6 "Trinitarian" Scriptures Considered - Sir Anthony Buzzard and J. Dan Gill

[@neweyz3396]

Thanks for bringing this to the table Anthony & J. Dan ! It’s Amazing loved it all ! Blessings to you both ! ❤😊

[@MichaelTheophilus906]

Thank you, brothers. God bless you.

[@juniormonteiro6323]

Thank you!

[@ArtorGrael]

Greek teachers I have asked say something else about Heb. 1:8, that the "O" there is not O or oh in English but the Greek definite article O And Hebrew teachers I have asked tell me that the translation of Psalm 45 should be "Your throne of God" or "Your divine throne".

[@leenieledejo6849]

Amen. And "God the Father" should be translated as "Father God". ["God the Father" helps to imply - insidiously - that there's a "God the Son", which appears in some liturgies and prayers but is *NOT*, of course, anywhere in the Bible!].

[@NickHawaii]

Biblical Koine scholar Jason BeDuhn. In his book, "Truth in Translation: Accuracy and Bias in English Translations of the New Testament,” which I read twice and recommend said this in his book in Chapter 9: An Uncertain Throne. This chapter demonstrates the uncertainty of translating a Greek sentence which does not require a verb into an English sentence which requires the verb. In the case of Hebrews 1:8, the translator's placement of the verb "is" will change the meaning of the sentence. BeDuhn says: “In Greek, the verb "is" often is omitted as unnecessary. There are other elements in a Greek sentence, such as noun cases, that usually allow the sentence to be understood even without a simple verb like "is." Since it is implied, it does not need to be said explicitly. When we translate from Greek into English, however, we supply the implied verb. . . . The problem in Hebrew 1:8 is that we are not sure where the verb "is" belongs in the sentence, and where it belongs makes a big difference in the meaning of the verse. . . . In Hebrews 1:8, we have two nouns in the nominative form: "throne" and "God." The verb "is" might go between the two nouns, as it does in dozens of cases of saying "x is y" in the New Testament. If that is so, then the sentence reads: "Your throne is God, forever and ever." This is the way the sentence is read by the translators of the NWT. . . . But there is another possible way to translate Hebrews 1:8. The phrase ho theos is sometimes used to say "O God" in Greek. . . . In [Hebrews 10:7], "O God" [was translated from] ho theos. So it is obvious that the author of [Hebrews] can use ho theos to mean "O God." At the same time, the same author uses ho theos dozens of time to mean "God," the usual meaning of the phrase. These facts make it very hard for us to know which way to translate this phrase in Hebrews 1:8. . . . But the translators of most of the versions we are comparing have chosen the rarer, less probable way to translate ho theos. By taking it to mean "O God," and by putting "is" after the two nouns ("throne" and "God") and before the prepositional phrase "forever and ever," they read the verse as, "Your throne, O God, is forever and ever." . . . In my opinion, the NRSV, TEV, and NWT have done the right thing by informing their readers that there are two ways the verse can and has been translated. (p. 97-99)” (unquote) There is no doubt about it, in this passage the theology of the translator is the decisive factor in translating. Since in Hebrews 1:8 there are no verbs in this sentence so it is not certain where "is," (the verb in this case), belongs in the sentence. In Professor Jason BeDuhn's book, "Truth in Translation," he explains how most Bible translations are made for people who already believe Jesus is God so that the less probable way of translating this verse has been preferred. Why does he say, "less probable?" He didn't say "not possible," but less likely. He demonstrates that many Bible translators of most of the versions he compares have chosen the rarer, less probable way to translate, "ho theos." He points out that "ho theos," is sometimes used to say "O God," in Greek. However he proves that "ho theos," usually means "God," and there are hundreds of examples of this. It is more probable that in Hebrews 1:8, "ho theos," means "God." "Ho theos," can and has been translated hundreds of times throughout the NT. Only 3 other times "O God," makes its way in the translation. In Hebrews the expression, "O God," never is used elsewhere.

[@andrewsmall3190]

In regard to his preexisting (or not) how do you see John 17:5 ?

[@simonline1194]

@@andrewsmall3190 Jn.17:5 is the Messiah (as Divine (and human?)) addressing His Father and asking His Father to glorify Him (the Messiah - Divine and human) with the glory which They (as Divine) shared together before the Creation of the world (i.e. in Eternity Past). Simonline 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿🤔🙏😀👍🇮🇱

[@RalphHumphries-th1ym]

That's right, one means one, not 3, John 17:3 this is eternal life that they may know you the only true God and Jesus Christ who you sent

[@AnHebrewChild]

You fellas fancy yourself as brave to question church tradition, but seem to be quoting a whole lot of John. John 1, John 4, John 5, John 8, John 17 "John" Anyone want to actually question church tradition? Or are we just playing games? "John" Matthew's Jesus warned of tares being sown among the good wheat. > < Take heed, he says in 'Mark' (penned by Simon Peter) Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the leaven of Herod. If we're going to really test church dogma & tradition, how about we quit playing games, and really get on with it.

[@Monsy77]

📌 Lord Jesus Christ confirmed His teachings through the **Word of God** and the **Spirit of God**. In contrast, some theological perspectives, such as the doctrine of the Trinity, are built upon interpretations of certain scriptures, even if those interpretations are unclear or seemingly contradict what **Yahweh God our Heavenly Father** spoke through **Moses** and **Lord Jesus Christ**. For these views, reliance on particular verses from John, Paul, or even later revelations can suffice, sometimes without the need for further validation. However, **Lord Jesus Christ** emphasized the importance of having more than one witness to confirm the truth: 📌 **“It is written in your Law that when two witnesses agree, what they say is true. I testify on my own behalf, and the Father who sent me also testifies on my behalf.”** - John 8:17-18 (GNTD) 📌 **“And Jesus explained to them what was said about himself in all the Scriptures, beginning with the books of Moses and the writings of all the prophets.”** - Luke 24:27 (GNTD) It is essential to examine this matter by strictly adhering to what Scripture reveals. ### **John 1:1**: - "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." This passage does not suggest that there are two Gods. Rather, it underscores the relationship between **the Word** and **God**. The Word is understood as the **spoken Word of Yahweh**, personified in various ways throughout the Bible-particularly in the context of creation (Psalm 33:6) and prophecy (Hebrews 1:1-2). Yahweh brought all things into existence through His Word, and **Jesus Christ** is the ultimate revelation of that Word, as foretold in **Deuteronomy 18:18-19** and **Acts 3:22-23**, where Yahweh speaks through His Son. ### **1 Corinthians 2:11**: - "For who among men knows the things of a man except the spirit of the man, which is in him? Even so, no one knows the things of God except the Spirit of God." Here, **the spirit of man** is compared to **the Spirit of God**. Just as a man’s spirit is a part of him and understands him, so too is the Spirit of God part of God and knows Him. This verse does not indicate that the Spirit is a separate being with a distinct personality. Rather, the **Spirit of God** is consistently portrayed as God's **active presence** or power in the world, much like how a person’s spirit represents their mind, will, or inner self. ### The Idea of **Three Distinct Personalities**: The Bible does not describe the **Holy Spirit** as having a distinct personality apart from **God the Father**. Instead, the Spirit is often described as God's **power** at work in creation and among His people (Acts 2:17-18, Romans 8:9-11). **Jesus Christ** is shown to come in the name and authority of **the Father** (John 17:6-8), and His disciples are sent in **Jesus’ name** (John 17:18), emphasizing a unity of purpose rather than distinct personalities. ### **One God**: Both the Old Testament and the New Testament firmly declare that there is **one God** (Deuteronomy 6:4, Mark 12:29). Jesus affirmed this truth in **John 17:3**, when He called **the Father the only true God**. Scripture never mentions three persons or beings within one God. Instead, it consistently presents **Jesus Christ** as the **Messiah**, who points to Yahweh, the **Father**, as the sole source of authority and life. ### Conclusion: The analogy of a human being consisting of **spirit, soul, and body** does not adequately explain the Trinity and is not explicitly supported by Scripture. Although humans are complex, the Bible does not teach that God is made up of three distinct personalities. Rather, **God is one**-and **Jesus Christ** is His Son, sent to reveal and fulfill His will (John 5:30, 1 Corinthians 15:24-28). The **Trinity** is a theological concept developed later in Church history and given a name, but the Bible itself does not describe God in this manner. Instead of applying human terms to God’s nature, it is essential to rely on the clear teachings of **Yahweh God** and **Lord Jesus Christ**, which affirm that **God is one**, and that **Jesus Christ** is the **Messiah** through whom God has spoken in these final days.

[@kardiognostesministries8150]

Matthew 28:19 teaches the Trinity.

[@Psalm-pu2jq]

@@kardiognostesministries8150 Actually Matthew 28.19 does not teach the Trinity. We know there is the Father who alone is the only true God and Jesus who is the only true Messiah (John 17:3). We also know that there is the Holy Spirit which is not a person separate from the Father but is the Father's own spirit (Matthew 10:20) - it the Father himself is motion touching his people and moving on the earth. The Trinity goes beyond what Matthew 28:19 says and beyond the Bible overall by declaring these are three persons who are equally God, co-powerful, co-eternal, etc.. It is that Trinitarian formula about God that is not a part of Matthew 28:19 or any other verse in the Bible. Blessings.

[@kardiognostesministries8150]

@@Psalm-pu2jq One singular Name encompasses all three.

[@sczoot6285]

@@kardiognostesministries8150No, it simply does not. It is a name representative of our Father in heaven, the creator of our universe.

[@kardiognostesministries8150]

@@sczoot6285 It's not just representative of the Father. It is used in EQUALITY with the Father. Notice the definite article ("the") appears before all three....in EQUALITY.

[@roddy3534]

good video the more i studied the more i realized how wrong i have been about many things.

[@simonline1194]

…but not about your faith in God as Tri-Personal - Father, Son and Holy Spirit. You’re committing a grave error in rejecting the Divine revelation that is Scripture (2Tim.2:15) in favour of the rationalized teachings of men (nay, doctrines of demons)?! 🤦‍♂️ Simonline 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿🤔🙏😀👍🇮🇱

[@roddy3534]

@@simonline1194 funny you say doctrines of men because that is exactly what the trinity is made by men at the council of Nicaea in the 3rd century by defining the term homeostasis as a substance. The trinity is man made philosophical belief in a triune God. None which is in scripture along with the word trinity not being used in scripture at all. The word God or Elohim doesn’t mean the most high but is also referring to angels and even false Elohims or gods at times. So learn definitions of words and define what God means.

[@simonline1194]

@@roddy3534 Obviously, you’re completely ignoring what God has revealed through the Scriptures (some of which I have mentioned in my posts) in favour of your own theological presuppositions?! You are clearly in denial about what God has actually revealed about Himself throughout the Scriptures (both Old and New Testaments). Since you are not interested in arriving at the truth (wherever it might lead) then there is no point in continuing this conversation? For the record, I am aware of the fact that the Hebrew term elohim refers to Divine beings without necessarily referring to YHWH. Elohim does not mean a specific set of Divine attributes. It simply refers to a being who exists in the spirit as distinct from the physical realm. The very fact that YHWH commands Israel to have no other elohim but Him means there MUST be other elohim apart from YHWH or YHWH is an idiot for commanding Israel not to worship other gods that don’t actually objectively exist anyway?! 🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️ Good day to you. Simonline 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿🤔🙏🇮🇱

[@roddy3534]

@@simonline1194 lol good day

[@NickHawaii]

@@simonline1194 If you can produce even one scripture that tells me that I must believe in the trinitarian God that God is three persons in one being I will sit next to you in church on Sunday. Where does it say that I must for salvation as well. What are we to confess about Jesus for salvation? What does the Bible really say?

[@jiohdi]

They confuse Source with means

[@simonline1194]

This is manifestly incorrect. John unequivocally declares that in the Beginning was the Word, the Word was not only WITH GOD (the Father) but actually WAS GOD (the Son). In other words, the Second Person of the One Tri-Personal Divine Creator, YHWH (the Son) is the son of the First Person of the One Tri-Personal Divine Creator, YHWH (the Father) but He is NOT ‘God’s son’ ?! 🤦‍♂️ He is YHWH Himself, otherwise Matthew is wrong in declaring the Messiah to be Emmanuel - God with us [NOT ‘God’s son’ with us] (Matt.1:22-23). It is John who declares that the Word [the Second Person of the One Tri-Personal Divine Creator, YHWH] has incarnated as the Messiah [i.e. Emmanuel - God with us (Matt.1:22-23)] (Jn.1:14) The Messiah is NOT a regular (and therefore, as a descendent of Adam, by definition, sinful (Rom.3:23; 1Cor.15:22)) human creature?! 🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️ No! The Messiah is YHWH Himself (Jn.1:1) incarnate as Jesus of Nazareth and comparing the Messiah with Moses (Ex.7:1) is nothing short of disingenuous?! 😡 The Angel of the Lord (Gen.16:7-14; 22:11-18) is also the Word of God [the Second Person of the One Tri-Personal Divine Creator, YHWH] since He speaks in the first Person with the authority of God Himself (‘because you have not withheld from ME (not from the LORD or from the Father) your only son’) which is why we never hear of the Angel of the Lord post Incarnation?! 🤔 Simonline 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿🤔🙏😀👍🇮🇱😂

[@emchristian4793]

You added "(... the Son)" - this is no where I'm the bible. You are incorrect because John tells us at the end of the gospel that all these things were written so that we !any believe he is the Son of God, not God. The conclusion can not contradict the introduction so you need to revise your understanding

[@NickHawaii]

Jehovah is the unbegotten God, the God. The Most High. Jesus is the Son of the Highest. (Psalm 83:18; Luke 1:32) Jesus is an only-begotten god as seen in John 1:18. On Matthew 1:23 I kept this quote from a respected trinitarian Murray Harris, author of “Jesus As God” said this in “The New Testament Use of in Reference to Jesus,” while examining in detail Matthew 1:23. He drew this conclusion: “There are therefore strong reasons for believing that…in Jesus God is present to bring salvation to his people rather than Jesus, as {ho theos}, is personally present with his people. Matthew is not say, “Someone who is ‘God’ is now physically with us,” but “God” is acting on our behalf in the person of Jesus.” (pg. 258) It doesn’t mean or prove what you think.

[@silveriorebelo2920]

total BS commentary... so, jesus is the pre4-existing Word og God, who created the umniverse, but he is merely someone who 'perfectly' represents God... yeah, of course

[@thomaspayne3347]

To understand the New Testament? One must compare to the Old Testament/ TaNaK. The term I am is said to come from the Old Testament chapter 6 of the book of Exodus/ Shemot, which actually means Names. Where the messenger of the Almighty informs us that HE/ the Father is: e’hayah asher e’hayah. Bible tradition in translation, translates this as; ‘ I am that I am ‘ But actually, properly is translated as; I exist therefore I exist. As in self existence. And this in accordance to the Strong’s, Brigg’s and Drivers, the Young’s, and Mounce dictionary’s. With no reference to ‘ I am that I am ‘ to be found anywhere. Just as when Paul says; I am, in reference to himself. Isn’t referring to himself as the Almighty. So it is with the Messiah. The Messiah said; Of myself I can do nothing. I only do as I see my Father in heaven doing. And say what I hear my Father in heaven saying. In Matthew chapter 28:18 it is written; All authority has been given unto me in heaven and on earth. And this, he said after he had risen and just before his Ascension. Some forty days after his resurrection. One must therefore ask? Who gave him his authority, if not his Father and Sovereign of all that exists, seen and unseen. The Almighty. So who is this Yahshua/ Jesus? He is in fact the only begotten Son of the Most High. There are two verses that point to a Trinity? Matthew 28:19 and 1 John 5:7,8. However both have been proven to be addendum‘s. As in the case of 1John 5:7,8 dose not exist in any Greek manuscripts before the 16th century. Nor in any Latin manuscripts before the 9th century. Nor in the Aramaic, Syriac, or any other language before the 8th century. And in the case of Matthew 28:19? Pamphyliaus, ReBaptistmate, as well as the early Church historian Eusebius of Caesarea had in their possession an original manuscript of the Hebrew Mattiyahu/ Matthew which was passed down in a line of succession from a Disciple of the Apostle Peter, Irunius. Eusebius inherited this manuscript and from it edited and corrected the Latin translation that had been written by Tertrullian in 180-200 AD/ CE. And amongst the most Grevious error that he corrected was that of the Matthew 28:19 addendum. And their are five other witnesses who quoted this as well. According to the Hebrew manuscript dated to 50AD/ CE The translation reads as follows: Go and make taught ones/ Disciples of all nations in My name. Teaching them all that I have commanded, and henna/ behold! I am with you even unto the consummation of the age. I pray that you have found this to be of some help in understanding how, in a few places man has dared to add to the word of the Most High! Shalom friends

[@simonline1194]

@@thomaspayne3347 No. You are NOT correct. YHWH Exists as Tri-Personal [Father, Son and Holy Spirit]. The Second Person of the Trinity [the Son] is the son of the First Person of the Trinity [the Father] but He is NOT ‘God’s son’ or even the Son of God 🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️ He is God Himself. In the Beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God (Jn.1:1) and the Word incarnated as human and lived among us and we witnessed His glory, the glory of the One and Only, full of Grace and Truth (Jn.1:14) This is why the Messiah is called Emmanuel - God with us (Matt.1:22-23). The Incarnation is human, not Divine but the One Who incarnated is Divine, not human. The Messiah [the Son] is BOTH Divine Creator AND human creature. The Messiah says and does things that can only be ascribed to the Divine Creator and not to any human creature. Jesus of Nazareth is no more Divine than YHWH is human but the Messiah is BOTH Divine Creator AND human creature. The Great Commission also includes the command to baptize the disciples in the Name (singular) of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit a reference to the Tri-Personal Nature of the One True God (which you have conveniently omitted, which strongly indicates that you have an agenda)? Simonline 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿🤔🙏😀👍🇮🇱

[@thomaspayne3347]

@@simonline1194 Dear Simon, If you would? Please go back and read what I wrote in its entirety. As I devoted my last section to Matthew 28:19. As well as 1John 5:7,8. To include my findings. In a most abbreviated form, as my findings take up some, over 20 pages. But I gave a summary . And invite you to start digging? And like the Bornean’s, see if these things are so? I did not come to this conclusion lightly. Nor did I follow the dogma’s of the Churches. I have been on a quest for the truth? Not my truth, but that that comes from on high. I am not attempting to convince anyone. As no one comes to the truth? Except that is guided from above. I will be glad to share more of my findings, if you desire? But won’t waste our time, if you do not. I started this journey back when my son and his family were killed by a drunk driver, in the hopes of making sense out of their demise. There after reading the preface. Found that the Almighty had a name. But, following the dogma’s of Judaism? The translators decided to replace the most set-apart and revert name with the title LORD. Some 6,827 times. And As far as Matthew 28:19 went? I looked up in my Strong’s concordance the word baptizing. But only found one reference? Then I looked up the word baptize? And found 37 references, contained within 33 verse’s. And of these 7 verses towit either gave the name, or direct inference to whom we are to be baptized in. And My findings were unanimous. As there is but one name under heaven by which we shall be saved? Yahshua haMashiach/ Jesus the Christ. And knowing that a matter is established by two or three witnesses. I began my journey to discover why Matthew 28:19 appeared to be in contradiction to the other witnesses/ 7 verses. So, do I have an agenda? I suppose you could say… yes. But it’s not as you think? I am attempting to separated the wheat from the proverbial chaff, so to speak. As far as the things added to and taken from the word of the Father. And disseminate my findings to those who have eyes to see and ears to hear. For it is the truth that will set us free. The Scriptures tell us, time and time again. Who can measure the Almighty? Or reason HIS understanding? HIS wisdom is to us as far as the East is from the West. And We are not to add to HIS word, least HE rebuked us and we be found to be lier’s. As a matter of fact, go to Proverbs 30:2 thru 6. I believe, and you will see who the Father and Son are in accord to their relationship? Blessings to you and your journey. Shalom friend, from a sinner in need of deliverance.

[@Rixster53]

“For there are three that bear record in heaven the Father, the Word and the Holy Ghost: and these THREE ARE ONE” Otherwise known as the Godhead…And for those of you that believe that the Johanine Comma does not belong in the bible, try Colossians 2:9 on for size “For IN HIM dwelleth ALL the FULNESS of the GODHEAD bodily”! The “him” in that verse is none other than the LORD Jesus Christ! He is GOD manifest in the flesh (see l Timothy 3:16) The devils Jesus encountered KNEW who he was…Mark 1:24 “The HOLY ONE of God” Furthermore, the man with the legion of devils in Mark 5 ran to Jesus and “worshiped” him…if that isn’t enough, he could forgive sins! see Mark 2:3-12 !!! Ye MUST be born again to “get it”! If you don’t understand the nature of the Lord you are no different than the Jews that called Jesus Christ a blasphemer because he claimed he could forgive sins. He could and DID forgive that mans sins because he IS a member of the triune”Godhead”!!!

[@JudyAnn17]

That is an added text. Not found in the original manuscript. Adam Clarke on 1John 1:7 Jesus is the SON of the great God. Jesus is in the image of God. Michael =one who is LIKE God. Jesus is called the prince of Heaven. The Father is never called the Prince of Heaven. The Father calls his Son an Angel who can forgive sin. His name is in his Son. Ex. 23:21-25. God the Father is not once called an Angel =Messenger) or does he take the Son name. God the Father is the one true God (John 17:3) why ? Because the Father “only” is the true source of everything thing, including his only begotten Son. God the Father is One, not three. The doctrine of Jesus is BOTH, Father and Son. Biblical. The trinity doctrine is three. Not Biblical. The Catholics asks the protestant churches why they claim the bible is their only creed but they dogmatically hold to the trinity which there is not biblical evidence for it in the OT or NT. It’s their own doctrine and belongs to them only. Same with Sunday sabbath another counterfeit of the true Sabbath on the 7th day and not the 1st day.

[@Rixster53]

@@JudyAnn17Wrong again Ma’m! When people cite the “originals” or “original” autographs it’s very clear they are either mis-informed or lying! We don’t have the original texts, they are long gone! I do agree on the Sabbath point though. Sunday Sabbath is a RC invention. However to be clear a new testament Christian does not have to “observe” the Sabbath as it is exclusive to Israel and the Jews! As a matter of fact it is a SIGN between The Lord and the Jewish people!!! Exodus 31:16-17 “the CHILDREN OF ISRAEL shall keep the sabbath”!!! Colossians 2:16-17 Can’t judge a brother in Christ over observing days or not…

[@JudyAnn17]

@@Rixster53 what “name only” did the disciples of Jesus baptized in? Give me every single text.

[@JudyAnn17]

@@Rixster53 don’t get the feast days mixed with the 7th day Sabbath set up at creation! Revelation 14:12 we find a remnant who are obeying God the Father’s Royal law. Remember the 7 th day Sabbath. You forgot 😉

[@Rixster53]

⁠@@JudyAnn17Nope, not forgetting anything! Moving on, Christ has rededeemed is from the “curse” of the law being made a curse for us. And…For Christ is the END of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth!Rom.10:1-4! And lest you forget Galatians 2:16 “Knowing that a man is NOT justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ and NOT BY the WORKS of the law: for by the WORKS of the law shall NO flesh be justified.” We who are saved/born again have the righteousness of God, not the filthy rags of our own self righteousness. Ii Cor. 5;21 makes that clear…

[@marekpala6442]

Amen brothers

[@SimplyAwesomeOriginal]

Are you tired of real problems? Then just use "God" - with the 'G' in uppercase and quotes for the word - on the following verses that have "God" as a descriptor. Exodus 4:16, Exodus 7:1, John 1:1c, John 10:33, John 20:28, Hebrews 1:8, 2 Peter 1:1, Psalms 45:6, Psalms 82. Then like magic, this goes away. 🤷 To make yourself happy, add comments to the footnotes, commentary, appendix, book intros... that there isn't a definite nor indefinite article or whatever. Then again, maybe you enjoy NOT addressing real problems.

[@NickHawaii]

What point were you trying to make with 2 Peter 2:1? Thanks

[@SimplyAwesomeOriginal]

@@NickHawaii My bad; I meant to say 2 Peter 1:1 instead of 2 Peter 2:1. Sincerely, many many thanks for highlighting the error. Now, I just updated the original post. Hopefully it would be of help. +++ As an aside, I was frustrated with what appears to be the umpteenth time a subtle apologetics video about misleading texts of main stream bible translations, again! I get that different ministries have different jobs... And as boring as my "elbow" is, its simple job is critical and would be missed dearly if it didn't function... Then again, maybe it's not that boring... Nevertheless, my focus was on other "problems" that might require a "conversation to solve". So why waste time talking about "solved problems"?!

[@NickHawaii]

@@SimplyAwesomeOriginal oh I see. Thought that was probably it. 2 Peter 1:1 cannot be determined by grammar but theology. Definitely 2 persons can be seen in view not just one. As can be seen in the very next verse. Verse 2.

[@efstratiosfilis2290]

Mark was the original gospel & people should read that one first of all. John's gospel was the last one to be written.

[@simonline1194]

That makes no difference whatsoever?! The whole of Scripture is the Word of God (2Tim.3:16-17; Heb.4:12-13) and if it is the revelation of the Eternal and Immutable Divine Creator, YHWH, Who alone is Truth (Jn.14:6), then it really doesn’t matter which gospel was written first or how they are ordered in what we now know as the gospels within the New Testament?! 🤦‍♂️ You really are grasping at straws. Simonline 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿🤔🙏😀👍🇮🇱

[@efstratiosfilis2290]

@@simonline1194 You are the ones grasping at straws, Simon. When & where did Jesus say that he is the same as the Father?

[@NickHawaii]

I accept the entire gospel. Not just one or cherry picking. They compliment one another. And some speak of accounts that happened that others don’t. Happy we have all of them to study as the inspired Word of Jehovah.

[@kardiognostesministries8150]

1:54 The thing is every example from the OT when "my God" is used by a believer it is ALWAYS in reference to the Almighty. That Thomas would do so in reference to the Lord Jesus demonstrates Jesus is the Almighty.

[@pmac_]

Jesus doesn't agree. He says: But now ye seek to kill me, *a man that hath told you the truth* , which I have heard *of God* : this did not Abraham (John 8:40).

[@kardiognostesministries8150]

@@pmac_ A total dodge of John 20:28. This isn't surprising.

[@pmac_]

@@kardiognostesministries8150 Thomas didn't say "My Lord *is* my God". He said "My Lord *and* my God". Two persons recieving his thanks and praise. Do you really think Thomas, a Jew, believed in a doctrine not invented yet? Thomas and Jesus believed in the Shema, as Jesus said; "Hear O Israel the LORD *OUR* God is one Lord" (one person).

[@kardiognostesministries8150]

@@pmac_ When "our Lord and our God" is used in Revelation 4:11 does that also apply to two as well?

[@simonline1194]

No! Jesus of Nazareth is NOT the Almighty! 🤦‍♂️ YHWH ALONE IS the Almighty and the Messiah is the human incarnation of the Almighy. Jesus of Nazareth is no more Divine (Jn.1:14; Jn.14:28; Heb.2:17) than YHWH is human (Num.23:19) but the Messiah is BOTH Divine Creator [YHWH] AND human creature [Jesus of Nazareth]. In other words, Jesus of Nazareth IS the Messiah but there is (quite literally) infinitely more to the Messiah than just the human creature, Jesus of Nazareth. Simonline 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿🤔🙏😀👍🇮🇱

[@Sketchup-fe6ef]

It is worth noting that the phrase "O God" is talking about the "O most might one" in Psa 45:3 which is talking about messiah not God. Psa 45:3 Gird thy sword upon thy thigh, O most mighty, with thy glory and thy majesty. Psa 45:4 And in thy majesty ride prosperously because of truth and meekness and righteousness; and thy right hand shall teach thee terrible things. Psa 45:5 Thine arrows are sharp in the heart of the king's enemies; whereby the people fall under thee. Psa 45:6 Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: the sceptre of thy kingdom is a right sceptre.

[@simonline1194]

And how in God’s name does any of this relate to YHWH, Who is Spirit (Jn.4:24) unless it is speaking prophetically of YHWH incarnate as the Messiah on the great and terrible Day of the Lord (Dan.7: 13-14)?! How does one like a son of man [i.e. the Messiah (whom Daniel is seeing prophetically on the Day of the LORD)] ride the clouds of Heaven unless He is YHWH Himself, since only YHWH (NOT Ba’al) is the cloud rider?! 🤔 Simonline 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿🤔🙏😀👍🇮🇱

[@Sketchup-fe6ef]

@@simonline1194 When God judged Egypt he did so through Moses, when God will judge the earth he will do so through the man Christ Jesus. That day will be the great and terrible day of the Lord. When he sends Jesus in the clouds. We will not see God but only the glory of God.

[@NickHawaii]

@@simonline1194 Are there any others coming with Jesus? Are they God too or part of a trinity?? (Matthew 16:27; Matthew 25:31; Mark 8:38)

[@anthonybardsley4985]

There is one God.. Not 3.. When did God become a father.. Ans after creation.. God is incarnate ( persona) in jesus christ it's the revelation of himself in human form.

[@simonline1194]

If you think God can ‘become’ anything then you haven’t understood God. The One Divine Creator, YHWH (Ex.3:14; Isa.43:11) Exists as Tri-Personal - Father, Son and Holy Spirit. As such, YHWH is Infinite, Eternal, Immutable, Omnipotent, Omniscient and Omnipresent. God has NEVER become a Father, NEVER become a Son or EVER become the Holy Spirit because He has ALWAYS Existed as Father, ALWAYS Existed as Son and ALWAYS Existed as Holy Spirit. At NO point has God EVER Existed as Father without the Son, as Son without the Father or as Holy Spirit without either the Father or the Son?! 🤦‍♂️ The Son Exists because the Father Exists. The Father CANNOT Exist without the Son. They come as a pair (as triplets actually) because YHWH Exists (and has ALWAYS Existed) as Immutably Tri-Personal. Simonline 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿🤔🙏😀👍🇮🇱

[@dlbard1]

I reads that there are 3 witnesses not 3 makes 1 God. Your reading comprehension needs help. Book chapter and verse where it states that God is made of 3 beings or persons.

[@simonline1194]

For the record, the Messiah is NOT ‘God’s son’?! 🤦‍♂️ He is YHWH Himself. John explicitly declares that “In the Beginning was the Word, and the Word was WITH GOD [the Father] and WAS GOD [the Son] (Jn.1:1) and the Word [YHWH] has incarnated as the Messiah - Jesus of Nazareth (the human incarnation of YHWH). Matthew confirms this by declaring that the Messiah is called Emmanuel - God with us (Matt.1:21-23) NOT ‘God’s son with us’?! 🤦‍♂️ Simonline 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿🤔🙏😀👍🇮🇱

[@emchristian4793]

Spouting out incoherent and incorrect statements repeatedly do not help or strengthen your case

[@NickHawaii]

If Jesus was YHWH himself wouldn’t that make Jesus the God of Abraham, Issac and Jacob? (Exodus 6:3) Yet what is Jesus called in Acts 3:13? Is he called the God of Abraham, Issac and Jacob or rather…his servant?

[@emchristian4793]

@@NickHawaii logic and common sense escapes people when reading the bible but they'd do well on an English language test not based on the bible. It's very strange

[@NickHawaii]

@@emchristian4793 They have to invent new definitions of words. Like firstborn. True one can be placed in that position but it means one who is born first. And a person and being are different things to them. A human being is a person Lots of word magic.

[@NickHawaii]

Please explain who is “me” in Isaiah 61:1? Does the Bible say Jesus the Son was anointed by his God? Who might YHWH be in Isaiah 61:1? Your turn.