Top 10 Trinitarian Mistranslations In The New Testament (Part 2)

[@loufonz8679]

That’s why it’s paramount to learn and understand the biblical languages and it’s grammar of time and context. For every denomination or sect there’s always a specific translation to fit the narratives. This video is Awesome!!! 👏

[@biblicalunitarian]

Thanks so much!

[@aaronsanchez3141]

Absolutely. Christian denominations only teach what they want you to think and dangerously use the bible to support their teachings

[@SonOfGodByNewBirthInChrist]

No matter how you read John, Paul or Peter we must hold the words of Jesus Christ above all. He said His God was our God. Jn 20:17 He said the Father is the only true God. Jn 17:3 He said he told us the truth he heard from God. Jn 8:40 People looking to use obscure passages to contradict Jesus Christ are really trying to ignore the words of Jesus by which we will be judged. Jn 12:48

[@MarvelNot]

"No matter how you read John, Paul or Peter we must hold the words of Jesus Christ above all." Think about the implications of this... While I agree with your aim here (to proclaim the truth that Jesus Christ _has_ a God whom he calls "the only true God," etc.) people throw this idea a lot (that the words in red are somehow "more true" or "better" than the words in black), but if this is true then that means the rest of Scripture is not equally from God. Peter agreed with Jesus on these things: Acts 2:22, 2:36, 3:13, 4:26-27, 10:28, 1 Pet. 1:3, etc. Paul agreed with Jesus on these things: Rom. 15:6, 1 Cor. 3:23, 11:33, 2 Cor. 1:3, 11:31, Eph. 1:3, 1:17, Col. 1:3, etc. God spoke through those men just as God spoke through the men who wrote down what Jesus had said.

[@SonOfGodByNewBirthInChrist]

@@MarvelNot My point is that the men who try to use the Apostles writings to ignore Jesus’ words are the problem.

[@henryodera5726]

​​@@MarvelNotI get where you're coming from, but you're also assuming something and forgetting something: 1. Assumption: Many people who think of the bible as being inspired tend to view the authors basically as megaphones that God spoke through. You know, because a megaphone has no personality or preferences of its own, and only repeats word for word exactly what the one who's holding it says and says nothing else. But no. The authors did have preferences and personalities. Even the things that they chose to dwell on the most were influenced to some degree by their individual personalities and experiences. So for example, Paul's "obsession" with grace in his writings has a lot to do with the manner of his own salvation. He wasn't attending a service or doing a salvation prayer when God chose him in Christ. He was actually on his way to Damascus to do you know what. So it's not a coincidence that he "obsesses" over grace as the means of salvation, whereas Peter is saying in Acts that God gives the Holy Spirit to those who obey Him (Acts 5:32), or accepts those who fear Him and work righteousness (Acts 10:34-35). 2. What you forgot: Following up on the first point, the apostles did tend to speak or write down what they considered to be their own thoughts in addition to what they had been taught or had received from Jesus. The best example of this is 1 Corinthians 7:10,12,25. Now, I'm not saying that Paul's own instructions or commandments in two of those verses weren't inspired. I'm just saying that from Paul's perspective, he wasn't passing on something that he had received, but speaking what he thought was right. So if Paul can make a distinction between what he thinks is right and what Jesus actually commanded, we who have come to believe through the words that he wrote down among others, cannot say that there's no distinction. After all, in the 1st Century there was no bible. So those who heard from Paul like the Corinthians in this case, would be receiving something slightly different from those that didn't receive the Gospel through Paul, or didn't receive those specific instructions from Paul. However, what the apostles wrote down as the words of Jesus rather their own thoughts or their own words, was meant to be universal among Christians, even if what was written was initially written to a singular person e.g Theophilus in Luke, or to a certain group of people. This is why, in my opinion, the words in red do deserve to be in red. But then I would go even further, and put all prophecies and all words quoting God (the Father) in red. Personally, I've never understood why Jesus' words are in red and something like Isaiah's prophecies aren't. I don't know the logic behind that. As you indicated, the same God who spoke through Jesus also spoke through people like Isaiah. However, verses like 1 Corinthians 7:12 should not be in red, even though I personally believe that even if Paul didn't know it, God was behind the commandment that he gave. But I do think that Paul, though declaring the words in 1 Corinthians 7:12,25 etc as his own commandmenrs, and 1 Corinthians 7:40 as his opinion, still had the feeling that what he said was right before God. It's just that he wasn't quoting something that God said to him, or that was written, but giving judgement as one who had been considered trustworthy to carry and deliver the Gospel by God, and as one who had the Spirit of God (see 1 Corinthians 7:40).

[@henryodera5726]

​​@@MarvelNotIn case the previous comment is too long to read, the summary of it was: 1. Even though inspired by the Spirit of God, the apostles' presentation of the Gospel was influenced by their unique individual personalities and experiences...except the words in red. That's why Matthew, Mark and Luke are very similar. It's because the authors are doing more of reporting rather than teaching. 2. The apostles mix in what they consider to be their own personal opinions with the commandments of Christ e.g 1 Corinthians 7:10,12. Nevertheless, they still believe that those opinions are accurate representations of the truth according to God (see 1 Corinthians 7:40). However, like in the case of Paul, a distinction is made between what Jesus commanded and what Paul himself commands or thinks is right, which is also a clear sign that Paul wasn't being dictated to concerning what to write. Summary: The words in red do deserve to be in red for several reasons. For example, they serve as a common anchor to the rest of the NT. If we did not have Jesus' words, some of those books or authors in the NT would seem like they disagree. For example, Paul says we are saved by grace and not works, and James says that faith without works is dead. But Paul's "works" vs grace = Luke 18:11-12 vs 13-14 (see v9 for context). And James' faith with works vs faith without works = Luke 6:47-48 vs 49 (see v46 for context; compare Matthew 7:21).

[@vandango901]

Jesus can be the son of God, to be the spirit in flesh, and still acknowledge the Father who is greater than he. It may be perplexing but if you are familiar with quantum mechanics you would know nature itself is perplexing. That matter can perform this same feet of being in 2 places and 2 states at once. God the Father is in his infinite state while simultaneously the Son in his finite state. They are the same essence and spirit in 2 places and 2 states. Then you have the holy spirit who is also seperate yet unified with the father. GOD, who is omnipresent, infinite and timeless can do this if his material creation can also do this.

[@FredVanAllenRealtor]

Thank you. Very helpful info.

[@kentandnicbellow5138]

Titus 2:13 seems to be a quote from Matthew of Jesus’ prophecy. Matt 16:27 “ For the Son of Man is going to come with his angels in the glory of his Father” The Titus passage refers to Christ as the “grace of God that has appeared” then the “glory of God that will appear”. So in my reading of the passage, verse 13 is only speaking of Jesus with “the glory of our great God and Savior” being a descriptor. Appreciate your work!

[@biblicalunitarian]

Yep, that's how we translate it in the REV!

[@michaelbruce9197]

Another good video for the truth. Nice hair

[@bosse641]

They have such nerve to make the Word say Jesus is God in their many translations.

[@bosse641]

@ViralChristianity "Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of compassion and the God of all comfort." 2 Corinthians 1:3 Amen. Jesus has a God. Therefore he is not God. God does not have a God. Simple logic.

[@bosse641]

@ViralChristianity ....Faulty translation and eisegesis. ....coming from a misunderstanding of what It says. There are no contradiction in God's word. And we cannot do away with Scripture using Scripture. Jesus Messiah and the apostles all said that Father God is God(YHVH) alone. And so it is.

[@liberatedspirit3554]

​@ViralChristianity Your misunderstanding comes from your assumption of the use of the word "Lord" which is common with trinitarians. The Greek word for Lord has been used of people Jesus God, etc. "IN THE OLD TESTAMENT" there was only one Lord. God has now given his position of Lord to his Son. But God is still "A LORD" Because he is a master But the focus is about him being our God and Jesus now as his Lord Rather than trying to justify open scriptures of word usage How about u justify the belief that, Jesus is a hight priest to God. While also being God himself... The whole point of a priest is to serve God as a man and mediator for other men. Book of hebrews How in the world can God be a mediator to himself. There's no point of a mediator if he's God Not to mention how can God be the Father while also being a Son to himself It's all nonsense. And no trinitarian can make those contradictions make any biblical or logical sense at all Besides trying to force 3 people in one person Which in itself is a problem Cause now u have 3 God's. I think western Christians are lost on the truth of this issue. Been trained to believe the Trinity for far too long The Jews having a good history and understanding of the One True God. Don't bother jumping through hoops to make a 3 and 1 God

[@vandango901]

God is one infinite being who can be in as many places and people as he desires. God did reside within the flesh of Jesus. This is no problem for a God in which all things are possible. It's better theology to say he is the Son of God rather than God. But his spirit did dwell within Christ. The theology of 3 is inadequate to describe God or what took place within Jesus. We merely need to develope new language to explain this so that it actually makes sense. And this is done effortless by saying God is one boundless being instead of unintuitively saying he is 3.

[@annapaulal.h.1393]

​​@@bosse641... " ..not God" ...?!?....🙄🙄 ...What about Isaiah 9 : 6 ..... ?!?! ".... Simple as that " ⁉️⁉️

[@JosephSmith-ph4xr]

There are, indeed, a number of texts that can be and are translated differently. All bible translations have a bias. I found the book 'Truth In Translation' by Jason BeDuhn(University Press of America, 2003) quite insightful and surprising. Well worth a read.

[@biblicalunitarian]

Yep, totally agree

[@laurahinojosa2973]

Who is the one called, The Living and True God, if Jesus is his son Matthew 16:16 Simon Peter answered [To Jesus]: “You are the Christ, the SON.. of THE LIVING GOD.” Jeremiah 10:10 But Jehovah is the True God, HE IS - THE LIVING GOD - and the eternal King.- THE LIVING GOD - and the eternal King. Because of his indignation the earth will quake, And no nations will endure his denunciation. John 17:3 Jesus said praying to Jehovah: This means everlasting life, their coming to know you, the only true God, and the one whom you sent, Jesus Christ.

[@eddieyoung2104]

As mentioned, the form of a servant is not about nature but appearance. It could also be about behaviour, because the appearance of a servant has a great deal to do with the way they act. A servant looks like a servant because he or she is busy serving someone. In the same way we could say that Jesus being in the form of God related to his behaviour. That is, he had the appearance God, because he behaved like him. By his actions he displayed and demonstrated what his father was like. How else could Jesus resemble his father, but by being like him in his deeds.

[@henryodera5726]

True. I think that a passage that is often overlooked and yet may give a ton of direct insight into what Paul is talking about, is John 13:1-18. What Jesus does in that passage is symbolism, and yet it almost perfectly represents what Paul is talking about. And we even see that Peter becomes very uncomfortable with what Jesus is doing, not because of how Jesus looks, but because of what He is doing. And I believe that this was exactly Paul's point. It was about a man who did things that were believed to either be impossible or only possible for God (thereby outwardly appearing as God), e.g raising the dead and commanding evil spirits, choosing to live out His life in full submission to God and in service to men (thereby outwardly appearing as a servant).

[@biblicalunitarian]

Yep, I think how you appear to others entails behavior. His behavior made him appear as a servant.

[@eddieyoung2104]

@@henryodera5726 You're right, that passage is definitely a good example. Thanks

[@MrWorldchamp1]

totally agree with you my question is what church can I attend that believes what we believe? Most teach Trinity

[@Zederok]

I quit going to church years ago because of the holier then thou attitude most have. Besides I failed to find anywhere whether it be the 10 commandments or in the bible that says thou shalt go to church.

[@biblicalunitarian]

You're welcome to attend Spirit & Truth's online fellowships - spiritandtruthonline.org/virtual-groups/ Also, the Unitarian Christian Alliance has a really cool map that you can check out if there are any Unitarian churches close to you - www.unitarianchristianalliance.org/membership-map/

[@lucycarin]

@ViralChristianityyou have no basis for your idea jesus god died for 3 days and raised himself, or why need time -for jesus - when god is OUTSIDE of time…you dismiss the greatness of god…

[@lucycarin]

I heartily recommend spirit and truth, as I have been enjoying their teachings since 1976….some of us are lighthouses spread far apart..,,doesnt mean out lights are dim…,✨✌🏼

[@maxprescott9371]

Trinity is Truth Friend,, Always has been always will be

[@socketman]

Awesome

[@getx1265]

Nice and sane... I appreciate your good explanations!

[@biblicalunitarian]

I have removed ViralChristianity from commenting because he keeps calling us "Antichrist." That sort of language is not allowed on this channel. Especially considering we promote and believe that Jesus is the "Christ."

[@Truth-f2q]

@@biblicalunitarian I removed my comment, I can be more loving.

[@JadenTendai]

Hi. I have been watching you're videos for a long time and i have been wondering. What do you believe about jesus? Do you believe that God created jesus before heaven and earth then jesus was sent to earth. or do you believe that God created jesus when he was born? Thank you for the videos.❤

[@biblicalunitarian]

Personally, I believe that God created Jesus in the womb of Mary, but there are some faithful Unitarians who believe in Jesus' Pre-existence.

[@Dotehhbn]

To understand the best think of the entire spectrum of synonyms.. the mind needs to digest the idea of 'Everything'

[@matthewguy1243]

I am on a journey evaluating what I have been taught to see if what I have been told is biblical or tradition and now I am at the point looking at the trinity. I appreciate the insight on the sharps law as I have been told that it really didn't have exceptions. But I am aware I come from a point of bias, but I am trying to be as open to the scriptures as possible. After watching part 1 and this video, I am not seeing great arguments. Most of the first video I can agree with your premises but even with the alternatives it still seems like instead of the translations refuting the trinity it just opens the door for the potential of your view rather than the changes keeping the door shut. But I still think the context leans trinitarian. For John 1:1 most are aware of the indefinite article and it makes sense of the 3 who's and 1 what rather than modalism. The objection I want to raise is with Phillipians 2:6-8 I don't think how you take morphe makes a difference when everything else states trinity. The fact of Jesus being (no matter in what form nature or appearance) before he humbled himself by being the morphe of a servant shows preexistance because made himself that form by becoming a human as the texts says right after. This wasn't in the wilderness as your source prescribes in his explanation. Also the harpagmon. The form used is a noun. If the ouk is applied to it (which construction says so but it is also an adverb applied to a noun?) It would negate the noun. To get the reading you say, it would have to negate the verb form. As ouk negating a verb gives the sense of complete negation making it an impossibility. This is true. But given that it is negating a noun it wouldn't render that meaning. It would say emphatically that it is no case that noun. So the noun can mean either the ACT of robbery or act of grasping with intention to forcibly take something you don't have. Or it can refer to the object of desire that was taken. So it would mean that Jesus considered equality with God absolutely not an act of robbery or grasping to obtain that object. Or not an object that he forcibly took that he didnt have before. With the object being equality with God, the meaning would imply that it was something in his possession and it was not robbery in the way he acquired it. Or that he had this object and it didn't come to him by robbery, grasping etc. Again if the adverb was applied to a verb it would read the way you present, but we have the noun form. And with the other scriptures that have ouk applied to a noun by construction we see what I have presented. Like not sons ie they are not a son and soforth.

[@biblicalunitarian]

I appreciate your openness to trying to see what the scriptures really teach. With regard to Phil. 2:6, I would have to push back and say that Pre-existence would have to be read into the text. Nowhere in the text or surrounding context does it teach pre-existence. My understanding is that he "appeared like a god" on the outside to people while on earth, but instead of claiming that, he humbled himself, and appeared like (had the morphe of) a servant. My question to you, if the phrase "though he was in the appearance of God/a god" refers to his pre-existent state, when did people see him as a pre-existent diving being? What scriptural event is this talking about? I don't think there is one. But in my view, it makes perfect sense that "he appeared like a god/God" while on earth when he performed miracles. Also, I think your point about "he humbled himself by being born" which is similar to what many Trinitarian translations teach. Is not a great translation. Being born is not an act of humility. As a human, the baby Jesus would of had no recollection of the event. This gets into some of the problems, I believe, with Trinitarianism. Was he omniscient as a baby? etc... Sorry, I don't have time at the moment to address your grammar question. I'll try to get back to that if I can find time

[@WHAT-bz6hp]

What did the messiah say? Matthew 4:10 YOU shall worship יהוה your Elohim, and him only shalt thou serve. There is no trinity doctrine in scripture. The messiah /MAN raised by YHWH and exalted by YHWH will judge all by the power and authority of YHWH.

[@SimplyAwesomeOriginal]

Whoa... you are finally advertising the REV translation for public use. Bravo! PS: If, like me, you think Jesus was NEVER the "only begotten" then please consider updating translation usages of the Greek word "monogenes" to a more accurate expression in the New Testament. (John 1:14, 1:18, 3:16, 3:18; 1 John 4:9; Psalms 22:20 (LXX); Hebrews 11:17 (Issac who was neither "first" nor "only begotten" of Abraham), and etc.). My two cents is that it was extremely significant that Jesus was "uniquely appointed" more than "only begotten". (Also see Luke 9:35; Psalms 25:16; Amos 8:10;, Zechariah 12:10; Genesis 4:25 (Abel/Seth); 17:5 (Abraham); 17:19, 22:2, 22:16 (Issac); 32:18 (Jacob/Israel))) Yes, Jesus was born of a virgin, but this is not the definition of "monogenes" in Greek.

[@biblicalunitarian]

Thanks! Yes, it's worth considering updating our translation of "monogenes," most of the time it means "only child," but in Isaac's case he was the only one born by Abraham's wife Sarah, so... idk, the translation gets tricky, and it's tricky in Jesus' case as well, because Adam was the Son of God too... "unique" might be the best translation in reference to Jesus

[@SimplyAwesomeOriginal]

@@biblicalunitarian Here's an idea: Given that "unique" is a superset of "only", because contained in the definition of "unique" is both "only" and "distinctive"; then "uniquely begotten" is more accurate than "only begotten", because it isn't just about being singular (nor first) but also being "distinct for some reason". Hence, a conservative approach is to replace all instances of "only begotten" with "uniquely begotten". If you would like to be even more conservative, use "uniquely begotten" for Jesus, and "distinctly begotten" for everyone else (except Isaac?!) Even better would be to replace all instances of "begotten" with "born". 21st century English for all please!!! +++ Confused newbie: If Jesus is not God, then explain how he is the 'one and only begotten'? Brother: Read the REV translation; they are more accurate, and have an excellent commentary that explains everything

[@SimplyAwesomeOriginal]

> Confused newbie asking questions: So why exactly is Jesus unique, i.e. "distinct for some reason"? > Brother: The jury is still out in many circles... But I think it is being solely appointed (in addition to being begotten). A monogenes is an heir that's appointed, and if there's an only child, the child is presumed to be the appointed heir. - It is self evident that there can be only one heir, because there's only one chair on the throne, making that begotten child unique among brethren (if any). - It holds true BEFORE any accomplishments of the heir. See Psalms 2, where Jesus has an inheritance, AFTER he was appointed AND begotten! > Enquiring Newbie: So what exactly was this appointment? > Brother: God, having spoken from old time to the fathers through the prophets in many parts and in many ways, has at the end of these days spoken to us by His Son: - whom He APPOINTED heir of all things, - through whom also He has given form to the ages, - who is the reflection of His glory, - and the exact representation of His nature, - and is upholding all things by the word of His power, - whom after he had accomplished the cleansing for sins sat down at the right hand of His Majesty on high, - having become as much better than the angels (as the name he has inherited is more excellent than theirs). - Hebrews 1:1-4 Now given God's appointing, i.e. if God's blessing was given, i.e. God's word was promised, then there is assurance: - It's why Abraham had confidence even when he was told to sacrifice Isaac (God can either raise him from the dead or give Abraham another son or whatever something else, Hebrews 11:17-19). - It's why Jacob had to wrestle God (via the Angel) for this blessing... To get his name to be Israel... (Genesis 32:24-32). - It's why King David can have a throne that is forever (Jeremiah 33:17, Psalms 45:6-7)... Even if requiring a shoot from the stump instead of an heir directly from the root of David... (Isaiah 11:1, 53:2) In fact, I see God's hand in appointing Abel, Seth... Noah and sons (Genesis 9)... Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob... King David... and, of course, Jesus... And now the church. > Ex-Newbie: I understand Noah and Abraham and others had a covenant agreement with God, and might be "monogenes like", but why Abel and Seth too? > Brother: The jury is very much completely out on this subject... But here are some thoughts to consider: - Eve used Yahweh's help (i.e. "Shaliah" speak for via Adam) to birth Cain - We know Abel was second born of Eve - Cain and sacrifice rejected. - Abel and sacrifice accepted. - It is NOT Cain's sacrifice rejected, and Abel's sacrifice accepted; it's "Cain and sacrifice" rejected, and "Abel and sacrifice" accepted - Why was Abel's blood crying out when he was "taken out" by Cain? - Eve testifies that BOTH Abel and Seth were "appointed" by God (Genesis 4:25). (This might explain why Abel's crying blood was heard by God.) - And through the descendants of Seth, we get Noah... Then Abraham... Then David... Then Jesus, by whom the church is. We are chosen/appointed... Because God's word was given... And by faith in this word we live... And are heirs of the promise (Galatians 3:18, 29). > Oldie: Blessed be our God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who having a love so great, has bestowed his monogenes, through whom we have life in the age to come. May we not let trinity doctrine distract us from beholding what manner of love the Father has, that we should be called the sons of God. To our Father be the Glory. In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. > Brothers everywhere: Amen!

[@Diana-xm1dm]

@@SimplyAwesomeOriginal The Son is the Father.

[@Swordoftruth289]

Not only is the trinity hard to prove if we are being honest with the translations. But it makes it seemingly more obvious that the writers were making a distinction between the Father and Son. Along with that, the churches seem to talk out of both sides of their mouths while saying "faith in Jesus alone is your salvation", but you have to say he is the God or else it doesn't count. I find It ironic that there is a catch 22 as a part of salvation, which the bible never mentions anywhere. I think the roman church had to come up with a way to make Jesus the God, or at least co equal, but the same, in order to validate their view of salvation by admitting jesus is either co equal or the same as. which the Hebrew Bible makes clear is through God alone( although there are some salvation qualities of the messiah), it is still at the devine will of the Father. The problem here is that their view of salvation determines the role of The Christ and not by God's Devine will. Where the salvation Jesus brought was actually by the will of the Father, and Jesus did the Fathers will to fulfill it. While he is the savior, it was still the fathers will. This is why he is the intercessor. Edited, to clarify more what I was saying. I left a few things out, and it was a bit sloppy.

[@biblicalunitarian]

Great points.

[@Swordoftruth289]

@biblicalunitarian thanks. I edited it to make it a little clearer. I was a trinitarian for a few years, and I always had questions that seemed to refute the concept of man God. I had a major epiphany when I was reading Acts and realized there was a distinction that Peter seemed to always make between Jesus' role and who sent him. It became obvious and, through looking into messianic judiasm and early messianic beliefs and prophecies and soon realized the roots of the trinity or completely foreign thought or eisegeses of Rome and was no where in the bible. Through that, I've learned of the unitarians and realized I wasn't alone in what I was reading. I can't even explain the relief I felt because I always prayed to God directly. Then I thought i had to pray to Jesus and worship him as Father while worrying about it being idolatry, etc. Now I realize Jesus is our savior because of his sacrifice for God and for those who were lost in the dark. And he taught him to walk in the path God wants us to. That honors both the Father and Jesus. Cheers, and may God bless 🙌

[@ZerubbabelsCapstone-ci9te]

Romans 9:5: Lets focus more on the Greek grammar. Something is very off with the Greek text and English translation in this passage. This is a very hard passage to translate and interpret. θεὸς εὐλογητὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας (God blessed/blessing into the ages.) Εὐλογητὸς (Eulogētos) found in this phrase is being declined as an adjective, not a verb. εὐλογητοῦ (eulogētou) would be the verb form. But most translation seems to be swapping the adjective form for the verb form. The idea an adjective would express is not the same idea a verb would express. We can't just swap them to make it fit what we want (or think) it to say. But I can't find any logical way to interpret and translate it without doing the same. (Could there have been a scribal error made in the original copy?) The closest other example we have of Εὐλογητὸς (Eulogētos) Adj-NMS is found in is in Romans 1:25. παρὰ τὸν κτίσαντα ὅς ἐστιν εὐλογητὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας ἀμήν (beyond him having created who is blessed to the ages. Amen) But in Romans 9:5 "ἐστιν (is)" is not there. (Like it normally is in other places where it is being used as an adjective.) I keep going over and over Romans 9:5 but have not yet found any way to accurately translate it that satisfies the proper Greek text and grammar as we received it. None of the other translations seem to be entirely correct either. It is a brain teaser.

[@biblicalunitarian]

Great question. 2 Corinthians 1:3 " Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ" and Luke 1:68 "Blessed be the Lord God of Israel, because..." are two examples where the translator has to supply a "to be" verb to make sense of the sentence. Not only is this common in Koine Greek, but it seems to be fairly common with εὐλογητὸς. So, I think that supplying "be" in Rom. 9:5 is perfectly acceptable. The REV translates it: (God, who is over all, be blessed forever. Amen.) Now, would it have been nice for Paul to add a verb, yes.

[@frederickanderson1860]

Isaiah chapter 55: 8-9. Pointless trying to work it out

[@annapaulal.h.1393]

... the Verb is not only the Word but also indicates Action. Can GOD be GOD, without Word and without ACTION?!?! Who, or what, would testify even to His existence?!? Explain that, please!

[@approvedofGod]

Is Jesus your God? Simple question that reveals what you really believe.

[@ken440]

No, Jesus is NOT our God, but he IS Gods appointed anointed mediator between man and God. Jesus IS the provided lamb, spotless member of the flock who died on passover and whos blood is our covering we come under in faith.

[@approvedofGod]

@@ken440 Sorry to hear that. Revelation tells us that those who overcome will be his sons and he shall be their God. So you are excluded? Rev 21:7 He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son.

[@ken440]

@@approvedofGod ha ha you are so funny. Be careful. It might just be the other way round buddy. thanks for your judgement, i wont judge you but call you brother.

[@approvedofGod]

@@ken440 Jesus will be our God, even if you don't believe it.

[@ken440]

@@approvedofGod well your theology demands that, but scripture doesnt say Jesus will be your God. It says he is your mediator between you and God, so you have had the veil of separation removed so you can once again approach God "crying abba father." Thats why Jesus said "my God and your God." one God and one anointed mediator. He has already connected you to your father in heaven. Jesus is head of the body, and will yet be king of the jews, but just like Joseph was not pharaoh but was pharaohs right hand man, so Jesus is not God, but is made Lord and anointed with Gods power and authority. Jesus is the anointed one (meaning of "christ") who is destroying the works of the evil one.

[@aok777]

Wait…so Jesus had the physical appearance of God? What did Paul base that assertion on?

[@biblicalunitarian]

Great question. I think he had the appearance of "a god" because he performed miracles. The article is not before "theou" in the Greek. Also, in the Greek culture someone who performed miracles was often looked at as a god. Instead of claiming to be that, Jesus humbled himself.

[@aok777]

@@biblicalunitarian I guess I'm confused. If morphe is a specific reference to outward appearance as you say, such as Nebuchadnezzar's angry face, or Gideon's brothers' physical resemblance to sons of kings, wouldn't it follow that Jesus' physical appearance would be somehow "god-like"? Physically resembling a god doesn't seem to correlate with the ability to do miracles. If the "morphe" reference in Philippians referred only to physical appearance, and not inward nature, wouldn't Jesus' resemblance to a god be apparent to anyone who saw him at any time, not just those who witnessed him perform miracles?

[@asies2023]

​​​@@aok777 Rm. 12:2 uses the verb (stong's #3339) metamorphoó which means: to change into another form, to transfigure, transform. The verse is not telling us to transform ourselves into the physical appearance of Christ, but His character. On the other hand, I wonder if Paul wasn't making reference of Christ’s transfiguration when he says 'being in the form of God'. Remember that Jesus asked the three disciples not to say a word about that. Now, imagine if they had!

[@biblicalunitarian]

Well, with regard to the uses in Phil. 2:6, I'm taking morphe to be referring to outward appearance/behavior. The things he did (behaviors/miracles) made him appear on the outside like a god, instead of claiming that, he humbled himself and his behavior made him appear like a servant. So, it's not about his literal physical appearance being like a god (whatever that would look like) but just how his life and actions could be perceived as "god-like." I probably could have made that clearer in the video but didn't have much time.

[@Zuungie]

​@@aok777 The straight reading of Phil. 2.6-7 would be that Jesus existed in the form of God before He took on flesh. Because men were designed to serve God, "taking the form of a bond-servant" for Jesus meant becoming man, as it says in the last part of v7. Additionally, many people get hung up on the use of "morphe" that they miss the use of "hyparchōn" in v6, which is a reference to Jesus' existential nature.

[@daviddrysdale8882]

Under the direction of Heavenly Father, Jesus Christ created the heavens and the earth... Ephesians 3:9 And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ:

[@daviddrysdale8882]

Yikes! Stuff!? Making up!? What does Ephesians 3:9 say!? Take a deep breath!😊

[@daviddrysdale8882]

King James Version... 8 Unto me, who am less than the least of all saints, is this grace given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ; 9 And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ: 10 To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God...

[@Shilly-Mcshillface]

​@@daviddrysdale8882'by Jesus Christ' is a later addition, do a quick search on it

[@SonOfGodByNewBirthInChrist]

@@daviddrysdale8882 Isaiah 44:24 (KJV) Thus saith the LORD, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, *I am the LORD that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens ALONE; that spreadeth abroad the earth BY MYSELF;* The LORD God created all things with Jesus in mind but the testimony of scripture is clear He created the Heavens and Earth alone.

[@ken440]

​@@daviddrysdale8882its talking about the church. All of ephesians is teaching to christians about them being that musterion (in greek) which is a secret (mystery) hid in God in ages past, that we the church be that new creation in christ. That through us, with Hesus as the first up from the dead, first of many brothers raised to glory (still pending) the church shows tthe wisdom of God to those same principalities and powers in heaven that Paul tells us in Eph6 are our true enemy!!! bad rebel angelic beings who made themselves ghe "gods of the nations" Its a spiritual battle, theres some not nice dudes out there we just cant see. God had kept it a secret, all through the OT you wont find it. The church, neither jew nor gentile is a new creation, of which it was the risen Jesus who made it and saved us and heads us. Paul was given the secret to reveal. Read the whole book, its a continuum, not a pile of one liners!

[@jayset9136]

Let's debate

[@ken440]

yeah yeah. lets

[@thetastybacon21]

Genesis 1:26 👌

[@theologyroom]

Concerning Philippians 2v6, we can safely conclude that regardless of what Paul was trying to say, he most certainly was NOT trying to teach that Jesus is God. This is because in his other writings, he explicitly teaches the following: 1. The Father is the one God (1Corinthians 8v6) 2. There is one God and Jesus is a man who is the mediator BETWEEN God AND mankind (1Timothy 2v5) 3. God is the head OF Christ (1Corinthians 11v3) 4. Jesus will be made subject to God (1Corinthians 15v28)

[@BiblicalTrinitarian]

Literally in the first verse you provided, Paul refers to Jesus as "Lord" using the same Greek name for YHWH in the OT. The Father is also called "Lord", and Jesus is called "God" multiple other times interchangeably. So no, Paul taught that Jesus was God.

[@theologyroom]

@@BiblicalTrinitarian The Greek word for "Lord" (kurios) used in 1Corinthians 8v6 can also be used for an earthly master. For example Paul uses that word in Ephesians 6v5 which says "slaves obey your masters". Paul uses a separate word for God -- "theos". It's a very specific term reserved for the Creator of the universe. God can be referred to as "Lord", but a man who is called "Lord" isn't God.

[@BiblicalTrinitarian]

@@theologyroom Re-read 1 Corinthians 8:6, Jesus is definitely not being referred to as "human master". You can also read Colossians 1:16-17. Clearly, when Jesus is called "Lord", He is being referred to as a divine person, not a human master. In Titus 2:13, I disagree that God is referring to the person (the Father), but rather nature, like in John 1:1 "The Word WAS God." As such, Paul did refer to Jesus as God.

[@theologyroom]

@@BiblicalTrinitarian In 1Corinthians 8v6, Paul singles out the FATHER as God. So "Lord" as applied to Jesus in that same verse can only be understood as a human master. After all, in 1Timothy 2v5, Paul again says there is one God and then mentions Jesus as the human MEDIATOR between God and mankind. If Paul wanted to say Jesus is God, he would have said so directly. But he didn't, which means Paul never intended to teach the idea that Jesus is God. Trinitarians can only resort to interpreting the text in ways that align with their beliefs.

[@BiblicalTrinitarian]

@@theologyroom But Lord is used to refer to the Father as well!! You also completely ignored my comment about Colossians 1:16-17. Stop avoiding it. You're committing a negative inference fallacy. Just because Paul referred to Jesus as a "man" does not mean He is *only* a man. But he did! Read Colossians 2:9! Also, do you not believe that Paul is a false apostle?

[@sukruoosten]

amennnnnnnnnnnnn 1 LORD GOD en 1 lord human mediator to go to GOD YAH

[@tylerchurch6945]

Most trinitarian translations capitalize words like God and Word. These words confuse us of their capitalized letters id like to find a non bias non-trinitarian Bible and unfortunately the Complete Jewish Bible my favorite translation, is trinitarian translation

[@ken440]

yeah, its a mess. Best use many versions and in tricky bits consult interlinear versions of original, and check their meanings in a concordance. But then if there is a devil dude, who makes himself the "god of this world, an enemy of God, then we would expect the disruption of communication, false information, divide and conquor attempts. To me it simply adds proof that its true.... and it makes it fun.

[@michaelbruce9197]

64 Bibles unreal. Satan won the battle .

[@maggiraggi]

Hi, Biblical Unitarian, in Christ Jesus. In this KZbin video, you speak about 10 Mistranslations which Trinitarians use to prove that Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God. Though the bible never teaches this false doctrine, which I one time believed in, but I do not believe on this Trinity false doctrine anymore. But this is not the reason why I am writing to you, the reason why I am writing to you, is because I see that you did not quote 1st John 3:16 as a mistranslated verse, from the King James version of the bible, which the New King James version of the bible quotes differently then the King James bible does. Here is what the King James bible teaches about the 1st John 3:16, as it says: “Hereby perceive we the love OF GOD, because he laid down his life for us: and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren.”, while the New King James version quotes the same verse as: “By this we know love, because He laid down His life for us. And we also ought to lay down our lives for the brethren.”, by skipping the words: “OF GOD”, as you can see from the New King James version, and in other bible versions (please look at those many other Bible versions that skip the words: “OF GOD”, to see why I am speaking about this problem). No according to my understanding on the 1st John 3:16, based upon the King James version, is how this verse teaches how God himself, gave His own life for us, and we the true believers are worshiping a dead God, like many atheists are believing. While the New King James version teaches that it was the Son of God, who laid down His life for us, but not God himself, as the King James version teaches it (and some few other Bible versions who support this teaching, as the King James bible teaches it). And one thing, I did watch: (Part 1), where I see from: (Part 2), you did not speak about 1st John 3:16. Now the question is: “Why did you not quote this verse as the 11th Mistranslation in the New Testament, do you not know about this verse, that proclaims how God himself did die for us, just like the King James version teaches it?”, just asking. And I hope you can understand what I am writing to you. Thangs from Iceland, Magnús Ragnar (Maggi Raggi), in Christ Jesus.

[@maggiraggi]

Hi, @@MichaelTheophilus906, in Christ Jesus. There are many who use this old translation of the bible, like they who call themselves: “The King James only believers”, and many others, but I am not one of them. And I have about 200+ English different bible translations, including many interlinear bibles on the Hebrew and the Greek language in my computer, on e-sword, and the Logos bible software, and some other bible software’s which I own in my computer. And in most of those bibles which I have in my computer, say the same thing what the New King James bible teaches, while there are only few bible translations who agree what the old King James version teaches. But thank you for writing to me about what I wrote to the: “Biblical Unitarian”, and I know that there is only one who: “laid down His life for us”, which is Jesus Christ, the son of God. And it was not God himself, who: “laid down His life for us”, just like the old King James version teaches it, sometimes in italic (which means, the words: “OF GOD”, is an added translation by the translators, when the King James puts those words in italic). I hope you can understand my answer to you. Thanks from Iceland, Magnús Ragnar (Maggi Raggi), in Christ Jesus.

[@ken440]

​@@maggiraggiits talking about Jesus. And that kjv bit where it says Gods love, is because it the love that references to God. God so loved the world, that HE GAVE HIS ONLY SON. The reference to God is about the love, that He God would be prepared to allow His own son begotten of a woman, to be the sacrificial lamb. God cant lay down His life, or all things would cease.

[@maggiraggi]

Hi, @@ken440, in Christ Jesus. According to the New King James version, then does that bible translation confess it is Jesus Christ, who: “laid down his life for us”, which of course is the correct translation on the 1st John 3:16, because this is how my Icelandic bible translation words this bible verse, same as how many other bible translations will word it. But when I saw how the old King James version worded the same verse, when it says: “Hereby perceive we the love OF GOD, because he laid down his life for us:”; then does it show how it is God who is the one that: “laid down his life for us”, but not how it is Jesus Christ, who is the one who died for us. No if you would look at how other bible translations will word the same verse, then will you notice how most of them will skip the words: “OF GOD”, same as how my Icelandic bible translation does it. And I know that this verse is not speaking about how it was God, who: “laid down his life for us”, but that is Jesus Christ who did it. Because that is how my Icelandic bible words it, when it does not have the words: “OF GOD”, in my own bible translation. Which is why I am writing to the: “Biblical Unitarian” about this problem, when most of the other English bible translations skips the words: “OF GOD”, same as how my own Icelandic bible translation does it. But thank you for your answer to what I wrote to the: “Biblical Unitarian”, who does not even answer my writing about this problem. I hope you can understand what I am writing to you. Thanks from Iceland, Magnús Ragnar (Maggi Raggi), in Christ Jesus.

[@ken440]

@@maggiraggi hi. I think you are misunderstanding the english language a bit. Ghe conversation is about being a christian and showing love. The kjv has that "God" bit in there (to show us Gods love) but the following "he" is about Jesus. Because the context is still about being "in christ." The "he" does not refer to God. Whether the God word should be there or not, the talk is about Jesus. Its a nuance of language. it doesnt mean God died. blessings.

[@maggiraggi]

Hi again, @@ken440, in Christ Jesus. You say: “I think you are misunderstanding the english language a bit.”, while: “I think you are not completely understanding what I am writing to the ‘Biblical Unitarian’, about the 1st John 3:16 according to the old King James version problem (which is why I said at the end of my writing to you, ‘I hope you can understand what I am writing to you’)”. No, because I as a believer, over 36 years, is still a believer who is now 52 years old (so, you can calculate how young I was, when I begin to walk in the faith). And as I said to you, in my writing to you: “According to the New King James version, then does that bible translation confess it is Jesus Christ, who: “laid down his life for us”, which of course is the correct translation on the 1st John 3:16, because this is how my Icelandic bible translation words this bible verse,”; which according to my Icelandic version, it says in English from the New King James version: “By this we know love, because He laid down His life for us. And we also ought to lay down our lives for the brethren.”; which means, this is how my Icelandic bible words this Scripture verse, by not having the extra added words: “OF GOD”, in my Icelandic bible translation, which the old King James has. And I am not saying that: “God is dead”, but I am only showing what the old King James version is teaching about 1st John 3:16, when the verse says: “Hereby perceive we the love OF GOD, because he laid down his life for us:”, which shows, after the word: “GOD”, then begins the verse to say: “because he laid down his life for us”. Now as a former Trinitarian believer, then do I know that they who confess the Trinity, they believe that Jesus Christ is God, even the Creator himself. So, for the Trinitarians, then are not three gods, but one God. And every time when Trinitarians speak about: “God”, then are they always speaking about: “Jesus Christ”, but not about: “Our heavenly Father, who alone is God”. So maybe now you can understand why I am speaking about 1st John 3:16, because every time when I listen to a Trinitarian now today; then do I understand (as a former Trinitarian believer) that they are not speaking about: “Our heavenly Father, who alone is God”, but only about: “Jesus Christ; both as, God, and as, the Creator”. But do I believe that God is the one who died for us? The simple big answer is: “No!!!”. So now I hope you can understand what I am writing to you. Thanks again from Iceland, Magnús Ragnar (Maggi Raggi), in Christ Jesus.

[@8thMusketeer]

The problem with this is it denies the entire gospel message of Jesus Christ, how He died in order to pay the punishment we deserved, and only because of his death, we can be forgiven of our sins. If this isn't true, how is it that God is able to just sweep our evil under the rug and forgive us, and allow us into Heaven? (Also, the fact that you disabled dislikes is a little telling)

[@ken440]

he died as the LAMB OF God. read 1cor8:6. salvation FROM God, is THROUGH Jesus. Jesus was crucified at a passover. He is the LAMB of God. That has meaning. His blood is "over us" and we get saved by believing and confession of Jesus being our sufficiency (faith with obedience) just like at first passover family members had to believe and obediently come under the lambs blood (on the lintels) to be saved from the death angel. same principle!!! As the "last Adam" Jesus has paid the blood price so the devil no longer "ownes" us. See its two fold Jesus paid the price once for all. Now as the covering lamb we can come under the blood shed on a passover.

[@ken440]

what you mean disabled dislikes.. nonesence. i just gave you one to prove the point.

[@biblicalunitarian]

We did not disable dislikes to my knowledge and it doesn't deny the gospel message. Jesus needed to be a sinless (2 Cor. 5:21; 1 Pet. 2:22) human (Heb. 2:17) to pay for sins, he didn't need to be God to pay for sins.

[@BastaDump-l8l]

SAM BE LIKE 😂😂😂

[@BiblicalTrinitarian]

Morphe can refer to inward Nature. Aristotle uses morphe in his works, in his Metaphysics and Physics, where he distinguishes between morphe (form) and hyle (matter). He employs morphe to refer to the essential nature or form of an object, not merely its outward appearance. Paul would likely have been aware of this use of morphe and its philosophical implications. Paul, as a well-educated Jew and a citizen of Tarsus, was exposed to Hellenistic culture and philosophy, which included Aristotelian thought. So, what you are doing with Mark 16:12 and the other verses is committing an equivocation fallacy, as you are assuming its meaning is the same in both verses. Though with the context we can clearly see it's not.

[@BiblicalTrinitarian]

Harpagmos can also imply both holding onto something already possessed and grasping for something not currently held. In Philippians 2:6, it emphasizes that Jesus, despite having the nature of God, did not see it as something to be selfishly exploited. Instead, He chose to humble Himself.

[@ken440]

sounds greek to me.

[@Ryan_Nath]

The bible doesn't teach trinity. For a start, the Holy Spirit God is never mentioned in places where he should be, Jesus nor the Holy Spirit God know the day and hour, God gave Jesus things which he should have already owned, verses that straight up state that their is only one God never mention a Son or Holy Spirit but only the Father, Jesus inherited a name above all names, Jesus was made higher than the angels. Seriously, if Jesus is God then that means he gave up his Godliness, just to work to gain it back and what would of happened if he decided to not get crucified ? He wouldn't of gained it back as we're told in Hebrews "After he provided purification for sins he sat down at the right hand of God" So, if he wasn't crucified, he wouldn't be sat at the right hand of God. No trinity.

[@BiblicalTrinitarian]

@@ken440 The NT is written in Greek

[@BiblicalTrinitarian]

@@Ryan_Nath Nice straw man. Read Genesis 1:2, there is your Holy Spirit, active in Creation. He’s called eternal (Hebrews 9:14), omniscient (1 Corinthians 2:10-11), and omnipresent (Psalm 139:7). The Holy Spirit is also central to salvation (e.g., John 3:5, Titus 3:5) and is included in the Great Commission (Matthew 28:19), highlighting His divinity. Philippians 2:9 explains that Jesus was exalted after His resurrection. While Jesus, as God, has all things eternally, His exaltation reflects His victory as the God-man who conquered sin and death. Jesus' divine attributes were always His, but His human nature was exalted in this way. Deuteronomy 6:4, the Shema, declares "The Lord is one." 1 Corinthians 8:6 expands this statement, identifying one God, the Father, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, while also describing the role of both in creation and redemption. Jesus said, “I and the Father are one” (John 10:30), showing His unity with God. John 14:16-17: Jesus promises the coming of the Holy Spirit, further demonstrating the Triune nature of God. Hebrews 1:4 teaches that Jesus is superior to the angels. His incarnation made Him lower than the angels (Hebrews 2:9), but this was temporary. After His resurrection, He was exalted far above all angels, reflecting His eternal nature as God. Philippians 2:6-7 explains that Jesus did not give up His divinity. Instead, He veiled His divine glory by taking on human flesh. He did not “lose” His divinity but voluntarily chose not to use His divine power fully in His earthly life. Jesus' position at the right hand of the Father is not something He “earned” but something He entered after completing His work of redemption. His divine Sonship is eternal, and His role as Savior culminated in His exaltation as both God and man (see Hebrews 1:3).

[@IOANNIS-l7r]

IF JESUS ISN T GOD HE IS CREATED AND NOT BORN OF THE FATHER IS ONLY A PROPHET OR AN ANGEL AS THE MUSLIMS BELIEVE.THE UNITARIANS INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE IS A NON SENSE.

[@ken440]

have a read of Deut18:18, where the future messiah of Israel (anointed one) is described as "a great prophet from AMONG YOUR BRETHREN, and I (God) will put My (Gods) words in his (anointed great prophet born an israeli man) mouth." And Genesis3:15 where God says that an offspring of Eve (therefore human) will bruise the head of the enemy. (came to destroy the works of the devil.... evil works from the serpents planning... head... which Jesus thwarts and defeats, that anointed prophet, a man of sorrows, a lamb provided, a last Adam) Im not Muslim but just because the muslims might be in error in other aspects (violence and Jihad) doesnt mean they are wrong in understanding that Jesus is that anointed prophet, as he said himself in a few places in scripture. read one in Jn8:40, and think about deut18:18. Perhaps its your substitutional atonement, that God has ti pay Adams debt, that makes your opinion that Jesus has to be God?

[@barnaclelevi]

I am reader of the aramaic Bible..people of Nazareth teaching.. Prophet 'isa is a *Nabi.. (Prophet). This means a prophet as in human. The attribute in Assyrian, aramaic, Hebrew, Arabic and modern Hebrew (Nabi) is never used for God.. So yes, prophet isa is flesh (human) born from flesh (human)... He is a prophet only, sent by God, like other prophets. In all Semitic language the root word ab* is indictive grammatical lexicon for a human being. The Greeks unfortunatelt could not out language.

[@IOANNIS-l7r]

@@barnaclelevi DEAR SIR FIRST HIS NAME IS YESHOUA AND NOT ISA ..HE IS THE MESSIAH THAT THE JEWS WERE WAITING AS MOSES SAID NAVI AKIM LAHEM MIKEREV DEUT.CH.18 VI5.THE MASSIAH IS NOT ONLY THAT HE IS DEVAR ELOHIM AND SON OF GOD HERE NO NEED PROOF IF THERE IS SON THERE IS A FATHER AND AS SON HE HAS THE DIVINITY OF HIS FATHER ...IS HIM THE LEGISLATOR GIVING THE LAW AND SPEAKING WITH MOSES .VERY OFTEN HE APPEARS AS ANGEL OF THE LORD MALAKH ADONAI IT S CLEAR THAT THE ANGEL OF LORD IT ISN T THE FATHER IN GEN.C.22V15 EVEN HE CALLS ABRAHAM SINCE THE HEAVEN.WHO IS THIS ANGEL OF THE LORD IS SON OF GOD THE WISDOM OF GOD ADONAI YESHOUA. THE PSAL.82V6 ANI AMARTI ELOHIM ATEM OUVNE ELYON KOULEKHEM..IF THE ANGELS AND THE MEN ARE GODS JESUS WILL BE NOT?THE SON OF GOD YESHOUA TRUE GOD TRUE MAN IS THE SUN OF WORLD.BUT YOU ARE FREE TO REJECT HIM AND WITH HIM THE FATHER OF LIGHTS.

[@ken440]

@@IOANNIS-l7r You say Deut18:15. now read Deut18:18. The Hebrews were indeed waiting for a Messiah. (messiah means ANOINTED ONE) Deut18:18. "I will raise up a GREAT PROPHET from among your BROTHERS, and I will put MY word in HIS mouth..." that is a hebrew born prophet promised... and the Elohim God will manifest IN THAT MAN. Jesus keeps telling his listeners that he only says what his God says. Peter tells us that he is a MAN that God ATTESTS to, by doing miracles THROUGH the man Jesus... a testimony to remind them of the promise in Deut18. Your claim that "angel of the Lord" is a appearance of Jesus is your ASSUMPTION. Because "angel" which is greek angelos, and its derivatives, which means MESSENGER.

[@ken440]

@barnaclelevi Hi. thanks for the information. unfortunately your last sentence makes no sense in english. Can you reinterpret what you mean please. just the last sentence. I recognize "unfortunalt" as "unfortunately", but "out language" makes no sense.

[@othusitseditlhogo4915]

You need to fast and ask God for the spirit of discernment, as you may be off the mark here. God bless you!

[@SonOfGodByNewBirthInChrist]

@@othusitseditlhogo4915 The Spirit of God has given us discernment, that is why we reject the idea that God became man. The apostle Paul rejected it vehemently in Acts 14 Acts 14:11 And when the people saw what Paul had done, they lifted up their voices, saying in the speech of Lycaonia, *The gods are come down to us in the likeness of men.* Acts 14:14-15 Which when the apostles, Barnabas and Paul, heard of, *they rent their clothes, and ran in among the people, crying out,* And saying, Sirs, why do ye these things? We also are men of like passions with you, and preach unto you that ye should *turn from these vanities* unto the living God, which made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are therein: Seems like Paul and Barnabas missed a tremendous opportunity to tell them about the God who became a man (according to Deity of Christ believers).

[@biblicalunitarian]

I have done that. Have you? Concerning if the Trinity is true?

[@BastaDump-l8l]

The Trinity holds that God is three distinct persons: Father, Son and Holy Spirit.While each person of the Trinity is distinct, they are all fully God, sharing the same essence and nature.In the Bible, there are several passages of evidence for the doctrine of the Trinity: For example, in Matthew 28:19,Jesus instructs his followers to baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

[@ken440]

its just a shame that the trinity is in catholic tradition, but not in the bible. Enjoy its dubious benefits while you can.

[@mattgardiner614]

That's a very weak reed to lean on.

[@biblicalunitarian]

Mentioning three things together doesn't turn them into one God. When the Bible says that God is the God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob, that doesn't turn those three into one person, rather it is simply mentioning three names. To take Matthew 28:19 as a definition for God but not 1 Cor. 8:6 "For us there is one God, the Father" is eisegesis

[@BastaDump-l8l]

@@ken440 only Catholic u sure no Orthodox and TRINITARIAN protestant

[@BastaDump-l8l]

@@biblicalunitarian what is 3×1

[@BastaDump-l8l]

JESUS CHRIST IS GOD REVELATION 22:13 REVELATION 1:8 SHOWS US THAT CHRIST IS THE BEGINNING AND THE END AND OTHER NON TRINITARIAN WILL SAYS THAT IT SAID LORD AND GOD. READ JOHN 20:28

[@Shilly-Mcshillface]

And in revelation 1.18 Jesus also says 'I was dead......'

[@SonOfGodByNewBirthInChrist]

@@BastaDump-l8l Your statement does not agree with scripture. Revelation 1:1 (KJV) The Revelation of Jesus Christ, *which God gave unto him,* to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John: … The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ gave him everything he has.

[@BastaDump-l8l]

@@Shilly-Mcshillface and behold I am alive forevermore, and I have the keys of Death and Hades Next time complete the verse

[@Shilly-Mcshillface]

@@BastaDump-l8l why? Christ saying he was dead says he's not God. The fact that he's now alive for ever more (wasn't eternal to begin with) just further backs up my point. Thanks

[@Diana-xm1dm]

Jesus loves us so much, He died and rose Himself from the dead for our sins. Job9:8 He alone walks on water. Matthew 14:25 Jesus walks on water. Jesus is the name above all names even of those in heaven. Jesus/God Bless

[@aaronsanchez3141]

No

[@Diana-xm1dm]

@@aaronsanchez3141 Just say you're a nonbeliever.

[@eddieyoung2104]

@@Diana-xm1dm I think he's specifically disagreeing with your Modalist view of God. And I can understand why, because when Jesus is repeatedly described as a separate being from his father, it would be unreasonable to assume he was the same being. For example, Revelation 3:12 alone doesn't lead us to the conclusion that Jesus was his own father. And it would be an absurd thing for him to say if he was himself the only God. Should we imagine that God is referring to himself with the term 'my God'?

[@Diana-xm1dm]

@@eddieyoung2104 Sure, why not? John 1:1 says the Word was God. John 1:3 says the Word became flesh. Therefore Jesus is the Word and God. Capire? P.S. I'm not a Modalist. Jesus Omnipresent.

[@eddieyoung2104]

@@Diana-xm1dm Why shouldn't God refer to himself as 'my God' in Revelation 3:12? Mainly because if Jesus is that very God, then we would expect him to say, 'my temple', 'my name', 'my city', and 'from me'. That would be in keeping with someone speaking about himself. Instead he speaks in terms of someone else. John 1 doesn't contradict that. It may appear to do so if you assume that the word equals Jesus. And it doesn't have to do so. The word can simply refer to God's spoken word which promised Jesus. And Jesus was the fleshly manifestation of what God had promised. For example, Gabriel spoke God's word to Mary, and then that word became flesh in her womb. Instead the word could be understood as being Jesus, but it still doesn't need to mean he is God. In the phrase, 'the word was God', there is no definite article in Greek before 'God'. Meaning that it's not referring necessarily to The God. Hence why some translate it as, 'the word was divine.' That is, Jesus' conception was of divine origin.