reply

Posted

print

favorite this post So called trinity proof texts explained hide this posting unhide

Let's take a closer look at all the verses that many use as so called trinity proof Scriptures and break them down, look at the context, and compare them with the rest of the Bible and a little historical research. Let's use our brains and a little reasoning as well. We'll take them one by one.

First Revelation 1:8

At Revelation 1:8 it is referring to Jehovah God, Jesus' Father and Creator, Almighty God.
Although the preceding verse speaks of Christ Jesus, it is clear that in verse 8 the application of the title is to "the Almighty" God. In this regard Barnes' Notes on the New Testament (1974) observes: "It cannot be absolutely certain that the writer meant to refer to the Lord Jesus specifically here . . . There is no real incongruity in supposing, also, that the writer here meant to refer to God as such."

Take a look at the context as well. All you have to do is look at Revelation 1:1 which clearly states a revelation by Jesus Christ which God gave him. Did he give it to himself? No his Father gave it to him and he in turn gave it to the Apostle John. Let's also look at more texts from Revelation. Chapter 3:21 "To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne." So here Jesus is speaking to those who would rule with him in heaven over the earth. Does that mean they become Almighty God too? Jesus says the same way he got to sit with his Father (Jehovah) on the throne so would they also. That's ludicrous to think, so the same in saying that Jesus is Almighty God.

And look at Revelation 3:14: "And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God;"

So again, here Jesus is speaking of himself and what does he say? That he was the beginning of the creation of God (Jehovah). Almighty God Jehovah had no beginning, he has always been, but Jesus, as he states himself, was the very first creation by his Father.

We could actually stop here, because it is obvious with just these few verses who Jesus Christ is in relation to his Father, but let's keep going.

John 10:33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.

Did Jesus claim to be God? No that is a false accusation by the Pharisees who were looking for any excuse to kill him. What did Jesus claim? All you have to do is look at the context. 3 verses down in verse 36 what does Jesus say? John 10: 36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?

Jesus only ever claimed to be the "son" of God, never did he say he was God.

1 Timothy 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

Here, we only have to do a little historical research. This verse is one of the many tranlation errors found in the King James Version. A look at the Alexandrine codex, which is an ancient manuscript much older than the ones the King James version translated from.

The Alexandrine reading of 1 Timothy 3:16 provoked much controversy when it was published. The King James Version here reads: "God was manifest in the flesh," in referring to Christ Jesus. But in this ancient codex, the contraction for "God," formed by two Greek letters "ΘC," appears originally to have read "ΟC," the word for "who." Obviously, this meant that Christ Jesus was not "God."

It took more than 200 years and the discovery of other older manuscripts to confirm the rendering "who" or "which" as being correct. Bruce M. Metzger in his Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament concludes: "No uncial (in the first hand) earlier than the eighth or ninth century . . . supports θεός [theosʹ]; all ancient versions presuppose ὅς or ὅ; and no patristic writer prior to the last third of the fourth century testifies to the reading θεός [theosʹ]." Today, most translations concur in omitting any reference to "God" in this text.

So a correct rendering of 1 Timothy 3:16 in reference to Jesus reads "Indeed, the sacred secret of this godly devotion is admittedly great: 'He was made manifest in flesh, was declared righteous in spirit, appeared to angels, was preached about among nations, was believed upon in the world, was received up in glory.'

See how easy that was. All we have to do is do a little digging and we find Spiritual truths.

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.

I don't understand how anyone can try to say this proves Jesus is God. It is simply a title. If the president sends troops to a foreign country to help them out the people of that country may say the president is with us. Does that make the troops the president? No, it simply means they are there on his behalf to render aid, thus it is like he is with them.

Some have claimed that by applying the name Immanuel to Jesus, the Bible teaches that Jesus is God. However, by this logic the young man Elihu, who comforted and corrected Job, was also God. Why? His name means "My God Is He."

Jesus never claimed to be God. (John 14:28; Philippians 2:5, 6) But he did reflect his Father's personality perfectly, and he fulfilled all of God's promises regarding the Messiah. (John 14:9; 2 Corinthians 1:20) The name Immanuel well describes Jesus' role as the Messianic Seed, a descendant of David, the one who proves that God is with those who worship Him.

John 20:28 And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.

Addressing the resurrected Jesus, the apostle Thomas exclaimed: "My Lord and my God!" (John 20:28) This and other accounts were "written down that [we] may believe that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God." And Thomas was not contradicting Jesus, who had sent His disciples the message: "I am ascending to . . . my God and your God." (John 20:17, 30, 31) So Thomas did not think that Jesus was Almighty God. Thomas may have addressed Jesus as "my God" in the sense of Christ's being "a god," though not "the only true God." (John 1:1; 17:1-3) Or by saying "my God," Thomas may have been acknowledging Jesus as God's Spokesman and Representative, even as others addressed an angelic messenger as though he were Jehovah God Himself.--Compare Genesis 18:1-5, 22-33; 31:11-13; 32:24-30; Judges 2:1-5; 6:11-15; 13:20-22.

Hebrews 1:8 But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom

However, NW reads: "But with reference to the Son: 'God is your throne forever and ever.'" (AT, Mo, TC, By convey the same idea.)

Which rendering is harmonious with the context? The preceding verses say that God is speaking, not that he is being addressed; and the following verse uses the expression "God, thy God," showing that the one addressed is not the Most High God but is a worshiper of that God. Hebrews 1:8 quotes from Psalm 45:6, which originally was addressed to a human king of Israel. Obviously, the Bible writer of this psalm did not think that this human king was Almighty God. Rather, Psalm 45:6, in RS, reads "Your divine throne." (NE says, "Your throne is like God's throne." JP [verse 7]: "Thy throne given of God.") Solomon, who was possibly the king originally addressed in Psalm 45, was said to sit "upon Jehovah's throne." (1 Chron. 29:23, NW) In harmony with the fact that God is the "throne," or Source and Upholder of Christ's kingship, Daniel 7:13, 14 and Luke 1:32 show that God confers such authority on him.

Hebrews 1:8, 9 quotes from Psalm 45:6, 7, concerning which the Bible scholar B. F. Westcott states: "The LXX. admits of two renderings: [ho theosʹ] can be taken as a vocative in both cases (Thy throne, O God, . . . therefore, O God, Thy God . . . ) or it can be taken as the subject (or the predicate) in the first case (God is Thy throne, or Thy throne is God . . . ), and in apposition to [ho theosʹ sou] in the second case (Therefore God, even Thy God . . . ). . . . It is scarcely possible that ['Elohimʹ] in the original can be addressed to the king. The presumption therefore is against the belief that [ho theosʹ] is a vocative in the LXX. Thus on the whole it seems best to adopt in the first clause the rendering: God is Thy throne (or, Thy throne is God), that is 'Thy kingdom is founded upon God, the immovable Rock.'"--The Epistle to the Hebrews (London, 1889), pp. 25, 26.

So here is another translation error found in the King James Version.

Colossians 2:9 KJ reads: "In him [Christ] dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead [Greek, theos] bodily." (A similar thought is conveyed by the renderings in NE, RS, JB, NAB, Dy.) However, NW reads: "It is in him that all the fullness of the divine quality dwells bodily." (AT, We, and CKW read "God's nature," instead of "Godhead." Compare 2 Peter 1:4.)

Admittedly, not everyone offers the same interpretation of Colossians 2:9. But what is in agreement with the rest of the inspired letter to the Colossians? Did Christ have in himself something that is his because he is God, part of a Trinity? Or is "the fullness" that dwells in him something that became his because of the decision of someone else? Colossians 1:19 (KJ, Dy) says that all fullness dwelt in Christ because it "pleased the Father" for this to be the case. NE says it was "by God's own choice."

Consider the immediate context of Colossians 2:9: In verse 8, readers are warned against being misled by those who advocate philosophy and human traditions. They are also told that in Christ "are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge" and are urged to "live in him" and to be "rooted and built up in him and established in the faith." (Verses 3, 6, 7) It is in him, and not in the originators or the teachers of human philosophy, that a certain precious "fulness" dwells. Was the apostle Paul there saying that the "fulness" that was in Christ made Christ God himself? Not according to Colossians 3:1, where Christ is said to be "seated at the right hand of God."--See KJ, Dy, TEV, NAB.

According to Liddell and Scott's Greek-English Lexicon, theos is derived) means "divinity, divine nature." (Oxford, 1968, p. 792) Being truly "divinity," or of "divine nature," does not make Jesus as the Son of God coequal and coeternal with the Father, any more than the fact that all humans share "humanity" or "human nature" makes them coequal or all the same age.

See how context, research and reasoning work here?

Mark 2:5-7 is simply another instance of the Pharisees falsely accusing Jesus. For the explanation see above concerning John 10:33

To teach lies about Jesus Christ and his Father Jehovah makes one an antichrist. However, some will still argue and disagree even with the clear Scriptures directly from the Bible shown to them. Why? 2 Cor. 4:4 says that Satan blinds the minds of people. We have to worship God with truth, otherwise our worship is in vain. (John 4:24) Taking in accurate knowledge involves our very lives. (John 17:3) It's not enough to say we believe if we don't believe the truth found in God's Word. (Matthew 7:21-23) If you would like a free pdf copy of the book entitled "What Does The Bible Really Teach?" just send me an email.
  • do NOT contact me with unsolicited services or offers

post id: 5981517224

posted:

updated:

best of [?]