YHWH PIERCED = JESUS PIERCED

[Towerwatchman]

Wow, are you really sticking to this nonsense that there are two YHWHs and that one of those YHWHs is the redeemer of the other? You are really going loco here my friend.

Who is the redeemer= Jesus Christ.
Redeemer = a person who redeems someone or something. A price was paid.

We were redeemed.
1 Peter 1:18-19 knowing that you were not redeemed with corruptible things, like silver or gold, from your aimless conduct received by tradition from your fathers, but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot.

Who sent the redeemer?
Gal 4:4 But when the fullness of the time had come, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the law, 5 to redeem those who were under the law, that we might receive the adoption as sons.

John 1:29 The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, “Behold! The Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!

YHWH sent the redeemer, who is His God's} to send, to redeem us. = Isaiah 44:6 is clear the redeemer belongs to YHWH, and the act of redeeming is upon us, not YHWH.

Also note the following
What did Job say about his redeemer.
Job 19:25For I know that my Redeemer lives, And He shall stand at last on the earth;
Only Jesus stands on the earth.

The Redeemer as YHWH is Israel's Husband.

Isaiah 54:5 - For thy Maker is thine husband; the LORD of hosts is his name; and thy Redeemer the Holy One of Israel; The God of the whole earth shall he be called.

Hosea 2:16 “And it shall be, in that day,” Says the Lord, “That you will call Me ‘My Husband,’ And no longer call Me ‘My Master,’
Note Lord translates from YHWH.

Jesus is the bridegroom.

Rev 19:9 And the angel said to me, “Write this: Blessed are those who are invited to the marriage supper of the Lamb.” And he said to me, “These are the true words of God.”

Now connect the dots.

Again, since verse 1 the nation of Israel has been addressed as if it’s a singular person which is very common is the OT, “Israel whom I have chosen”… “Thus says YHWH who made you”… “I will pour my spirit upon your offspring, and my blessing on your descendants.”

Your interpreting one passage by another. Vs 1-5 is about God's blessing on Israel, vs 6-8 God stating that there is no other God besides Him. Attempting to identify the pronoun in vs 6 by vs 1 is wrong.

With your argument it should read “Israel which I have chosen” but it doesn’t because the entire nation is being addressed as a single person “him”.
(יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל בָּחַ֥רְתִּי בֽוֹ )

That would be a stretch.
Again: The pronominal suffix 'His' modifies 'redeemer' as a possession of "YHWH King of Israel" and not "Israel". Why? Because Israel is part of the tittle "King of Israel" and not the subject in the verse.

Here are many translations that specifically point out that “his” refers to Israel. Though I’m sure you will still refuse to take your blinders off.

I prefer not to post translations, but rather discuss the verse. Posting translations gets us nowhere.
Note:

The Darby Translation
Isaiah 44:6 (DBY) Thus saith Jehovah, the King of Israel, and his Redeemer, Jehovah of hosts: I [am] the first, and I [am] the last, and beside me there is no God.

English Standard Version
Isaiah 44:6 (ESV) Thus says the LORD, the King of Israel and his Redeemer, the LORD of hosts: "I am the first and I am the last; besides me there is no god.

Hebrew Names Version
Isaiah 44:6 (HNV) Thus says the LORD, the King of Yisra'el, and his Redeemer, the LORD of Hosts: I am the first, and I am the last; and besides me there is no God.

Jubilee Bible 2000
Isaiah 44:6 (JUB) Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel and his redeemer, the LORD of the hosts; I <em>am</em> the first, and I <em>am</em> the last; and beside me <em>there is</em> no God.

King James Version
Isaiah 44:6 (KJV) Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.

New American Standard Bible
Isaiah 44:6 (NAS) "Thus says the LORD , the King of Israel and his Redeemer, the LORD of hosts: 'I am the first and I am the last, And there is no God besides Me.

New King James Version
Isaiah 44:6 (NKJV) "Thus says the Lord, the King of Israel, And his Redeemer, the Lord of hosts: 'I am the First and I am the Last; Besides Me there is no God.

New Revised Standard
Isaiah 44:6 (NRS) Thus says the Lord, the King of Israel, and his Redeemer, the Lord of hosts: I am the first and I am the last; besides me there is no god.

New Revised Standard w/ Apocrypha
Isaiah 44:6 (NRSA) Thus says the Lord, the King of Israel, and his Redeemer, the Lord of hosts: I am the first and I am the last; besides me there is no god.

Douay-Rheims Catholic Bible
Isaiah 44:6 (RHE) Thus saith the Lord the king of Israel, and his redeemer the Lord of hosts: I am the first, and I am the last, and besides me there is no God.

Revised Standard Version
Isaiah 44:6 (RSV) Thus says the LORD, the King of Israel and his Redeemer, the LORD of hosts: "I am the first and I am the last; besides me there is no god.

 

[JNelson]

Who is the redeemer= Jesus Christ.
Redeemer = a person who redeems someone or something. A price was paid.

Both YHWH and Jesus are redeemers, similar to how both YHWH and Moses were redeemers. The simple biblical answer is that YHWH redeems through the man Jesus and therefore both can be called redeemer.

We were redeemed.
1 Peter 1:18-19 knowing that you were not redeemed with corruptible things, like silver or gold, from your aimless conduct received by tradition from your fathers, but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot.

Who sent the redeemer?
Gal 4:4 But when the fullness of the time had come, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the law, 5 to redeem those who were under the law, that we might receive the adoption as sons.

Yep YHWH sent his son to redeem us

John 1:29 The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, “Behold! The Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!

Yep, Jesus is the lamb of YHWH

YHWH sent the redeemer, who is His God's} to send, to redeem us. = Isaiah 44:6 is clear the redeemer belongs to YHWH, and the act of redeeming is upon us, not YHWH.

Yep, YHWH sent us a redeemer.

The Redeemer as YHWH is Israel's Husband.

Isaiah 54:5 - For thy Maker is thine husband; the LORD of hosts is his name; and thy Redeemer the Holy One of Israel; The God of the whole earth shall he be called.

Hosea 2:16 “And it shall be, in that day,” Says the Lord, “That you will call Me ‘My Husband,’ And no longer call Me ‘My Master,’
Note Lord translates from YHWH.

Jesus is the bridegroom.

Rev 19:9 And the angel said to me, “Write this: Blessed are those who are invited to the marriage supper of the Lamb.” And he said to me, “These are the true words of God.”

Now connect the dots.

The dots are clear, YHWH carries out many things through the man Jesus, just like he carried out many things through other men in the OT. That’s how YHWH chooses to work with mankind.

Your interpreting one passage by another. Vs 1-5 is about God's blessing on Israel, vs 6-8 God stating that there is no other God besides Him. Attempting to identify the pronoun in vs 6 by vs 1 is wrong.

I’m interpreting the verse based on its surrounding context which you love to exclude when convenient.

That would be a stretch.
Again: The pronominal suffix 'His' modifies 'redeemer' as a possession of "YHWH King of Israel" and not "Israel". Why? Because Israel is part of the tittle "King of Israel" and not the subject in the verse.

Isaiah said the YHWH is both Israel’s king and his redeemer. You might not like the way he chose to say it but that is what he said. YHWH doesn’t have a redeemer, he is the redeemer and he redeems through Jesus like he redeemed through Moses previously.

I prefer not to post translations, but rather discuss the verse. Posting translations gets us nowhere.
Note:

All those translations agree with my view as well because Isaiah could state it however he wants to. So again, YHWH does not have or possess a redeemer, he is the redeemer of Israel.

YHWH, the king of Israel and the Redeemer of Israel

YHWH, the king and redeemer of Israel

YHWH, the king of Israel and his redeemer

They all mean the same thing.

 

[johnny guitar]

Both YHWH and Jesus are redeemers, similar to how both YHWH and Moses were redeemers. The simple biblical answer is that YHWH redeems through the man Jesus and therefore both can be called redeemer.

Yep YHWH sent his son to redeem us

Yep, Jesus is the lamb of YHWH

Yep, YHWH sent us a redeemer.

The dots are clear, YHWH carries out many things through the man Jesus, just like he carried out many things through other men in the OT. That’s how YHWH chooses to work with mankind.

I’m interpreting the verse based on its surrounding context which you love to exclude when convenient.

Isaiah said the YHWH is both Israel’s king and his redeemer. You might not like the way he chose to say it but that is what he said. YHWH doesn’t have a redeemer, he is the redeemer and he redeems through Jesus like he redeemed through Moses previously.

All those translations agree with my view as well because Isaiah could state it however he wants to. So again, YHWH does not have or possess a redeemer, he is the redeemer of Israel.

YHWH, the king of Israel and the Redeemer of Israel

YHWH, the king and redeemer of Israel

YHWH, the king of Israel and his redeemer

They all mean the same thing.

The Bible knows NOTHING of two Redeemers and Moses is NOT called The Redeemer.
The King of Israel and HIS redeemer is NOT the same thing as the first two statements.
BTW Jesus Christ IS The ONE and ONLY King of Israel and our ONE and ONLY Redeemer.

 

[Towerwatchman]

Right, because no one can. What they saw and heard were theophanies.

Some theophanies were seen and heard with the senses, and some where visions. If Jesus was clear that no one has seen or heard the Father, and the OT is clear that YHWH was seen and heard with the physical senses; one has to ask 'Who was it?"

“Holy Father, keep them in your name, which you have given me, that they may be one, even as we are one.”

As a Trinitarian I do not have a contradiction with this verse, but you do. How do you reconcile this and
Is 42:8 I am the Lord, that is My name; And My glory I will not give to another...

It also translates from Adonai, adon and adoni.

Irrelevant: The topic is Genesis chapter 18 Note vs 1,13,17,22 and 33 where “Lord” translates from “YHWH”.

Did Jesus say those words?

According to Isaiah it was YHWH. BTW post your point.

You really need to study what a theophany is…

Red herring, and ad hominem.

Again with the ignoring of context.

When Jesus had said these things, he departed and hid himself from them. Though he had done so many signs before them, they still did not believe in him, so that the word spoken by the prophet Isaiah might be fulfilled: “Lord, who has believed what he heard from us, and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?” Therefore they could not believe. For again Isaiah said, “He has blinded their eyes and hardened their heart, lest they see with their eyes, and understand with their heart, and turn, and I would heal them.”

Isaiah said these things because he saw his glory and spoke of him. Nevertheless, many even of the authorities believed in him, but for fear of the Pharisees they did not confess it, so that they would not be put out of the synagogue; for they loved the glory that comes from man more than the glory that comes from God.

The glory that Isaiah saw was the glory that Jesus would receive from God because unlike the Pharisees, he did not seek the glory of men but rather he sought the glory that comes from God, his God, who is YHWH.

You are as blind as the those men who Isaiah prophesied about.

Besides the ad hominem. Care to point out how, or where the passage supports you idea. Notice, you are arguing that 'glory' is tied to a future event. Simple grammar, how can the passage above be about a future event, when it contains zero words with future tense?
Rather, simple grammar, written by John. "Isaiah said these things because he saw his glory and spoke of him." "Saw/ spoke" past event.

The word form (morphe) literally means outward appearance so Jesus had the outward appearance of God. Jesus performed miracles, signs and wonders and he spoke the words of God as YHWH himself said his prophet would and this is what it means that he was in the form of God. But we know based from Acts 2:22 and other verses that it was actually God performing these miracles through Jesus not that Jesus actually possessed this power innately.

Instead of supplying a verse that supports your idea of morphe [outward appearance] you post a verse to support a red herring.
Now as to your argument. Note Phil 2:6-9 is chronological order. Morphe in vs 6 is before Jesus' birth not after. BTW you are attempting to redefine morphe from outward appearance to actions performed. From a noun to a verb.
(morphe) literally means outward appearance so Jesus had the outward appearance of God. noun
Jesus performed miracles, signs and wonders and he spoke the words of God... this is what it means that he was in the form of God. verb.

When it says he did not count equality with God something to be grasped it means that even though he spoke for God and could perform miracles he didn’t try and take advantage of it for personal gain.

Again, in chronological order. The 'considering' took place before Jesus' birth. How do we know this?
Establish chronological order with the use of the conjunction ‘but’, vs 7 introduces the choice Jesus made in contrast to what He was considering in vs 6, established vs 6 occurred before the incarnation.
When you consider you are making a choice. Consider = think carefully about (something), typically before making a decision. What was Jesus choosing between, its in vs 6. Holding on or not holding on to His equality with God. Note the choice again, either do nothing and remain equal or give it up, which Jesus did and vs 7 follows.

Emptied himself means he made himself of no reputation, which supports that he was not trying to exalt himself to take advantage for personal gain as he was equal with God in authority/position. The Louw & Nida states that emptying means ‘to completely remove or eliminate elements of high status or rank by eliminating all privileges or prerogatives associated with such status or rank — ‘to divest oneself of position’

Yes Jesus did do such a thing, but read the text again. Jesus also did this before His birth.

So clearly, Jesus being in the form of God is talking about position, he is the son of God, the King of Israel, the Messiah. His position is next to God as ruler over all yet he humbled himself and took on the form (position) of a servant. Though he was the king he lived as a lowly servant hence the appearance/likeness of a man.

??? You just wrote that form of God = performed miracles, signs and wonders and speaking the words of God. Now its position?
OK
Form = the visible shape or configuration of something.
Position = high rank or social standing.
Now you are redefining words.
Fallacy of Suppressed Correlative=Description: The attempt to redefine a correlative (one of two mutually exclusive options) so that one alternative encompasses the other, i.e. making one alternative impossible. The redefinition, therefore, makes the word it is redefining essentially meaningless.
If 'form of God' = position, then logically 'position' = 'form of God'.
Eph 4:11 And He Himself gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers,
Following your reasoning to a logical conclusion millions of people who held the position and authority of apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers were all in the form of God also.

Taking the form of a servant is also the outward appearance of a servant. It shows the contrast in how he lived his life, he performed miracles and people followed him by the thousands yet in contrast he refused to be crowned king, he had no place to lay his head and humbly served others. This is the contrast Paul is making, not that he was God and became a human being, that’s what you erroneously read into the text.

3444 morphḗ – properly, form (outward expression) that embodies essential (inner) substance so that the form is in complete harmony with the inner essence. [Strongs]

Your definition is short. Morphe is the outward expression of the inner substance.
If Jesus' outward appearance as a servant was the outward expression of His inner substance = His humanity, then Jesus's outward expression as God is the outward expression of His inner substance= His deity.

Jesus humbled himself and did so even unto death and then in v. 9, God, because of this, highly exalted him. This is exactly what Jesus said in Matt. 23:12. No one has or can humble himself more than Christ and no can ever be exalted as high as Christ, to the right hand of God, the Most High, the Majesty on High. The only one who is above Jesus is YHWH, his God.

Agree, that is positional, within the Godhead there is a hierarchy. The Father is greater than the Son in authority, not being.

By being exalted over all creation he was given a name above all names and when we bow and confess him as Lord it’s all to the glory of God the Father.

It’s very simple, Jesus, the most important man in the world lived and died as a humble servant and was therefore exalted, he is our example to be humble and serve others and to regard them higher than ourselves.

Ok. But you did not address the topic. = Did Jesus exist as a cognitive free-willed individual apart and separate from God, before the incarnation?

 

[Towerwatchman]

Seriously?
You must not know enough Greek or about Bible translations because if you did you’d know that in the Greek the blind man simply says εγώ ειμι “I am”.

You’d also know that the reason the word “he” is in italics is because that’s how certain translations like the NASB lets you know that word is not in the original Greek manuscript. E.g. “for unless you believe that I am He, you will die in your sins.” John 8:24 NAS95

Let’s see if you will be honest and admit you were wrong here…

Hermeneutics 101

ἐγώ εἰμί (I am he), frequent in the Gospels, especially in John, must have its predicate supplied mentally, inasmuch as it is evident from the context (cf. Krüger, § 60, 7)

Based on the context Jn 9:9 can be translated “I am he.”

John 18:5,6,8 also translates 'I am He". Also Matthew 14:27; Mark 6:50; Luke and 24:39 translate as "it is I".


The point being. = It depends on the context. Now as to John 8:58 there is no other way to translate that verse. Based on the context "...before Abraham was I AM.

God Bless
TWM

 

[Yahweh will increase]

Some theophanies were seen and heard with the senses, and some where visions. If Jesus was clear that no one has seen or heard the Father, and the OT is clear that YHWH was seen and heard with the physical senses; one has to ask 'Who was it?"

First off, you falsely believe that when it mentions "The Father" that it is only referring to one person of your three person false god and which is your first error, for it is referring to God in his complete single person and just as it does also in John 1:18.

Secondly, not seeing the Father isn't only referring to not seeing how he looks in an ocular outward physical appearance but it goes much deeper in meaning as to not having a clear understanding of who he really is and that is what John meant when he wrote John 1:18 below also.

John 1:18 No one has ever seen God at any time, but the only begotten Son who is in closest relationship with the Father, makes him known (exegetes him).

As a Trinitarian I do not have a contradiction with this verse, but you do. How do you reconcile this and
Is 42:8 I am the Lord, that is My name; And My glory I will not give to another...

That is because you have contradictions and false interpretations of other passages in the Bible to start with.

You also falsely interpret the scriptures in assuming that whenever it speaks of the glory of Jesus, it means glory as being God and that is also totally false, for Jesus in his prayer in John 17 revealed that he had himself shared the glory that God had given him with his own sheep.

Irrelevant: The topic is Genesis chapter 18 Note vs 1,13,17,22 and 33 where “Lord” translates from “YHWH”.

Sorry but no one ever saw God in his totally unveiled glory and those Genesis appearances are narratives of what men and women truly believed and said about their seeing God, not lies but only partial truths about it.

However what God himself spoke to Moses in Exodus 33:17-23 is what he himself spoke about himself and therefore it is the whole truth and if God is three persons, it means that no one has seen any of those three persons also and period.

According to Isaiah it was YHWH. BTW post your point.

Red herring, and ad hominem.

Besides the ad hominem. Care to point out how, or where the passage supports you idea. Notice, you are arguing that 'glory' is tied to a future event. Simple grammar, how can the passage above be about a future event, when it contains zero words with future tense?
Rather, simple grammar, written by John. "Isaiah said these things because he saw his glory and spoke of him." "Saw/ spoke" past event.

The above only proves why understanding human rules of grammar don't always apply to or explain correctly the spiritual words of God in the scriptures.

For if you are speaking of the glory Jesus spoke of in John 17:5, the full context of the prayer bears out that it is referring to glory that God himself alone had and reserved for Jesus in his predetermined plan and foreknowledge and that glory also refers to a place reserved for Jesus along side of himself on his throne.

However, it is not referring to glory as his being God but rather as being God's anointed human Son and the greatest from the tribe of David who was to fulfill the complete promises of God made to David and also Israel.

Instead of supplying a verse that supports your idea of morphe [outward appearance] you post a verse to support a red herring.
Now as to your argument. Note Phil 2:6-9 is chronological order. Morphe in vs 6 is before Jesus' birth not after. BTW you are attempting to redefine morphe from outward appearance to actions performed. From a noun to a verb.
(morphe) literally means outward appearance so Jesus had the outward appearance of God. noun
Jesus performed miracles, signs and wonders and he spoke the words of God... this is what it means that he was in the form of God. verb.

Again, in chronological order. The 'considering' took place before Jesus' birth. How do we know this?
Establish chronological order with the use of the conjunction ‘but’, vs 7 introduces the choice Jesus made in contrast to what He was considering in vs 6, established vs 6 occurred before the incarnation.
When you consider you are making a choice. Consider = think carefully about (something), typically before making a decision. What was Jesus choosing between, its in vs 6. Holding on or not holding on to His equality with God. Note the choice again, either do nothing and remain equal or give it up, which Jesus did and vs 7 follows.

Yes Jesus did do such a thing, but read the text again. Jesus also did this before His birth.

??? You just wrote that form of God = performed miracles, signs and wonders and speaking the words of God. Now its position?
OK
Form = the visible shape or configuration of something.
Position = high rank or social standing.
Now you are redefining words.
Fallacy of Suppressed Correlative=Description: The attempt to redefine a correlative (one of two mutually exclusive options) so that one alternative encompasses the other, i.e. making one alternative impossible. The redefinition, therefore, makes the word it is redefining essentially meaningless.
If 'form of God' = position, then logically 'position' = 'form of God'.
Eph 4:11 And He Himself gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers,
Following your reasoning to a logical conclusion millions of people who held the position and authority of apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers were all in the form of God also.

3444 morphḗ – properly, form (outward expression) that embodies essential (inner) substance so that the form is in complete harmony with the inner essence. [Strongs]

Your definition is short. Morphe is the outward expression of the inner substance.
If Jesus' outward appearance as a servant was the outward expression of His inner substance = His humanity, then Jesus's outward expression as God is the outward expression of His inner substance= His deity.

Agree, that is positional, within the Godhead there is a hierarchy. The Father is greater than the Son in authority, not being.

Ok. But you did not address the topic. = Did Jesus exist as a cognitive free-willed individual apart and separate from God, before the incarnation?

Absolutely false!

For the Greek word "huparchon" that Paul used and which is translated as "existing" and "being" in Philippians 2:6 proves that Jesus had a beginning and his beginning was at his birth and not some time before he was born.

All that Paul is saying therefore, is that prior to his taking the form of a servant, Jesus existed and continued to exist from his birth in the form of God.

That Greek word "huparchon" is used about 60 times in the NT and it is used to speak of possessions and positions but never is it used to speak of eternal possessions or positions and I can prove this also by how it is used and translated throughout the NT and in the only two times it refers to God as well.

It is used for God twice in Acts 17:24 and 27 but in both of those passages it is used for God being Lord over and near unto only what he first created to be Lord over and near unto and therefore positions that he only began to have after he first created all things and also man.

Furthermore, although it is true that "morphe" can refer to an outward appearance of an inward essence, it doesn't always mean this and Mark 16:12 proves this and so does 2 Timothy 3:5 as well.

Then when it is used to speak of an inward essence manifested outwardly, it still doesn't mean that the inward essence is that which belongs to the one who has the "morphe" = "form" and such is what Jesus himself revealed for us in John 14:8-10.

For he very clearly told his disciples that the "morphe of God (The Father)" that they saw from Jesus outwardly, was not himself as being God but rather the Father who was dwelling within him and manifesting himself outwardly through Jesus and therefore the inward essence did not belong to Jesus but rather the Father who was dwelling within him.

This is what Paul is speaking of in Philippians 2:6 also.

 

[johnny guitar]

First off, you falsely believe that when it mentions "The Father" that it is only referring to one person of your three person false god and which is your first error, for it is referring to God in his complete single person and just as it does also in John 1:18.

Secondly, not seeing the Father isn't only referring to not seeing how he looks in an ocular outward physical appearance but it goes much deeper in meaning as to not having a clear understanding of who he really is and that is what John meant when he wrote John 1:18 below also.

John 1:18 No one has ever seen God at any time, but the only begotten Son who is in closest relationship with the Father, makes him known (exegetes him).


That is because you have contradictions and false interpretations of other passages in the Bible to start with.

You also falsely interpret the scriptures in assuming that whenever it speaks of the glory of Jesus, it means glory as being God and that is also totally false, for Jesus in his prayer in John 17 revealed that he had himself shared the glory that God had given him with his own sheep.


Sorry but no one ever saw God in his totally unveiled glory and those Genesis appearances are narratives of what men and women truly believed and said about their seeing God, not lies but only partial truths about it.

However what God himself spoke to Moses in Exodus 33:17-23 is what he himself spoke about himself and therefore it is the whole truth and if God is three persons, it means that no one has seen any of those three persons also and period.





The above only proves why understanding human rules of grammar don't always apply to or explain correctly the spiritual words of God in the scriptures.

For if you are speaking of the glory Jesus spoke of in John 17:5, the full context of the prayer bears out that it is referring to glory that God himself alone had and reserved for Jesus in his predetermined plan and foreknowledge and that glory also refers to a place reserved for Jesus along side of himself on his throne.

However, it is not referring to glory as his being God but rather as being God's anointed human Son and the greatest from the tribe of David who was to fulfill the complete promises of God made to David and also Israel.


Absolutely false!

For the Greek word "huparchon" that Paul used and which is translated as "existing" and "being" in Philippians 2:6 proves that Jesus had a beginning and his beginning was at his birth and not some time before he was born.

All that Paul is saying therefore, is that prior to his taking the form of a servant, Jesus existed and continued to exist from his birth in the form of God.

That Greek word "huparchon" is used about 60 times in the NT and it is used to speak of possessions and positions but never is it used to speak of eternal possessions or positions and I can prove this also by how it is used and translated throughout the NT and in the only two times it refers to God as well.

It is used for God twice in Acts 17:24 and 27 but in both of those passages it is used for God being Lord over and near unto only what he first created to be Lord over and near unto and therefore positions that he only began to have after he first created all things and also man.

Furthermore, although it is true that "morphe" can refer to an outward appearance of an inward essence, it doesn't always mean this and Mark 16:12 proves this and so does 2 Timothy 3:5 as well.

Then when it is used to speak of an inward essence manifested outwardly, it still doesn't mean that the inward essence is that which belongs to the one who has the "morphe" = "form" and such is what Jesus himself revealed for us in John 14:8-10.

For he very clearly told his disciples that the "morphe of God (The Father)" that they saw from Jesus outwardly, was not himself as being God but rather the Father who was dwelling within him and manifesting himself outwardly through Jesus and therefore the inward essence did not belong to Jesus but rather the Father who was dwelling within him.

This is what Paul is speaking of in Philippians 2:6 also.

Indeed, The ONE Lord is God and vice versa.
The Father dwells in all believers. NOT one of them can say "He who has seen me has seen The Father".
So much for your asinine explanation of John 14:8-10.
In Phil. 2:6 we learn that Jesus Himself was IN the form of god.

 

[Yahweh will increase]

Indeed, The ONE Lord is God and vice versa.
The Father dwells in all believers. NOT one of them can say "He who has seen me has seen The Father".
So much for your asinine explanation of John 14:8-10.
In Phil. 2:6 we learn that Jesus Himself was IN the form of god.

Hilarious and also quite ridiculous, for although God dwells in all believers, none of them were without sin and therefore it only stands to reason that none of them can say like Jesus, "he who has seen me has seen the Father also.

Nevertheless, Jesus clearly revealed why when they saw him they also saw the Father in John 14:8-10 and he told us that it is because the Father is dwelling within him and manifesting his works through Jesus and he never said any such thing as it being because he also himself is God and equal to the Father.


That is a fact that you will eventually have to reckon with also and either here in this age or after it at the Great White Throne Judgment when you stand before God and have to give an account unto him for your denial of it.

Nevertheless you will reckon with it and I can absolutely assure you have that fact Johnny.

 

[johnny guitar]

Hilarious and also quite ridiculous, for although God dwells in all believers, none of them were without sin and therefore it only stands to reason that none of them can say like Jesus, "he who has seen me has seen the Father also.

Nevertheless, Jesus clearly revealed why when they saw him they also saw the Father in John 14:8-10 and he told us that it is because the Father is dwelling within him and manifesting his works through Jesus and he never said any such thing as it being because he also himself is God and equal to the Father.


That is a fact that you will eventually have to reckon with also and either here in this age or after it at the Great White Throne Judgment when you stand before God and have to give an account unto him for your denial of it.

Nevertheless you will reckon with it and I can absolutely assure you have that fact Johnny.

Only one who is IDENTICAL to the Father can say what Jesus said.
Being sinless ALONE is insufficient to make such a claim.

 

[Towerwatchman]

The word there is not “person” and being the image of God means you are not God. Yes, all this proves Jesus is not God but the image of God. Just like the express image of Cesar on a coin is not actually Cesar

Your worldview works when you hold the meanings in isolation. Yes, just being the image of God does not equate deity.

The word ὑπόστασις does not mean “person”. This is just trinitarians anachronistically using that definition which wasn’t used for ὑπόστασις until several hundred years later.

Notice you neglected to post what the real meaning is. Also why the fallacy? I do not argue for "person" but "substance". Notice how you neglected to post how substance along with being or person should be interpreted. You cannot just say X is wrong, you have to prove X is wrong, and included is presenting and proving what you believe is true about X.

It’s like someone today reading the first line of the hymn, He Arose Today, written in 1909 and applying today’s meaning of the word “gay” instead of what it meant back then.
“O heart, be glad and gay,
A blessèd hope we know
No, that’s what you’re trying to do.

This is your argument?

Wrong again, Jesus is not the same “form or matter of God” he is the image of God which is not the same as actually being God.

Again notice how your argument neglects to address ὑπόστασις [hupostasis], and focuses only on image.

The verse does not read the image of God but the express image of His substance.
The express image of his person (χαρακτήρ=ὁ= ὑπόστασις = αὐτός). Rend. the very image (or impress) of his substance. The primary sense of ὑπόστασις substance is something which stands underneath; foundation, ground of hope or confidence, and so, assurance itself. In a philosophical sense, substantial nature; the real nature of anything which underlies and supports its outward form and properties.

Prophets hear from God and see the future which God revels to them, many times in visions or dreams. This is a simple biblical fact.

Again, Seeing future events is not what is common amongst prophets, but that they speak for God. Not all prophecies are etched in stone. Some are conditional statements. Was Nineveh destroyed as Jonah predicted? Jonah 3:12

 

[Towerwatchman]

Humans, including Jesus, are made in God’s image. Jesus is the only one to perfectly represent God’s image and that’s why we are to be confirmed to the image of YHWH’s son.

We are made in the image of God, Jesus is the express image of God's person or substance, there is a difference

That’s why they saw a theophany. Also, why didn’t Daniel die when he saw the Father in Daniel 7:9? That’s irrelevant because God is timeless. Daniel saw the Father, plain and simple.

Did Daniel see the Father? Who is the Ancient of Days.

In Daniel’s vision the “ten horns” are ten kings, the “other horn” the beast, they make war against the saints till the Ancient of Days appears and intervenes. But note, throughout the Bible only Jesus appears never the Father.

Da 7:20-22 and the ten horns that were on its head, and the other horn which came up…I was watching; and the same horn was making war against the saints, and prevailing against them, until the Ancient of Days came, and a judgment was made in favor of the saints of the Most High…

John writes about the same event note again the “ten horns” = ten kings, who give their allegiance to the “other horn” = the beast, and make ware against the saints and the Lamb.

Re 17:12-14“The ten horns which you saw are ten kings… they receive authority for one hour as kings with the beast…These will make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb will over come them, for He is Lord of lords and King of kings; and those who are with Him are called, chosen, and faithful.”

The difference between Daniel’s and John’s vision is that in Daniel’s vision there are two distinct individuals “Son of Man” and the “Ancient of Days.” And in Daniel’s vision the “Ancient of Days” intervenes for the saints and judges the beast and his followers.

This does not agree with John, for according to John 5:22 Jesus only judges “For the Father judges no one, but has committed all judgment to the Son”, and in Revelation John’s vision is of Jesus intervening for the saints and judging the beast and his followers.

Rev19:11-14 Now I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse. And He who sat on him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness He judges and makes war. His eyes were like a flame of fire, and on His head were many crowns. He had a name written that no one knew except Himself. He was clothed with a robe dipped in blood, and His name is called The Word of God. And the armies in heaven, clothed in fine linen, white and clean, followed Him on white horses…16 And He has on His robe and on His thigh a name written: KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS…19-21And I saw the beast, the kings of the earth, and their armies, gathered together to make war against Him who sat on the horse and against His army. Then the beast was captured, and with him the false prophet who worked signs in his presence, by which he deceived those who received the mark of the beast and those who worshiped his image. These two were cast alive into the lake of fire burning with brimstone. And the rest were killed with the sword which proceeded from the mouth of Him who sat on the horse

Prophets in their present day see the future and write about it. What Isaiah saw was the future and he wrote about it in his present day, 700 years before it came to pass as John was stating.

Again don't just tell us about it. Post it. What in Isaiah 6 [verses] is a future prediction that pertains to Jesus' glory.

Like Jesus I believe and have one God, YHWH, known as the Father.

You believe in a trinity god that is not Jesus’ God so in reality you are the antichrist who has never met the real Jesus or his God.

There is no contradiction. A center of consciousness that is deity can address another center of consciousness as God. It's relational, and supported by Scripture.
Here's food for thought.

Isaiah 48:12 “Listen to Me, O Jacob, And Israel, My called: I am He, I am the First, I am also the Last. 13 Indeed My hand has laid the foundation of the earth, And My right hand has stretched out the heavens; When I call to them, They stand up together. 14 “All of you, assemble yourselves, and hear! Who among them has declared these things? The LORD {YHWH} loves him; He shall do His pleasure on Babylon, And His arm shall be against the Chaldeans. 15 I, even I, have spoken; Yes, I have called him, I have brought him, and his way will prosper. 16 “Come near to Me, hear this: I have not spoken in secret from the beginning; From the time that it was, I was there. And now the Lord {YHWH} GOD and His Spirit Have sent Me.”



In vs 12 the speaker identifies Himself as “The First and The Last” same as 44:6. This is a divine and exclusive title. There could only exist One who is First and Last, and that is YHWH. The speaker is further identified as YHWH by things only God can do, absolute foreknowledge [vs 3,5,6], creation [vs. 13], sovereignty [vs 15], and omnipresence [vs 16].

If the passage is interpreted in literally [in its natural and normal meaning] there are three Persons in the passage that are identified as God.

Note the ending of vs 16. For the speaker who identifies Himself as YHWH is sent by YHWH and His Spirit. Here we have Jesus {YHWH} being sent by the Father and the HS [YHWH].

 

[Towerwatchman]

Humans, including Jesus, are made in God’s image. Jesus is the only one to perfectly represent God’s image and that’s why we are to be confirmed to the image of YHWH’s son.

We are made in the image of God, Jesus is the express image of God's person or substance, there is a difference

That’s why they saw a theophany. Also, why didn’t Daniel die when he saw the Father in Daniel 7:9? That’s irrelevant because God is timeless. Daniel saw the Father, plain and simple.

Did Daniel see the Father? Who is the Ancient of Days.

In Daniel’s vision the “ten horns” are ten kings, the “other horn” the beast, they make war against the saints till the Ancient of Days appears and intervenes. But note, throughout the Bible only Jesus appears never the Father.

Da 7:20-22 and the ten horns that were on its head, and the other horn which came up…I was watching; and the same horn was making war against the saints, and prevailing against them, until the Ancient of Days came, and a judgment was made in favor of the saints of the Most High…

John writes about the same event note again the “ten horns” = ten kings, who give their allegiance to the “other horn” = the beast, and make ware against the saints and the Lamb.

Re 17:12-14“The ten horns which you saw are ten kings… they receive authority for one hour as kings with the beast…These will make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb will over come them, for He is Lord of lords and King of kings; and those who are with Him are called, chosen, and faithful.”

The difference between Daniel’s and John’s vision is that in Daniel’s vision there are two distinct individuals “Son of Man” and the “Ancient of Days.” And in Daniel’s vision the “Ancient of Days” intervenes for the saints and judges the beast and his followers.

This does not agree with John, for according to John 5:22 Jesus only judges “For the Father judges no one, but has committed all judgment to the Son”, and in Revelation John’s vision is of Jesus intervening for the saints and judging the beast and his followers.

Rev19:11-14 Now I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse. And He who sat on him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness He judges and makes war. His eyes were like a flame of fire, and on His head were many crowns. He had a name written that no one knew except Himself. He was clothed with a robe dipped in blood, and His name is called The Word of God. And the armies in heaven, clothed in fine linen, white and clean, followed Him on white horses…16 And He has on His robe and on His thigh a name written: KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS…19-21And I saw the beast, the kings of the earth, and their armies, gathered together to make war against Him who sat on the horse and against His army. Then the beast was captured, and with him the false prophet who worked signs in his presence, by which he deceived those who received the mark of the beast and those who worshiped his image. These two were cast alive into the lake of fire burning with brimstone. And the rest were killed with the sword which proceeded from the mouth of Him who sat on the horse

Prophets in their present day see the future and write about it. What Isaiah saw was the future and he wrote about it in his present day, 700 years before it came to pass as John was stating.

Again don't just tell us about it. Post it. What in Isaiah 6 [verses] is a future prediction that pertains to Jesus' glory.

You can ignore the simple truth all you want but the fact remains that YHWH, who Jesus said is the only true God is in fact the only true God. Jesus’ God is YHWH, known as the Father while the trinity god you believe in is not Jesus’ God.

Posting red herrings is poor scholarship. You have multiple verses that were cited in support of the Trinity, which you blew off. Honest scholarship requires you to address them before you start citing verses. You have to present a harmony between the verses you respond to and the verses you cited that supports your position. Otherwise its, 'he who shouts loudest wins.'

 

[Towerwatchman]

Unless you can show through scriptures that Jesus’ God is the trinity then you believe in a different god. I choose to believe in the same God Jesus’ has not a false trinity god.

• Who does Scripture proclaim to be God?
  • Proclaims the Father to be God.
    • Eph 4:6 one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.
  • Proclaims the Son to be God.
    • Titus 2:13 looking for the blessed hope and glorious appearing of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ,
    • John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
    • Jn 20:28 And Thomas answered and said to Him, “My Lord and my God!”
    • 2 Peter 1:1Simon Peter, a bondservant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have obtained like precious faith with us by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ:
  • Proclaims the Holy Spirit to be God.
    • Acts 5:3-4 But Peter said, “Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and keep back part of the price of the land for yourself? 4 While it remained, was it not your own? And after it was sold, was it not in your own control? Why have you conceived this thing in your heart? You have not lied to men but to God.”
  • Proclaims God to be the one, true God.
    • De 6:4 “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one!
      • Therefore the Bible says that the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are all YHWH God.
• 
  
• According to the whole of Scripture who raised Jesus from the dead?
  • The Father raised Jesus from the dead.
    • Ro 6:4 Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.
  • Jesus raised Himself from the dead.
    • Jn 2:19-22 Jesus answered and said to them, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” 20 Then the Jews said, “It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and will You raise it up in three days?” 21 But He was speaking of the temple of His body. 22 Therefore, when He had risen from the dead, His disciples remembered that He had said this to them; and they believed the Scripture and the word which Jesus had said.
    • Jn 10:17-18 “Therefore My Father loves Me, because I lay down My life that I may take it again. 18 No one takes it from Me, but I lay it down of Myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This command I have received from My Father.”
  • Proclaims the Holy Spirit raised Jesus from the dead.
    • Ro 8:11 But if the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, He who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through His Spirit who dwells in you.
  • Only God could raise Jesus from the dead.
    • Ac 3:26 To you first, God, having raised up His Servant Jesus, sent Him to bless you, fin turning away every one of you from your iniquities.”
    • Acts 13:30 But God raised Him from the dead.
    • Acts 17:30 Truly, these times of ignorance God overlooked, but now commands all men everywhere to repent, 31 because He has appointed a day on which He will judge the world in righteousness by the Man whom He has ordained. He has given assurance of this to all by raising Him from the dead.”
    • 1 Thess. 1:9,10 For they themselves declare concerning us what manner of entry we had to you, and how you turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God, 10 and to wait for His Son from heaven, whom He raised from the dead, even Jesus who delivers us from the wrath to come.
    • He 13:20 Now may the God of peace who brought up our Lord Jesus from the dead, that great Shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant,
      • Therefore the whole of Scripture reveals the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit in the unity as God were responsible for raising Jesus from the dead. Now let’s look at the issue of salvation.
• 
  
• According to Scripture who REGENERATES man?
  • Proclaims the Father regenerates man.
    • 1 Peter 1:3 3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His abundant mercy has begotten us again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,
  • Proclaims the Son regenerates man.
    • John 5:21 For as the Father raises the dead and gives life to them, even so the Son gives life to whom He will.
    • Jn 4:14 but whoever drinks of the water that I shall give him will never thirst. But the water that I shall give him will become in him a fountain of water springing up into everlasting life.”
  • Proclaims the Holy Spirit regenerates man.
    • John 3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
    • Ti 3:5 not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit,
  • Proclaims God regenerates man.
    • 1 Jn 3:9 Whoever has been born of God does not sin, for His seed remains in him; and he cannot sin, because he has been born of God.
      • We have to conclude that the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit in the unity as God are responsible for regenerating man according to the whole of Scripture.
• 
  
• According to Scripture JUSTIFIES man?
  • Proclaims that the Father JUSTIFIES man.
    • Je 23:6 In His days Judah will be saved, And Israel will dwell safely; Now this is His name by which He will be called: THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS.
    • 2 Co 5:18-19 that is, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not imputing their trespasses to them, and has committed to us the word of reconciliation.
  • Proclaims that the Son JUSTIFIES man.
    • Ro 5:9 Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from wrath through Him.
    • Ro 10:4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.
    • 2 Co 5:19-21 that is, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not imputing their trespasses to them, and has committed to us the word of reconciliation. 20 Now then, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were pleading through us: we implore you on Christ’s behalf, be reconciled to God. 21 For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.
  • Proclaims that the Holy Spirit JUSTIFIES man.
    • 1 Co 6:10-11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God.
    • Ga 5:4-5 For we through the Spirit eagerly wait for the hope of righteousness by faith.
  • Proclaims that God justifies man.
    • Ro 4:6 just as David also describes the blessedness of the man to whom God imputes righteousness apart from works:
    • Ro 9:33 “Behold, I lay in Zion a stumbling stone and rock of offense, And whoever believes on Him will not be put to shame.”
      • We have to conclude that the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit in the unity as God are responsible for justifying man according to the whole of Scripture.
      • 
        
  • According to Scripture who SANCTIFIES man?
    • Proclaims that the Father SANCTIFIES man.
      • Jude 1 Jude, a bondservant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James, To those who are called, 1sanctified by God the Father, and preserved in Jesus Christ:
  • Proclaims that the Son SANCTIFIES man.
    • Titus 2:14 who gave Himself for us, that He might redeem us from every lawless deed and purify for Himself His own special people, zealous for good works.
  • Proclaims that the Holy Spirit SANCTIFIES man.
    • 1 Pe 1:2 elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, in sanctification of the Spirit, for obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ:
  • Proclaims God SANCTIFIES man.
    • Ex 31:13 “Speak also to the children of Israel, saying: ‘Surely My Sabbaths you shall keep, for it is a sign between Me and you throughout your generations, that you may know that I am the Lord who sanctifies you.
      • We have to conclude that the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit in the unity as God are responsible for regenerating man according to the whole of Scripture.
• 
  

 

[Towerwatchman]

Unless you can show through scriptures that Jesus’ God is the trinity then you believe in a different god. I choose to believe in the same God Jesus’ has not a false trinity god.

• Who propitiated (i.e. -- to gain or regain the favor or goodwill of) God's just and righteous anger against man for his sins?
  • Proclaims the Father did.
    • Jn 4:14 And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent the Son as Savior of the world.
    • Jn 3:16 For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.
    • Jn 18:11 So Jesus said to Peter, “Put your sword into the sheath. Shall I not drink the cup which My Father has given Me?”
  • Proclaims the Son did.
    • Mt 26:2828 For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
    • John 1:29 The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, “Behold! The Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!
    • 1 John 2:2 2 And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world.
  • Proclaims the Holy Spirit did.
    • Hebrews 9:14 14 how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without spot to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?
  • Proclaims God did.
    • 2 Cor 5:1 For we know that if our earthly house, this tent, is destroyed, we have a building from God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens.
    • Ac 20:28 Therefore take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood.
      • We have to conclude that the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit in the unity as God propitiated God's just and righteous anger against man for his sins.
  • 
    
  • The only overall conclusion that can be reasonably, rationally and logically reached is that the whole of Scripture clearly reveals the doctrine of the Trinity.

 

[Towerwatchman]

Both YHWH and Jesus are redeemers, similar to how both YHWH and Moses were redeemers. The simple biblical answer is that YHWH redeems through the man Jesus and therefore both can be called redeemer.

The NT clarifies the OT, not the other way around. In the NT Jesus is identified as the redeemer alone and by name. Nothing in the OT hints that YHWH will redeem through a man.

The dots are clear, YHWH carries out many things through the man Jesus, just like he carried out many things through other men in the OT. That’s how YHWH chooses to work with mankind.

Reading is fundamental.
Let's try this again.
The Redeemer as YHWH is Israel's Husband.

Isaiah 54:5 - For thy Maker is thine husband; the LORD of hosts is his name; and thy Redeemer the Holy One of Israel; The God of the whole earth shall he be called.

Hosea 2:16 “And it shall be, in that day,” Says the Lord, “That you will call Me ‘My Husband,’ And no longer call Me ‘My Master,’
Note Lord translates from YHWH.

Jesus is the bridegroom.

Rev 19:9 And the angel said to me, “Write this: Blessed are those who are invited to the marriage supper of the Lamb.” And he said to me, “These are the true words of God.”

Since you either cannot or will not connect the dots I will do it for you. Isaiah 54:5 The Redeemer is the 'husband' and maker. Hosea = YHWH says the He will be called "husband'. Rev 19:9 Jesus is identified as the 'husband.'

The one identified as redeemer is also identified as YHWH, is also identified as husband, who is also identified as Jesus.

I’m interpreting the verse based on its surrounding context which you love to exclude when convenient.

You are ignoring and cherry picking the rules of interpretation in order to support you position. "King of Israel" is found 138 times in the OT, in everyone 'Israel' is part of the title 'King of Israel", and anything that is said or done is credited to the "king of Israel" not 'Israel'. Now if you can show any of these verses being used as you state Isa 44:6 is, you might have a point. Otherwise its a desperate attempt to save a flawed worldview.

Isaiah said the YHWH is both Israel’s king and his redeemer. You might not like the way he chose to say it but that is what he said. YHWH doesn’t have a redeemer, he is the redeemer and he redeems through Jesus like he redeemed through Moses previously.

All those translations agree with my view as well because Isaiah could state it however he wants to. So again, YHWH does not have or possess a redeemer, he is the redeemer of Israel.

YHWH, the king of Israel and the Redeemer of Israel

YHWH, the king and redeemer of Israel

YHWH, the king of Israel and his redeemer

They all mean the same thing.

Since you ignore posting I have to repeat myself.
The Darby Translation
Isaiah 44:6 (DBY) Thus saith Jehovah, the King of Israel, and his Redeemer, Jehovah of hosts: I [am] the first, and I [am] the last, and beside me there is no God.

English Standard Version
Isaiah 44:6 (ESV) Thus says the LORD, the King of Israel and his Redeemer, the LORD of hosts: "I am the first and I am the last; besides me there is no god.

Hebrew Names Version
Isaiah 44:6 (HNV) Thus says the LORD, the King of Yisra'el, and his Redeemer, the LORD of Hosts: I am the first, and I am the last; and besides me there is no God.

Jubilee Bible 2000
Isaiah 44:6 (JUB) Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel and his redeemer, the LORD of the hosts; I <em>am</em> the first, and I <em>am</em> the last; and beside me <em>there is</em> no God.

King James Version
Isaiah 44:6 (KJV) Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.

New American Standard Bible
Isaiah 44:6 (NAS) "Thus says the LORD , the King of Israel and his Redeemer, the LORD of hosts: 'I am the first and I am the last, And there is no God besides Me.

New King James Version
Isaiah 44:6 (NKJV) "Thus says the Lord, the King of Israel, And his Redeemer, the Lord of hosts: 'I am the First and I am the Last; Besides Me there is no God.

New Revised Standard
Isaiah 44:6 (NRS) Thus says the Lord, the King of Israel, and his Redeemer, the Lord of hosts: I am the first and I am the last; besides me there is no god.

New Revised Standard w/ Apocrypha
Isaiah 44:6 (NRSA) Thus says the Lord, the King of Israel, and his Redeemer, the Lord of hosts: I am the first and I am the last; besides me there is no god.

Douay-Rheims Catholic Bible
Isaiah 44:6 (RHE) Thus saith the Lord the king of Israel, and his redeemer the Lord of hosts: I am the first, and I am the last, and besides me there is no God.

Revised Standard Version
Isaiah 44:6 (RSV) Thus says the LORD, the King of Israel and his Redeemer, the LORD of hosts: "I am the first and I am the last; besides me there is no god.

I can also post verses that support my position. Argue the text, the grammar, the definitions, etc.

 

[Towerwatchman]

For the Greek word "huparchon" that Paul used and which is translated as "existing" and "being" in Philippians 2:6 proves that Jesus had a beginning and his beginning was at his birth and not some time before he was born. All that Paul is saying therefore, is that prior to his taking the form of a servant, Jesus existed and continued to exist from his birth in the form of God.

Again the passage is in chronological order. Jesus 'being in the form of God' took place before His birth.

That Greek word "huparchon" is used about 60 times in the NT and it is used to speak of possessions and positions but never is it used to speak of eternal possessions or positions and I can prove this also by how it is used and translated throughout the NT and in the only two times it refers to God as well.

Really? Similar to arguing that word X means 'ball' but nothing in the book states 'red ball'. If huparchon means possession or position, that is all it means, whether it carries an adjective or not is irrelevant.

Furthermore, although it is true that "morphe" can refer to an outward appearance of an inward essence, it doesn't always mean this and Mark 16:12 proves this and so does 2 Timothy 3:5 as well.

Mk 16:12 After that, He appeared in another form to two of them as they walked and went into the country.

Common sense. If one can concluded that Jesus appeared in another form one has to conclude that this form is not the outward appearance of the true inward essence.

2 Ti 3:5 having a form of godliness but denying its power. And from such people turn away!

"A form" is not the "true form".

Then when it is used to speak of an inward essence manifested outwardly, it still doesn't mean that the inward essence is that which belongs to the one who has the "morphe" = "form" and such is what Jesus himself revealed for us in John 14:8-10.

Form is translated from “morphe” also used Phil 2:7, and Mk 16:12. From the above I can only conclude that you are not interpreting Phil 2:6 literally. You have a problem, for in Phil 2:6 Jesus is in “form of God”, 2:7 “form of man”, and Mk 16:12 “ a form taken after the resurrection”. If “morphe “cannot be applied ontologically then what was crucified, died, and resurrected. Do we base our faith on something figurative? I believe not.

For he very clearly told his disciples that the "morphe of God (The Father)" that they saw from Jesus outwardly, was not himself as being God but rather the Father who was dwelling within him and manifesting himself outwardly through Jesus and therefore the inward essence did not belong to Jesus but rather the Father who was dwelling within him.

Paul is using “morphe to contrast the expression of deity through human nature, vs 7, with the expression of deity as deity with God vs. 6, therefore in order to compare the two Paul uses the same definition of morphe.

Morphe along with isos/equality [equal in quality and quantity] gives cumulative evidence that Paul is stating in vs 6 that Jesus has and does have equality with God.

This is what Paul is speaking of in Philippians 2:6 also.

What a tangled web you weave.
“One in God’s form” is very different than “being in the form of God”, for “one in God’s form” suggest that Jesus manifested something independent of His actual state of being vs. “being in the form of God” suggest that Jesus’ actual state of being is God.

Morph here is used in a philosophical sense to denote the expression of being which carries in itself the distinctive nature and character of the being to whom it pertains, and is thus permanently identified with the nature, essence and character of said entity. As the form of God was identified with the being of God, so Christ, being in the form of God, was identified with the being, nature, and personality of God.

 

[Yahweh will increase]

Again the passage is in chronological order. Jesus 'being in the form of God' took place before His birth.

I agree and the context starts at verse 5 where the one Paul is speaking of already has the name an title of Jesus Christ.

So he was born first in the form of God and then afterward he took the form of a servant and the contrast is between being born in the form of God which means he wasn't born a servant but rather to rule all nations with a rod of Iron like and just under God himself.

If Paul wanted to reveal that Jesus was God and then became a man, he wouldn't have used words like "huparchon" or "morphe" or "isa" or "homoiomai" but he would have done so something like this instead below.

"who existing (eimi) eternally as God, he did not consider the glory of his being God something to hold on to, but instead he humbled himself and became a servant by being made a man himself".

Really? Similar to arguing that word X means 'ball' but nothing in the book states 'red ball'. If huparchon means possession or position, that is all it means, whether it carries an adjective or not is irrelevant.

Nonsense and you didn't pay attention to what my argument was either.

For it is about the fact that the word is never used to speak of things that have no beginning and in fact the idea of a beginning is built right into the meaning of the words "huparchon" "arche"

In fact, the word "huparchon" is not even the common or best word used for "existence or being" in the NT, but it is only used about 3 or 4 times in the NT for this and unlike the word "eimi" which is used most of the time to express "existence and being"

That is the difference between the word "eimi" and "huparchon" also, for "eimi" has nothing within its definition that suggests existence with a beginning whereas "huparhon" does and which is no doubt why Paul used "huparchon" instead.

Therefore it isn't about it meaning only possessions or positions, it is about the word never being used to speak of anything that didn't have a beginning and it never does in the better than 60 times it appears in the NT either.

Mk 16:12 After that, He appeared in another form to two of them as they walked and went into the country.

Common sense. If one can concluded that Jesus appeared in another form one has to conclude that this form is not the outward appearance of the true inward essence.

LOL, it meant that he didn't look the same outwardly but was the same Jesus the same substance and essence and you don't understand that dude?

2 Ti 3:5 having a form of godliness but denying its power. And from such people turn away!

"A form" is not the "true form".

Exactly, for they only had the outward appearance of being godly and not the inner power which would be the true substance and that is my point exactly, for it proves that one having the "morphe" doesn't necessarily have the essence or substance or power of the real thing.

Form is translated from “morphe” also used Phil 2:7, and Mk 16:12. From the above I can only conclude that you are not interpreting Phil 2:6 literally. You have a problem, for in Phil 2:6 Jesus is in “form of God”, 2:7 “form of man”, and Mk 16:12 “ a form taken after the resurrection”. If “morphe “cannot be applied ontologically then what was crucified, died, and resurrected. Do we base our faith on something figurative? I believe not.

More ignorant nonsense, for I am taking it exactly literal, for Paul didn't say that Jesus began as God Almighty but rather he began 'huparchon" in the "form of God" instead and the Bible itself proves for us what the word "form" "morphe" means and it doesn't mean the essence but rather the form.

Also, Paul never says that Jesus took the form of a man, for he already identified that it was a man he was speaking of in verse 5 by the name and Title of Jesus Christ which was given to the man at his birth.

Paul is using “morphe to contrast the expression of deity through human nature, vs 7, with the expression of deity as deity with God vs. 6, therefore in order to compare the two Paul uses the same definition of morphe.

Says who, you and your trin cult?

The whole context proves he is is contrasting the authority that Jesus had from God with that of his becoming a servant while still having that authority.

Revelation 12:5 and she brought forth a man child who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron (in form of God).


Now then, name one other human being who was actually born to rule all nations with a rod of iron like God and just under Gods authority like Jesus was TW?

Morphe along with isos/equality [equal in quality and quantity] gives cumulative evidence that Paul is stating in vs 6 that Jesus has and does have equality with God.

More nonsense, for one doesn't use the word "equal" to reveal the same exact substance or being of another but only when someone or something is of a different substance or essence but it in some fashion equal to the other.

Therefore by Paul using this, it proves that he wasn't seeing Jesus as being God Almighty.

Furthermore, the KJV is a horrible translation of this text, for it should read like this instead.

Who existing in the form of God, did not consider a robbery to be equal with God but instead he humbled himself and took the form of a servant and made himself in the likeness of men.

Notice also, "he was made in the likeness of men by taking the form of a servant" when he wasn't like all other men from his authority from God, for he was born to rule all men and to be a servant of no man and that is the contrast that Paul is revealing about Jesus in Philippians 2:5-8.

What a tangled web you weave.
“One in God’s form” is very different than “being in the form of God”, for “one in God’s form” suggest that Jesus manifested something independent of His actual state of being vs. “being in the form of God” suggest that Jesus’ actual state of being is God.

Nothing but bias manipulating of God's word in order to make it fit with your false doctrine.

There is another trin on this forum who does the same and always argues that John 5:26 should read "for just as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted for the Son to have life in himself also" and as if this make one bit of difference at all.

Morph here is used in a philosophical sense to denote the expression of being which carries in itself the distinctive nature and character of the being to whom it pertains, and is thus permanently identified with the nature, essence and character of said entity. As the form of God was identified with the being of God, so Christ, being in the form of God, was identified with the being, nature, and personality of God.

LOL, more manipulation of the words intended to deny what they really mean in favor of holding on to your false doctrine.

Again, why would Paul use this word "morphe" if he really believed and wanted us to believe that Jesus was actually God himself, why not just say it and leave the words "huparchon" and "morphe" and "isa" and "homoiomai' and a few others out of it completely?

Sorry but the words "form of God" mean "form of God" and not God and that is why Paul used them also, for he was never speaking of Jesus as anything other than a true man in regards to his actual essence and substance but rather a man unlike any other in regards to his godly character and authority from God.

Once again, Jesus in John 14:8-10 explained what Paul was speaking of by the word "morphe" in Philippians 2:6, for it was the essence of God the Father that dwelt within Jesus and which was being manifested outwardly in the life of Jesus that revealed the Father to the disciples and not that of Jesus being God himself.

 

[Yahweh will increase]

We are made in the image of God, Jesus is the express image of God's person or substance, there is a difference

Did Daniel see the Father? Who is the Ancient of Days.

In Daniel’s vision the “ten horns” are ten kings, the “other horn” the beast, they make war against the saints till the Ancient of Days appears and intervenes. But note, throughout the Bible only Jesus appears never the Father.

That is answered by Paul when he says of Jesus in Colossians 1:15 "who is the image of the invisible God (The Ancient of 'Days)" and then also by Jesus himself when he says in John 14:10 "it is the Father who dwells within me, he is doing the works".
'
Very clearly therefore, the Ancient of Days comes on the scene and appears through Jesus his anointed human Son from the Tribe of David and who Paul also called "the glory of our Great God and Savior" in Titus 2:13.

By the way, you are missing the fact that much of this is about the Great White Throne Judgment were the Ancient of Days will sit and pass judgment on the beast and his kingdom and this is also where what Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 6 will take place and when the saints will also sit upon thrones with him (but the court will sit) and judge the world and the angels also.

Daniel 9:9 “As I looked,

“thrones were set in place,
and the Ancient of Days took his seat.
His clothing was as white as snow;
the hair of his head was white like wool.
His throne was flaming with fire,
and its wheels were all ablaze.
10 A river of fire was flowing,
coming out from before him.
Thousands upon thousands attended him;
ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him.
The court was seated,
and the books were opened.

Now read Revelation 20 and 1 Corinthians 6 where this is explained in even greater detail.

 

[Yahweh will increase]

What a tangled web you weave.
“One in God’s form” is very different than “being in the form of God”, for “one in God’s form” suggest that Jesus manifested something independent of His actual state of being vs. “being in the form of God” suggest that Jesus’ actual state of being is God.

How ridiculous, read your own words once again and tell me how on earth they make even the slightest bit of sense at all dude???

How is one IN God's form any different at all than one being IN the form of God??????

So I would say that your words above "what a tangled web you weave" apply to you and not mean.

Note also, Paul never even said that Jesus was as you put it "one IN God's form" but rather that he was "in the form of God"

Therefore like you said and I will repeat about this nonsense of yours, "what a tangles web you weave" and this argument is just that also, a ridiculous attempt to rearrange words in the scriptures in order to make them fit with your false doctrine when it doesn't and can't either.

 

[johnny guitar]

I agree and the context starts at verse 5 where the one Paul is speaking of already has the name an title of Jesus Christ.

So he was born first in the form of God and then afterward he took the form of a servant and the contrast is between being born in the form of God which means he wasn't born a servant but rather to rule all nations with a rod of Iron like and just under God himself.

If Paul wanted to reveal that Jesus was God and then became a man, he wouldn't have used words like "huparchon" or "morphe" or "isa" or "homoiomai" but he would have done so something like this instead below.

"who existing (eimi) eternally as God, he did not consider the glory of his being God something to hold on to, but instead he humbled himself and became a servant by being made a man himself".


Nonsense and you didn't pay attention to what my argument was either.

For it is about the fact that the word is never used to speak of things that have no beginning and in fact the idea of a beginning is built right into the meaning of the words "huparchon" "arche"

In fact, the word "huparchon" is not even the common or best word used for "existence or being" in the NT, but it is only used about 3 or 4 times in the NT for this and unlike the word "eimi" which is used most of the time to express "existence and being"

That is the difference between the word "eimi" and "huparchon" also, for "eimi" has nothing within its definition that suggests existence with a beginning whereas "huparhon" does and which is no doubt why Paul used "huparchon" instead.

Therefore it isn't about it meaning only possessions or positions, it is about the word never being used to speak of anything that didn't have a beginning and it never does in the better than 60 times it appears in the NT either.


LOL, it meant that he didn't look the same outwardly but was the same Jesus the same substance and essence and you don't understand that dude?


Exactly, for they only had the outward appearance of being godly and not the inner power which would be the true substance and that is my point exactly, for it proves that one having the "morphe" doesn't necessarily have the essence or substance or power of the real thing.


More ignorant nonsense, for I am taking it exactly literal, for Paul didn't say that Jesus began as God Almighty but rather he began 'huparchon" in the "form of God" instead and the Bible itself proves for us what the word "form" "morphe" means and it doesn't mean the essence but rather the form.

Also, Paul never says that Jesus took the form of a man, for he already identified that it was a man he was speaking of in verse 5 by the name and Title of Jesus Christ which was given to the man at his birth.


Says who, you and your trin cult?

The whole context proves he is is contrasting the authority that Jesus had from God with that of his becoming a servant while still having that authority.

Revelation 12:5 and she brought forth a man child who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron (in form of God).


Now then, name one other human being who was actually born to rule all nations with a rod of iron like God and just under Gods authority like Jesus was TW?





More nonsense, for one doesn't use the word "equal" to reveal the same exact substance or being of another but only when someone or something is of a different substance or essence but it in some fashion equal to the other.

Therefore by Paul using this, it proves that he wasn't seeing Jesus as being God Almighty.

Furthermore, the KJV is a horrible translation of this text, for it should read like this instead.

Who existing in the form of God, did not consider a robbery to be equal with God but instead he humbled himself and took the form of a servant and made himself in the likeness of men.

Notice also, "he was made in the likeness of men by taking the form of a servant" when he wasn't like all other men from his authority from God, for he was born to rule all men and to be a servant of no man and that is the contrast that Paul is revealing about Jesus in Philippians 2:5-8.


Nothing but bias manipulating of God's word in order to make it fit with your false doctrine.

There is another trin on this forum who does the same and always argues that John 5:26 should read "for just as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted for the Son to have life in himself also" and as if this make one bit of difference at all.

LOL, more manipulation of the words intended to deny what they really mean in favor of holding on to your false doctrine.

Again, why would Paul use this word "morphe" if he really believed and wanted us to believe that Jesus was actually God himself, why not just say it and leave the words "huparchon" and "morphe" and "isa" and "homoiomai' and a few others out of it completely?

Sorry but the words "form of God" mean "form of God" and not God and that is why Paul used them also, for he was never speaking of Jesus as anything other than a true man in regards to his actual essence and substance but rather a man unlike any other in regards to his godly character and authority from God.

Once again, Jesus in John 14:8-10 explained what Paul was speaking of by the word "morphe" in Philippians 2:6, for it was the essence of God the Father that dwelt within Jesus and which was being manifested outwardly in the life of Jesus that revealed the Father to the disciples and not that of Jesus being God himself.

God ALONE is in the form of God.
ALL men are born in ONE form ONLY: MAN.
There is NO Person in the universe "just under" God. The difference between God and all others is infinite.
Only one who is God could say what Jesus did in John 14:8-10.