Jesus pierced, YHWH pierced.

You're attempting to refute the Bible, not me, and I reject all of what you said completely. I'll just stick with what the Bible says. Your willingness to distort words is troubling to say the least.
I am not refuting the Bible, I am refuting you and your antiquated arguments. If you believe that, I am wrong, you can easily prove it by referring to the original language from which we translate.
Instead of writing your doctrine from the original language, you are writing it from the translation. And that’s a huge error.
 
I am not refuting the Bible, I am refuting you and your antiquated arguments. If you believe that, I am wrong, you can easily prove it by referring to the original language from which we translate.
Instead of writing your doctrine from the original language, you are writing it from the translation. And that’s a huge error.

I wouldn't consider myself an authority nor experienced enough with Greek or Hebrew to translate the Bible. Are you attempting to translate the Bible? Maybe you could write your own version like the Joseph Smith translation or something.
 
No I didn't. The word begotten refers to offspring because that's what it means. Don't fiddle with definitions.

That's great, thank you. Each time the word begotten refers to offspring, that is being born. It's a specific day someone was born, in accordance with being created, whether spiritually or physically. The point was someone was born and that's a starting point
The confusion lies in the translation, not in the original language.

Only begotten translates from
μονογενής (monogenēs), ές (es): adj.; unique, only, one and only, i.e., one of a kind: (many versions) only begotten {Swanson, James: Dictionary of Biblical Languages With Semantic Domains}

Begot translates from.
γεννάω [gennao] translates as “begat” 49 times, “be born” 39 times, “bear” twice, “gender” twice, “bring forth” once, “be delivered” once, and translated miscellaneously three times. 1 of men who fathered children. 1a to be born. 1b to be begotten. 1b1 of women giving birth to children. {Strong, James: The Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible}

Yes, Abraham begot sons literally. The way it is used in the Bible and real life refers to offspring. The concept doesn't suddenly change when applied to Jesus. This isn't supposed to be complicated as the Bible quite clearly refers to Jesus as having a beginning point.
Abraham gennao eight sons. Issac was his monogenes.
Rather than produce a big list, let's just look at one. The word son itself refers to being a descendent.

John 3
18Whoever believes in Him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe has already been condemned, because he has not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son.
Now you want to change the subject.

But I will entertain you.


Mt 26:63 But Jesus kept silent. And the high priest answered and said to Him, “I put You under oath by the living God: Tell us if You are the Christ, the Son of God!”64 Jesus said to him, “It is as you said. Nevertheless, I say to you, hereafter you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven.” 65 Then the high priest tore his clothes, saying, “He has spoken blasphemy! What further need do we have of witnesses? Look, now you have heard His blasphemy! 66 What do you think?” They answered and said, “He is deserving of death.”

What is so blasphemous in Mt 26:64 that the Sanhedrin wanted to kill Jesus, could it be “Son of Man” = at most it a messianic term, “coming on the clouds” = God only appears in the cloud, “sitting at right hand of power” = no claim to deity there, or “Son of God”, = Jesus said “It is as you said”.

What constitutes blasphemy is it claiming to exist before Abraham, being a created angel, or a created being? No it is claiming to be God.

Le 24:16 And whoever blasphemes the name of the Lord shall surely be put to death. All the congregation shall certainly stone him, the stranger as well as him who is born in the land. When he blasphemes the name of the Lord, he shall be put to death.

Jn 5:18 Therefore the Jews sought all the more to kill Him, because He not only broke the Sabbath, but also said that God was His Father, making Himself equal with God.

Jn 19:7 The Jews answered him, “We have a law, and according to [a]our law He ought to die, because He made Himself the Son of God.”

Jn 10:31-36 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone Him. Jesus answered them, “Many good works I have shown you from My Father. For which of those works do you stone Me?” The Jews answered Him, saying, “For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy, and because You, being a Man, make Yourself God.” Jesus answered them… do you say of Him whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’?

. From John 8:58 to John 10 30-33 there is no mention of stoning Jesus for anything he said. It is in John 10:30 where Jesus states that He and The Father are One. Note that this time the Jews give the reason why they wanted to stone Jesus. They state that Jesus was claiming to be God. For this reason they were going to stone Jesus. Now what could have given the Jews the idea that Jesus was claiming to be God in John 8:58 or 10:30? Could it be that he said “Before Abraham was, I am?” Or “I and the Father are One.” Since Jesus was being accused both times of blasphemy, it would be logical to conclude that Jesus was making a very serious claim. Jesus is the Way, the Truth and the Life. Jesus would not agree with any lie. Please note that if Jesus was not claiming to be God, then in John 10:30 or 8:58 Jesus would of logically have corrected the Jews and told them that He was not claiming the Name of God as His own. . Note that in John 10:30 he does not refute the Jews for accusing Him of blasphemy by His claim to be God. If he did not answer to the Jewish accusation of blasphemy by stating that he was not God then Jesus was in agreement with them when they stated, “For good works we stone thee not but for blasphemy; and because thou, being a man, makest thyself God.”
How?
Mt 26:63 Tell us if You are the Christ, the Son of God!

Jn 19:7 He made Himself the Son of God.”

Jn 5:18, but also said that God was His Father, making Himself equal with God.

Jn 10:36 because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’?

Why is that?

Son of” used by ancient Semitics and Orientals to indicate “likeness or sameness of nature and equality of being.” This was used by Jesus to claim that He was God.
 
I wouldn't consider myself an authority nor experienced enough with Greek or Hebrew to translate the Bible. Are you attempting to translate the Bible? Maybe you could write your own version like the Joseph Smith translation or something.
Did you not claim that you know the Bible like the back of your hand. That would require you to have some understanding of Hebrew and Greek. Obviously you not as intimate with your hand as you claim to be.
I never claimed to translate anything. Have you ever heard of dictionaries, lexicons, commentaries, interlinear Bibles, electronic librarians. In other words I do my homework.

As to Joseph Smith. Did you not write.
I'm quoting verses that debunk Jesus as being God and refute Trinitarianism and Binatarianism.

Being selective in choosing what you want to discuss and ignoring what you do not is common in cults.
 
Last edited:
Don't misunderstand, I talk about what I want and stear the conversation where I want to it go. While you're free to ask questions, I am under no obligation to go down a rabbit hole with you. The same goes to you. Let's just talk about what we want to talk about.

I'm quoting verses that debunk Jesus as being God and refute Trinitarianism and Binatarianism.

Interesting reply. I've noticed a reluctance on your part, and some others on your side, who sort of side-step the whole pre-existence of Christ topic. The JW's, the largest group that denies the deity of Christ, thinks he was Michael the archangel. Do you think he was an archangel or some other created being or did it all start 2-5BC in Bethlehem? I await your reply.
 
Interesting reply. I've noticed a reluctance on your part, and some others on your side, who sort of side-step the whole pre-existence of Christ topic. The JW's, the largest group that denies the deity of Christ, thinks he was Michael the archangel. Do you think he was an archangel or some other created being or did it all start 2-5BC in Bethlehem? I await your reply.

I have a reply for that and I am not sidestepping it. I just get tired of repeating myself. Not your fault, just my personality. I definitely am not a JW and I definitely don't think Jesus is Michael the archangel. I would consider myself most closely aligned with Unitarianism when it comes to my belief about who God is.

As far as the pre-existence of Christ goes, as far as I can tell, that's in regards to God's plans and ideas that exist in His mind. Here's a supporting verse:

1 Peter 1
20He was known before the foundation of the world, but was revealed in the last times for your sake.

And really it depends on what translation you look at, but the idea behind the words here speaks to being pre-ordained. Something or someone can be preordained before they are real. I see no disconnect between 1 Peter 1:20 and the Biblical narrative at large.

That's how prophecy generally is. It's sorta vague at first until it's fulfilled. Kind of like the prophecy about Immanuel when later Jesus was never recorded to have been called Immanuel, but the idea was brought to reality.

Or along the lines or what Paul said in Romans:

Romans 4
17As it is written: “I have made you a father of many nations.” He is our father in the presence of God, in whom he believed, the God who gives life to the dead and calls into being what does not yet exist.

The idea being conveyed is that God, from God's perspective, when something or someone is preordained then it effectually already happened. From my perspective, I see that as God demonstrating that if He preordains something then He's going to get it one way or another so it can be confidently said to have already occurred in a sense.

Another example being the tabernacle:

Hebrews 8
5The place where they serve is a copy and shadow of what is in heaven. This is why Moses was warned when he was about to build the tabernacle: “See to it that you make everything according to the pattern shown you on the mountain.”

There is a copy and or a shadow of what God wants even if it doesn't exist in a physical sense yet.

Yet another:

Ephesians 2
6And God raised us up with Christ and seated us with Him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus,

Apparently we are raised up with Christ even though Christ had a physical resurrection and we didn't and we're currently seated in heaven. Or are we? See, this is pre-destination again. It isn't literal yet.

Many more examples as well, but this is what I believe is the correct foundation for understanding pre-existence, pre-destination, or what is pre-ordained. So I don't need to sidestep anything. This is the correct way to understand Jesus' pre-existence I believe.
 
Last edited:
I have a reply for that and I am not sidestepping it. I just get tired of repeating myself. Not your fault, just my personality. I definitely am not a JW and I definitely don't think Jesus is Michael the archangel. I would consider myself most closely aligned with Unitarianism.

As far as the pre-existence of Christ goes, as far as I can tell, that's in regards to God's plans and ideas that exist in His mind. Here's a supporting verse:

1 Peter 1
20He was known before the foundation of the world, but was revealed in the last times for your sake.

And really it depends on what translation you look at, but the idea behind the words here speaks to being pre-ordained. Something or someone can be predestined before they are real. I see no disconnect between 1 Peter 1:20 and the Biblical narrative at large.

That's how prophecy generally is. It's sorta vague at first until it's fulfilled. Kind of like the prophecy about Immanuel when later Jesus was never recorded to have been called Immanuel, but the idea was brought to reality.

Or along the lines or what Paul said in Romans:

Romans 4
17As it is written: “I have made you a father of many nations.” He is our father in the presence of God, in whom he believed, the God who gives life to the dead and calls into being what does not yet exist.

The idea being conveyed is that God from God's perspective when something or someone is preordained then it effectually already happened. From my perspective, I see that as God demonstrating that if He preordains something then He's going to get it one way or another so it can be confidently said to have already occurred in a sense.

Another example being Moses:

Hebrews 8
5The place where they serve is a copy and shadow of what is in heaven. This is why Moses was warned when he was about to build the tabernacle: “See to it that you make everything according to the pattern shown you on the mountain.”

There is a copy and or a shadow of what God wants even if it doesn't exist in a physical sense yet.

So I don't need to sidestep anything.

It is true that God calls things that aren't yet as though they are, and this is certainly true of Christ's humanity and sacrifice and resurrection. Yet, the pre-existence scriptures of Christ go further than that. "Whose goings forth from everlasting/ancient days speaks to a substantial existence in pre-history.

John 1:15
John testified about Him and cried out, saying,
“This was He of whom I said, ‘He who comes after me has a higher rank than I,
for He existed before me.’”

John the baptist wasn't a redundant dummy, and he wouldn't say he comes after me because he has a higher rank, for he has a higher rank than me. The man Christ Jesus was John's cousin and was born a few months after John.

There are many scriptures speak of his pre-existence from different angles. That he is both the root and branch of King David is more than just pre-destination.
 
Did you not claim that you know the Bible like the back of your hand. That would require you to have some understanding of Hebrew and Greek. Obviously you not as intimate with your hand as you claim to be.
I never claimed to translate anything. Have you ever heard of dictionaries, lexicons, commentaries, interlinear Bibles, electronic librarians. In other words I do my homework.

As to Joseph Smith. Did you not write.
I'm quoting verses that debunk Jesus as being God and refute Trinitarianism and Binatarianism.

Being selective in choosing what you want to discuss and ignoring what you do not is common in cults.

I didn't say I know the whole Bible like the back of my hand, just this particular subject we're talking about. It doesn't require expert knowledge in Greek or Hebrew to understand the Bible, though it certainly would help and I employee Bible study tools like the ones you mentioned.

Choosing what one talks about is common in human nature. I don't see the need to respond to everything you say. I really just need to knock your premise down, which I keep doing, to make your house of cards fall.
 
I didn't say I know the whole Bible like the back of my hand, just this particular subject we're talking about. It doesn't require expert knowledge in Greek or Hebrew to understand the Bible, though it certainly would help and I employee Bible study tools like the ones you mentioned.

Choosing what one talks about is common in human nature. I don't see the need to respond to everything you say. I really just need to knock your premise down, which I keep doing, to make your house of cards fall.
Yeah, you’re knocking it down with your personal opinions. Personal opinions are not universal truths. If you wanna establish any credibility here, I suggest you start rebutting using scriptural support that is solid.
 
I didn't say I know the whole Bible like the back of my hand, just this particular subject we're talking about. It doesn't require expert knowledge in Greek or Hebrew to understand the Bible, though it certainly would help and I employee Bible study tools like the ones you mentioned.

Choosing what one talks about is common in human nature. I don't see the need to respond to everything you say. I really just need to knock your premise down, which I keep doing, to make your house of cards fall.

I haven't seen a single scripture from you debunking the deity of Christ. I've seen you post many scriptures about how Jesus is a man, and I use those scriptures too. Somehow you have it in your mind that posting scriptures about his humanity is evidence against his deity, but it doesn't. The Bible has many scriptures that speak of both his deity and his humanity. Scripture is not Burger King where you can have it your way.

You really are missing out on the richness of scripture and of Christ but superimposing a view that is half baked.
 
I haven't seen a single scripture from you debunking the deity of Christ. I've seen you post many scriptures about how Jesus is a man, and I use those scriptures too. Somehow you have it in your mind that posting scriptures about his humanity is evidence against his deity, but it doesn't. The Bible has many scriptures that speak of both his deity and his humanity. Scripture is not Burger King where you can have it your way.

You really are missing out on the richness of scripture and of Christ but superimposing a view that is half baked.
There is not need to present any "single scripture ... debunking the deity of Christ" ... since what is missing in all these topics about that is any scripture that actually prove that. All we got in the Scriptures is about Jesus depending totally on his Father and calling Him God, so, where is the God-Christ that no one can see him but in the blablabla of the ones who imagine that?
 
Yeah, you’re knocking it down with your personal opinions. Personal opinions are not universal truths. If you wanna establish any credibility here, I suggest you start rebutting using scriptural support that is solid.

what are my personal opinions about the Bible in your perspective?
 
I haven't seen a single scripture from you debunking the deity of Christ. I've seen you post many scriptures about how Jesus is a man, and I use those scriptures too. Somehow you have it in your mind that posting scriptures about his humanity is evidence against his deity, but it doesn't. The Bible has many scriptures that speak of both his deity and his humanity. Scripture is not Burger King where you can have it your way.

You really are missing out on the richness of scripture and of Christ but superimposing a view that is half baked.
How about the one where God said He isn’t a man or a son of man? Isn’t Jesus both a human man and a son of man? That’s pretty clear.

God is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow so wouldn’t God’s identity not change as well?

As someone pointed out, you need scripture to prove Jesus is God, but can’t quite land the coupe de grace because there aren’t any solid scriptures for that. Basic Bible hermeneutics is to not add to or take away from the Bible, so you have the cart in front of the horse so to speak.

Jesus being God shouldn’t even be a thought that has entered your mind because Jesus told you who the one true God is right? He said God is his Father and there are no other gods aside from Him. Do you agree or is the Father not the one true God?
 
All we got in the Scriptures is about Jesus depending totally on his Father and calling Him God, so, where is the God-Christ that no one can see him but in the blablabla of the ones who imagine that?

2 Pe 1:1 Our God Jesus

Titus 2:13 Our God Jesus
 
Anyone who really knows Peter and Paul from the Bible knows perfectly well that neither of them considered Jesus as God:

Acts 3:13a The God of Abraham and of Isaac and of Jacob, the God of our forefathers, has glorified his Servant, Jesus (...)

1 Tim. 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, a man, Christ Jesus.

Trinitarians mistranslate the Bible and lie, and worse than that, they make believe that Paul, Peter, John and the other first century Christians believed the Trinitarian lies... when they teached the opposite: that Jesus is the Son of God.

Rom. 1:9 For God, to whom I render sacred service with my spirit in connection with the good news about his Son, is my witness of how without ceasing I always mention you in my prayers
 
Anyone who really knows Peter and Paul from the Bible knows perfectly well that neither of them considered Jesus as God:

Paul thought Christ was God.

Titus 2:13
Our God Jesus

1 Corinthians 10:4
and drank the same spiritual drink; for they drank from the spiritual rock that accompanied them, and that rock was Christ.

Psalm 78:35
And they remembered that God was their rock,
And the Most High God their Redeemer.

You're wrong.
 
Paul thought Christ was God? Obviously that is false:

1 Cor.8:4 (...) there is no God but one. 5 For even though there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth, just as there are many “gods” and many “lords,” 6 there is actually to us one God, the Father, from whom all things are and we for him; and there is one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things are and we through him.

Titus 2:13 is mistranslated in some versions to support the trinity. If Paul said there is ONE ONLY GOD, THE FATHER, he wouldn't call God to Jesus, the Son of God.

Rom. 8:28 We know that God makes all his works cooperate together for the good of those who love God, those who are the ones called according to his purpose; 29 because those whom he gave his first recognition he also foreordained to be patterned after the image of his Son, so that he might be the firstborn among many brothers.
 
Paul thought Christ was God? Obviously that is false:

Stop ignoring the Scriptures.

Paul thought Christ was God.

Titus 2:13
Our God Jesus

1 Corinthians 10:4
that rock was Christ.

Psalm 78:35
And they remembered that God was their rock,
And the Most High God their Redeemer.

You're wrong.
 
How about the one where God said He isn’t a man or a son of man? Isn’t Jesus both a human man and a son of man? That’s pretty clear.

God is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow so wouldn’t God’s identity not change as well?

As someone pointed out, you need scripture to prove Jesus is God, but can’t quite land the coupe de grace because there aren’t any solid scriptures for that. Basic Bible hermeneutics is to not add to or take away from the Bible, so you have the cart in front of the horse so to speak.

Jesus being God shouldn’t even be a thought that has entered your mind because Jesus told you who the one true God is right? He said God is his Father and there are no other gods aside from Him. Do you agree or is the Father not the one true God?

When the OT prophets wrote that God wasn't a man, it was before the incarnation. Furthermore, when the incarnation occurred in time on earth, God didn't change or transform into something or someone else. God's eternal Spirit and nature remained the same. What happened at the incarnation is that God added to Himself a genuine human existence while simultaneously continuing to exist as he always had.

The man that God became was a genuine man, an authentic human and from his perception and perspective as a man, the man had a relationship with God, who continued to exist as the eternal, immutable, omnipotent and omnipresent Spirit that He always has been.

That Christ is God is something that both the OT and NT affirm often and strongly. You are like the CNN reporter standing in front of a burning building and calling it a mostly peaceful protest. You are being highly selective and biased as to what you allow the scriptures to say. The text is clear.

1 JOHN 5:20
We know that the Son of God has come and
has given us understanding so that we know the real God.
We are in the one who is real, his Son Jesus Christ.
This Jesus Christ is the real God and eternal life.
 
Back
Top