not true. 2nd, you know the burden is on the one making the positive claim, I.e., both sides do not have equal burden to make its case. See post #787.

What is the trinitarian counterpoint to Romans 10:9, such as if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that Jesus raised himself from the dead, you will be saved?

As a lawyer, you know if a contract has one condition, that is determinant; no parsing between sufficient amor necessary.

You don’t just look at a single sentence. That’s why I asked about the trinitarian counterpoint, which you admit is non-existent. The question brings into context the entire contract, aka Scripture in total.

 

[RedFan]

Why are you only looking at this verse?

As a lawyer, you know if a contract has one condition, that is determinant; no parsing between sufficient amor necessary.

You don’t just look at a single sentence. That’s why I asked about the trinitarian counterpoint, which you admit is non-existent. The question brings into context the entire contract, aka Scripture in total.

But I am not looking just at a single sentence. I am looking at three. Two of which confirm that the first is not a necessary, but only a sufficient, condition to salvation -- precisely as its text suggests..

 

[David in NJ]

Elohim has been a very confusing word for many people. The word elohim is used various ways in Scripture. It is not only used to describe the Almighty, but also individual pagan gods and even mighty human beings. Elohim may be translated as God, god, angels, judges, or even a human being who stands as God's representative or agent. For example, the sons of Heth address Abraham as "a mighty prince," the word for "mighty" being elohim (Genesis 23:6). Some translations have Abraham here being called "Prince of God." Take another instance. In Exodus 4, the Lord tells Moses that he "shall be as God" (elohim) to his brother Aaron. Moses will have God's words in his mouth, and will stand as God's representative before Aaron. Here is a case where an individual human is called elohim. Again in Exodus 7:1, the Lord says to Moses, "See, I make you God [elohim] to Pharaoh." No one dares to suggest that there is a plurality of persons within Moses because he is called elohim, that is, God's representative. The pagan god Dagon is also called elohim in the Hebrew Bible. The Philistines lamented that the God of Israel was harshly treating "Dagon our God [elohim]" (1 Sam. 5:7). Dagon was a single pagan deity. The same holds true for the single pagan god called Chemosh: “Do you not possess what Chemosh your god [elohim] gives you to possess?" (Jud. 11:24). The same for the single deity called Baal.

The Hebrew language has many examples of words which are plural but whose meaning is singular. In Genesis 23, Abraham's wife Sarah dies. The Hebrew text says, "the lives [plural] of Sarah were 127 years" (v. 1). Even the plural verb that accompanies the pronoun does not mean Sarah lived multiple lives. The Hebrews never taught reincarnation or plurality of personhood. Another example of this kind of anomaly in the Hebrew language is found in Genesis 43. After Joseph wept to see his brothers, we read that Joseph "washed his faces" (plural). This is another instance where in the Hebrew language the plural noun functions as a singular noun with a singular meaning, unless, of course, Joseph was a multi-faced human being! The same occurs in Genesis 16:8 where Hagar flees from "the faces" (plural) of her mistress Sarah. These are "anomalies" of the Hebrew language that are clearly understood by Hebrew scholars who rightly translate to a singular form in English.

The better explanation is that the Hebrews used a form of speech called "the plural of majesty." Put simply this means that someone whose position was warrant of dignity was spoken in this way as giving a sign of honor. The plural acted as a means of intensification:

Elohim must rather be explained as an intensive plural, denoting greatness and majesty.

Whenever the word elohim refers to the God of Israel the Septuagint uses the singular and not the plural. From Genesis 1:1 consistently right through, this holds true. The Hebrews who translated their own scriptures into Greek simply had no idea that their God could be more than one individual, or a multiple personal Being! This is true too when we come to the New Testament. The New Testament nowhere hints at a plurality in the meaning of elohim when it reproduces references to the One God as ho theos, the One God.

How do you not know these things...

Whenever someone claims the Holy Scriptures are "nonsense" it shows that they do not have the Holy Spirit who gives UNDERSTANDING.

In the Beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God

 

[GISMYS_7]

John 14:9​

Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you so long, and you still do not know me, Philip? Whoever has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’?

 

[GISMYS_7]

Here is another direct quote from Jesus declaring Himself as being One with His FATHER and thus making Him God/Elohim/Plural

Jesus said to them, I am the WAY the TRUTH and the LIFE, no one comes to the FATHER but thru ME

Deuteronomy 6:1-9
Now this is the commandment, and these are the statutes and judgments which the Lord your God has commanded to teach you, that you may observe them in the land which you are crossing over to possess, 2that you may fear the Lord your God, to keep all His statutes and His commandments which I command you, you and your son and your grandson, all the days of your life, and that your days may be prolonged. 3Therefore hear, O Israel, and [a]be careful to observe it, that it may be well with you, and that you may multiply greatly as the Lord God of your fathers has promised you—‘a land flowing with milk and honey.’

4“Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one! 5You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your strength.

6“And these words which I command you today shall be in your heart. 7You shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, when you walk by the way, when you lie down, and when you rise up. 8You shall bind them as a sign on your hand, and they shall be as frontlets between your eyes. 9You shall write them on the doorposts of your house and on your gates.

John 14:9​

Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you so long, and you still do not know me, Philip? Whoever has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’?

 

[face2face]

I don't think there is a Trinitarian (or even a Binitarian) counterpoint to that one.

But is that the "single" truth that F2F suggests is the exclusive means to salvation? We can't know one way or the other just by reading the verse, because Rom. 10:9 portrays itself as a sufficient condition for salvation, but not a necessary one. And there are other Scriptural passages which might suggest alternative paths.

Red let me ask you something via this attachment (go easy on me please ) I already perceive fireworks with this post!!!

Disclaimer: While I can support the categorization of Saints/Sinners, Enlightened/Unenlightened, I recognize it is a nuanced topic that often leads to heated debates, such as those surrounding OSAS (Once Saved, Always Saved), which I will not to engage in here. However, I am interested in hearing your views on these categories. Does the belief in the Trinity automatically place someone in the Sinner/Unenlightened camp? Conversely, if Unitarianism is found to be false, does that place someone in the same camp? What is God's perspective on truth and its significance? Which truth is salvific?


I'll include @Wrangler and @APAK into this thread

Lets talk about the options and what qualifies each. Now you might disagree with the labels and I'm fine with that for the moment.

Lets discuss the sinners first.

"Sinners" are justified by faith through their response to the teaching that is given to them. Therefore, those who reject it must be accountable for why they rejected the Word, as stated in John 12:46-48.

Here is John 12:46-48 (ESV):

46 "I have come into the world as light, so that whoever believes in me may not remain in darkness.
47 If anyone hears my words and does not keep them, I do not judge him; for I did not come to judge the world but to save the world.
48 The one who rejects me and does not receive my words has a judge; the word that I have spoken will judge him on the last day."

Okay, so lets find agreement if we can.

V46: Light here refers to a complete understanding of the Gospel, which includes the "things concerning the Kingdom of God and the name of the Lord Jesus Christ" as seen in Acts 8:21.

V47: It is the Word of God that determines whether one is enlightened or unenlightened (remains in darkness).

V48: The implied consequence of rejecting Christ and His Word is judgment, suggesting that those who reject the Gospel will not enter the Kingdom of God.

Now lets talk about the Saints:

"Saints" are justified by their works (from faith), living according to the Word of God by faith. Therefore, they will be held accountable for the sacred Truth entrusted to them and must give an account of how they have used it. As a result, they will either be considered godly or ungodly based on their actions.

Revelation 20:12-13 (ESV):

"And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Then another book was opened, which is the book of life. And the dead were judged by what was written in the books, according to what they had done.
And the sea gave up the dead who were in it, Death and Hades gave up the dead who were in them, and they were judged, each one of them, according to what they had done."

"And if anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire." Rev 20:15

"But nothing unclean will ever enter it, nor anyone who does what is detestable or false, but only those who are written in the Lamb's book of life." Rev 21:27



F2F

 

[face2face]

Further to this above slide, consider the "unique" and "special" nature of the Elect, the Saints and how this group appear to be God's Special Treasure!

"Execute upon them the judgment written: this honor have all His saints. Praise ye the LORD." — Psalm 149:9

Verses 1-3: The saints come together, rejoicing in unity.
Verses 4-5: The reason for their joy is their salvation.
Verses 6-9: The honorable task of executing judgment is entrusted to them.

Psalm 149

A.1 Praise the LORD.
B. Sing a new song to the LORD, and praise Him in the congregation of His SAINTS.
C.2 Let Israel rejoice in the One who made them; let the children of Zion be joyful in their King.
3 Let them praise His name with dancing, and sing praises to Him with tambourine and harp.
D.4 For the LORD takes pleasure in His people; He will beautify the humble with salvation.
E.5 Let the saints rejoice in their glory; let them sing aloud upon their beds.
6 Let the high praises of God be in their mouths,
D’. and a two-edged sword in their hands,
7 to execute vengeance on the nations and punishments on the peoples.
C’.8 To bind their kings with chains, and their nobles with fetters of iron,
B’.9 To carry out the judgment written: this honor belongs to all His SAINTS.
A’. Praise the LORD.

So it's clear those who are saints are not pacifists. Jesus answered,

"My kingdom is not of this world; if it were, my servants would fight to prevent me from being handed over to the Jews. But as it is, my kingdom is not from here." — John 18:36

The saints will judge the world

Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unjust, and not before the saints? Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? and if the world shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters? 1 Corinthians 6:1-2

Most High

"This matter is by the decree of the watchers, and the decision by the word of the holy ones (saints), to the end that the living may know that the Most High rules the kingdom of men and gives it to whom He will, and sets over it the lowliest of men." — Daniel 4:17

(It's worthy of noting Jesus is not considered in the Word of God to be the Most High and I beleive most Trinitarians would consider it very difficult to prove)

The above is given to show how the Saints are those not only saved but proven to be useful to their Lord who will judge the Nations and bring about a New Heaven and New Earth on the Earth.

Clearly, someone holding erroneous or incorrect teaching would not be suitable for such a task. For example, if a person is convinced that heaven is their destination, only to discover that it is actually all on earth! or, if they realize that God is not three but One, and so on, how does God, through Christ, address the many inconsistencies found in the world—especially with the existence of thousands of denominations?

If I were to compile all the warnings from the Apostles about the importance of truth and contending earnestly for the faith—admonishing us not to let anyone deceive us, lest we fall short of the promises, salvation, and the Kingdom—it would be foolish to think that we shouldn't have a strong sense of urgency about "getting our faith" right. We should not simply rely on a commentary, pastor, minister, or anyone else to shape it for us.

The REWARD is too great to throw caution to the wind!

F2F