WHETHER WORD IS THE PROPER NAME OF THE SON

aeg4971

New member
I thought the system was going to be down longer. So I was going to start my thread a tad bit more formally on The Blessed Trinity. But Seventhday Christological and theological supposition on the Logos suggest that I should give us all a proper perspective. Afterall we have the very same scriptures and we are not in the least the first post Apostlic Christians to have this discourse.

Those of you who suppose as theological dogma ," God is in roles of Himself or the logos and spirit are personified in activity ", of itself and by itself presupposes," INDIVIDUATION", and thus plurality.Therefore not really sound opposition to this name Trinity in God. Even if one supposes," The logos is God in self expression", the logos is God's creative power ", . Or should you assert" The Son pre-existed in gestation or God mind idea", is likewise substantial. What is clear none of these anti Trinitarian suppositions to ," The Logos is God the Son the second person of the blessed Trinity", changes two absolute ancient theological suppositions:

1. God Logos/Word must need be subsistence.
2. The Logos is divine substance itself belonging to itself within itself subsistence.




It's no secret being born and raised Oneness Pentecostal, believing everybody were a bunch of pagans, often quote Augustine and especially Aquinas. Largely because of the monotheistic perspective they give on the absolution of just 3 modern sola scriptura words. "OMNISCIENT OMNIPOTENT OMNIPRESENT".

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 The same was in the beginning with God.
3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.
10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.
11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not.
12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
15 John bare witness of him, and cried, saying, This was he of whom I spake, He that cometh after me is preferred before me: for he was before me.
16 And of his fulness have all we received, and grace for grace.
17 For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.
18 No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him
.


When Trinitarians assert a plurality of persons in God or multiple centers of consciousness in God , I believe the Latin doctor communis (ie universal teacher) elucidates the words of the Apostle most intricately :



On the contrary, Augustine says( De Trin.vi,11) : By Word we understand the Son alone."

I answer that, " Word", said of God in its proper sense, is used personally, and is the proper name of the person of the Son. For it signifies an emanation of the intellect: and the person Who proceeds in God, by way of emanation of the intellect, is called the Son; and this procession is called generation. Hence it follows that the Son alone is properly called Word in God.

To be and to understand are not the same in us. Hence that which in us has intellectual being, does not belong to our nature. But in God " to be" and " to understand" are one and the same: hence the Word of God is not an accident in Him , or an effect of His; But belongs to His very nature. And therefore it must needs be something subsistent ; for whatever is in the nature of God subsists ; and so Damascene says ( De Fide Orth. i, 18) that " The Word of God is substantial and has a hypostatic being"; but other words[ as our own ] are activities if the soul."

The error of Valentine was condemned , not as the Arians pretended because he asserted that the Son was born by being uttered as Hilary relates ( De Trin.vi) ; but on account of the different mode of utterance proposed by its author proposed by its author, as appears from Augustine (De Haeres.xi).

In the term " Word" the same property is comprised as in the name Son. Hence Augustine says ( De Trin.vii,11 ): "Word" and Son express the same. " For the Son's nativity, which is His personal property, is signified by different names, which are attributed to the Son to express His perfection in various ways. To show that He is of the same nature as the Father , He is called the Son; to show that He is co eternal , He is called the Splendor ; to show that He is altogether like, He is called the Image; to show that He is begotten immaterially He is called the Word.

To be intelligent belongs to the Son , in the same way as it belongs to Him to be God, since to understand is said of God essentially, as stated above. Now the Son is God begotten, and NOT God begetting, and hence He is intelligent ,not a producing a Word, but as the Word proceeding; forasmuch as in God the Word proceeding does not differ really from the divine intellect, but is distinguished from the principle of the Word only by relation.

When it is said of the Son, " Bearing all things by the word of His power"; ' word" is here taken figuratively for the effect of the Word. Hence a gloss says that "word" is here taken to mean command; inasmuch as by the effect of the power of the Word, things are kept in being, as also by the effect of the power of the Word things are brought into being".

Hope that helps.....Alan
 
I thought the system was going to be down longer. So I was going to start my thread a tad bit more formally on The Blessed Trinity. But Seventhday Christological and theological supposition on the Logos suggest that I should give us all a proper perspective. Afterall we have the very same scriptures and we are not in the least the first post Apostlic Christians to have this discourse.

Those of you who suppose as theological dogma ," God is in roles of Himself or the logos and spirit are personified in activity ", of itself and by itself presupposes," INDIVIDUATION", and thus plurality.Therefore not really sound opposition to this name Trinity in God. Even if one supposes," The logos is God in self expression", the logos is God's creative power ", . Or should you assert" The Son pre-existed in gestation or God mind idea", is likewise substantial. What is clear none of these anti Trinitarian suppositions to ," The Logos is God the Son the second person of the blessed Trinity", changes two absolute ancient theological suppositions:

1. God Logos/Word must need be subsistence.
2. The Logos is divine substance itself belonging to itself within itself subsistence.




It's no secret being born and raised Oneness Pentecostal, believing everybody were a bunch of pagans, often quote Augustine and especially Aquinas. Largely because of the monotheistic perspective they give on the absolution of just 3 modern sola scriptura words. "OMNISCIENT OMNIPOTENT OMNIPRESENT".




When Trinitarians assert a plurality of persons in God or multiple centers of consciousness in God , I believe the Latin doctor communis (ie universal teacher) elucidates the words of the Apostle most intricately :





Hope that helps.....Alan
Nope, it don't help at all. Confused. Me or you? YOU to start...
 

aeg4971

New member
I thought the system was going to be down longer. So I was going to start my thread a tad bit more formally on The Blessed Trinity. But Seventhday Christological and theological supposition on the Logos suggest that I should give us all a proper perspective. Afterall we have the very same scriptures and we are not in the least the first post Apostlic Christians to have this discourse.

Those of you who suppose as theological dogma ," God is in roles of Himself or the logos and spirit are personified in activity ", of itself and by itself presupposes," INDIVIDUATION", and thus plurality.Therefore not really sound opposition to this name Trinity in God. Even if one supposes," The logos is God in self expression", the logos is God's creative power ", . Or should you assert" The Son pre-existed in gestation or God mind idea", is likewise substantial. What is clear none of these anti Trinitarian suppositions to ," The Logos is God the Son the second person of the blessed Trinity", changes two absolute ancient theological suppositions:

1. God Logos/Word must need be subsistence.
2. The Logos is divine substance itself belonging to itself within itself subsistence.




It's no secret being born and raised Oneness Pentecostal, believing everybody were a bunch of pagans, often quote Augustine and especially Aquinas. Largely because of the monotheistic perspective they give on the absolution of just 3 modern sola scriptura words. "OMNISCIENT OMNIPOTENT OMNIPRESENT".




When Trinitarians assert a plurality of persons in God or multiple centers of consciousness in God , I believe the Latin doctor communis (ie universal teacher) elucidates the words of the Apostle most intricately :





Hope that helps.....Alan
To further elucidate my scriptural and theological point as elementary as I can, the ancient Latin trinitarian doctors theological science start from the Unity of essence ( Deu 6:4/ Ex 3:14). They start from the First efficient cause/ principle, which according to scriptures is paternity.

It then follows that as regard God and His Logos/Word, which necessarily ,and most importantly, scripturally imports relative predication, as in that which regards itself to another. And this Biblically and clearly is from which, paternity/fatherhood and filiation/sonship is derived. Hence on this account, is whereby the Greeks signify a distinction in supposita or hypostasis . One is the Father and another is the Son.

To help those who may contemplate confusion , I simply add the words of the angelic doctor when he said;

" Everything which is not the divine essence is a creature, and if it is not the divine essence, it is a creature, and thus cannot claim the adoration of "Latria "contrary to what is sung in the preface," Let us adore the distinction of persons and the equality of their majesty".

In case confusion perpetually abounds ( mostly due to historical ignorance and obstinacy), to the undividedness between," God the Father, the Son, along with the Holy Spirit". The angelic doctors says;

" But nothing that exist in God can have any relation to that wherein it exist or to whom it is spoken, except the relation of identity and this is by reason of His supreme simplicity".

In summation there is no scriptural or theological way around the substantive reality that God own Logos/Word is hypostatic by itself .

Please be specific about what one may consider confusion ,otherwise I would assume it to be your humanism , which would be naturally must closer to a PAGAN!!!!!

Alan......
 
To further elucidate my scriptural and theological point as elementary as I can, the ancient Latin trinitarian doctors theological science start from the Unity of essence ( Deu 6:4/ Ex 3:14). They start from the First efficient cause/ principle, which according to scriptures is paternity.

It then follows that as regard God and His Logos/Word, which necessarily ,and most importantly, scripturally imports relative predication, as in that which regards itself to another. And this Biblically and clearly is from which, paternity/fatherhood and filiation/sonship is derived. Hence on this account, is whereby the Greeks signify a distinction in supposita or hypostasis . One is the Father and another is the Son.

To help those who may contemplate confusion , I simply add the words of the angelic doctor when he said;



In case confusion perpetually abounds ( mostly due to historical ignorance and obstinacy), to the undividedness between," God the Father, the Son, along with the Holy Spirit". The angelic doctors says;



In summation there is no scriptural or theological way around the substantive reality that God own Logos/Word is hypostatic by itself .

Please be specific about what one may consider confusion ,otherwise I would assume it to be your humanism , which would be naturally must closer to a PAGAN!!!!!

Alan......
Deut 6:4 is not the...UNITY OF ESSENCE, Aeg. Good golly you're cracked. You REPLACED the singularity or UNIQUENESS, of YHWH with...a UNITY of what...essence? This is in fact the OUSIA of the Nicene Creed sir. CRACKED sir.
 

Nathan P

Member
I thought the system was going to be down longer. So I was going to start my thread a tad bit more formally on The Blessed Trinity. But Seventhday Christological and theological supposition on the Logos suggest that I should give us all a proper perspective. Afterall we have the very same scriptures and we are not in the least the first post Apostlic Christians to have this discourse.

Those of you who suppose as theological dogma ," God is in roles of Himself or the logos and spirit are personified in activity ", of itself and by itself presupposes," INDIVIDUATION", and thus plurality.Therefore not really sound opposition to this name Trinity in God. Even if one supposes," The logos is God in self expression", the logos is God's creative power ", . Or should you assert" The Son pre-existed in gestation or God mind idea", is likewise substantial. What is clear none of these anti Trinitarian suppositions to ," The Logos is God the Son the second person of the blessed Trinity", changes two absolute ancient theological suppositions:

1. God Logos/Word must need be subsistence.
2. The Logos is divine substance itself belonging to itself within itself subsistence.




It's no secret being born and raised Oneness Pentecostal, believing everybody were a bunch of pagans, often quote Augustine and especially Aquinas. Largely because of the monotheistic perspective they give on the absolution of just 3 modern sola scriptura words. "OMNISCIENT OMNIPOTENT OMNIPRESENT".




When Trinitarians assert a plurality of persons in God or multiple centers of consciousness in God , I believe the Latin doctor communis (ie universal teacher) elucidates the words of the Apostle most intricately :





Hope that helps.....Alan
They have to document there was a Son of God before the Word became flesh. Otherwise only after the Word became flesh is there a documented Son of God. Or there has only been a Son of God for the last 2,000 or so years. Before that there was only the Word and God in the beginning like it says.
 
They have to document there was a Son of God before the Word became flesh. Otherwise only after the Word became flesh is there a documented Son of God. Or there has only been a Son of God for the last 2,000 or so years. Before that there was only the Word and God in the beginning like it says.
If the Word is what God says or commands, what are you saying? This is...after all...the SEMITIC dominant definition of Word. You saying that the Holy Spirit was not there? In...the beginning? What you say does not make any sense. A statement of what IS, is not necessarily a statement of what ALL there is sir. Even if I think that the Holy Spirit is YHWH's presence among men, and not a Living Entity of His Third "Self." Even if IS is WAS sir. In the Beginning sir. Oh, and who is..."THEY" sir? The dummies among us, the fongus?
 

Nathan P

Member
There is a documented Son of God only after the Word becomes flesh and that is a fact. They have to document there was a Son of God before the Word became flesh or they can not say there was always one called God the Son.They are those who believe in the trinity. They also need to document there was a HS before the Word became flesh.

Also at the first of revelations Jesus is to tell them what will happen soon correct? Now go to rev. 22:6 and an angel was sent to tell them what will happen soon correct? The angel sent had to have been Jesus or they are saying 2 different ones were to tell them what will happen soon.
 

SteveB

Well-known member
I thought the system was going to be down longer. So I was going to start my thread a tad bit more formally on The Blessed Trinity. But Seventhday Christological and theological supposition on the Logos suggest that I should give us all a proper perspective. Afterall we have the very same scriptures and we are not in the least the first post Apostlic Christians to have this discourse.

Those of you who suppose as theological dogma ," God is in roles of Himself or the logos and spirit are personified in activity ", of itself and by itself presupposes," INDIVIDUATION", and thus plurality.Therefore not really sound opposition to this name Trinity in God. Even if one supposes," The logos is God in self expression", the logos is God's creative power ", . Or should you assert" The Son pre-existed in gestation or God mind idea", is likewise substantial. What is clear none of these anti Trinitarian suppositions to ," The Logos is God the Son the second person of the blessed Trinity", changes two absolute ancient theological suppositions:

1. God Logos/Word must need be subsistence.
2. The Logos is divine substance itself belonging to itself within itself subsistence.




It's no secret being born and raised Oneness Pentecostal, believing everybody were a bunch of pagans, often quote Augustine and especially Aquinas. Largely because of the monotheistic perspective they give on the absolution of just 3 modern sola scriptura words. "OMNISCIENT OMNIPOTENT OMNIPRESENT".




When Trinitarians assert a plurality of persons in God or multiple centers of consciousness in God , I believe the Latin doctor communis (ie universal teacher) elucidates the words of the Apostle most intricately :





Hope that helps.....Alan
Ok.... let's do it this way....

Why do you want to know whether LOGOS is the proper name of the Son?

the Angel Gabriel told Mary, and Joseph to name him Jesus, because he shall save his people from their sin. Matthew 1:21

Wouldn't that make his proper name- Jesus? Or, Y'shua, in the Hebrew?

Mat 1:21 והיא ילדת בן וקראת את־שמו ישוע כי הוא יושיע את־עמו מחטאתיהם׃
 
Ok.... let's do it this way....

Why do you want to know whether LOGOS is the proper name of the Son?

the Angel Gabriel told Mary, and Joseph to name him Jesus, because he shall save his people from their sin. Matthew 1:21

Wouldn't that make his proper name- Jesus? Or, Y'shua, in the Hebrew?

Mat 1:21 והיא ילדת בן וקראת את־שמו ישוע כי הוא יושיע את־עמו מחטאתיהם׃
Yes, Jesus is His proper name.

1. Jesus is the name above all names(Phillipians 2:9)
2. Jesus inherited His name(Hebrews 1:4)
3. The Father gave Jesus His name(John 17:11)
4. Every knee will bow to His name(Phillipians 2:10)
 
Deut 6:4 is not the...UNITY OF ESSENCE, Aeg. Good golly you're cracked. You REPLACED the singularity or UNIQUENESS, of YHWH with...a UNITY of what...essence? This is in fact the OUSIA of the Nicene Creed sir. CRACKED sir.
Another gumby momento?
Trinitarianism is based on the Biblical version of the Shema that reads Elohim (Gods) is “a united one” (echard).
Unitarianism, however, currently is based on an altered version of the Shema introduced by Maimonides. Maimonides changed the Shema from Elohim (Gods) is ‘a united one’ to Elohim (Gods) is ‘a unique one’ (yachid). Though the OT never used yachid to refer to Yahveh, Maimonides’ altered yachid version of the Shema has become a pivotal article of the modern Jewish faith.”
from “The Jewish Trinity” by YoelNatan

Revelation 19:13 (KJV)
And he [was] clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.
 
There is a documented Son of God only after the Word becomes flesh and that is a fact. They have to document there was a Son of God before the Word became flesh or they can not say there was always one called God the Son.They are those who believe in the trinity. They also need to document there was a HS before the Word became flesh.

Also at the first of revelations Jesus is to tell them what will happen soon correct? Now go to rev. 22:6 and an angel was sent to tell them what will happen soon correct? The angel sent had to have been Jesus or they are saying 2 different ones were to tell them what will happen soon.
Proverbs 30:4
Who hath ascended up into heaven, or descended? who hath gathered the wind in his fists? who hath bound the waters in a garment? who hath established all the ends of the earth? what is his name, and what is his son's name, if thou canst tell?

There is 3 here.

Isaiah 48:16
Come ye near unto me, hear ye this; I have not spoken in secret from the beginning; from the time that it was, there am I: and now the Lord GOD, and his Spirit, hath sent me.
 

Nathan P

Member
Of course he had a name after he ascended. But the fact remains there is no documented Son of God before the Word became flesh.
 
Proverbs 30:4
Who hath ascended up into heaven, or descended? who hath gathered the wind in his fists? who hath bound the waters in a garment? who hath established all the ends of the earth? what is his name, and what is his son's name, if thou canst tell?

There is 3 here.

Isaiah 48:16
Come ye near unto me, hear ye this; I have not spoken in secret from the beginning; from the time that it was, there am I: and now the Lord GOD, and his Spirit, hath sent me.
Well, first David was declared in a decree from God to be his Son in Psalm 2:7 and Solomon was next in 2 Samuel 7:14, so most likely either Agur Ben son of Jakeh wrote this about Solomon or as many believe that Agur Ben was another name for Solomon, then he wrote it of himself.

The proof of this would be found in 2 Samuel 7:14 where Solomon is being spoke of by God and God says that he would be as his Son and he would be as his Father.

Notice also, this passage doesn't actually say that the Son ascended up into heaven or descended but rather God his Father did.
 
Well, first David was declared in a decree from God to be his Son in Psalm 2:7 and Solomon was next in 2 Samuel 7:14, so most likely either Agur Ben son of Jakeh wrote this about Solomon or as many believe that Agur Ben was another name for Solomon, then he wrote it of himself.

The proof of this would be found in 2 Samuel 7:14 where Solomon is being spoke of by God and God says that he would be as his Son and he would be as his Father.

Notice also, this passage doesn't actually say that the Son ascended up into heaven or descended but rather God his Father did.
His name

Immanuel (Hebrew: עִמָּנוּאֵל‎ meaning, "God is with us"
 

aeg4971

New member
Yes, Jesus is His proper name.

1. Jesus is the name above all names(Phillipians 2:9)
2. Jesus inherited His name(Hebrews 1:4)
3. The Father gave Jesus His name(John 17:11)
4. Every knee will bow to His name(Phillipians 2:10)
Yes to all of thee above. I am not sure how you think any of this line of questioning Negates my post. It doesn't. The point you should have taken is the Holy Scriptures appropriates or denote Word to the Son ,to signify an eternal distinction in relative regard to the Father ,and at one, signify His eternal undividedness from the Father.

I find your post to go hand in hand or correlate to my post, therefore I have no idea what point you intended to make.

Alan......
 
Last edited:

aeg4971

New member
If the Word is what God says or commands, what are you saying? This is...after all...the SEMITIC dominant definition of Word. You saying that the Holy Spirit was not there? In...the beginning? What you say does not make any sense. A statement of what IS, is not necessarily a statement of what ALL there is sir. Even if I think that the Holy Spirit is YHWH's presence among men, and not a Living Entity of His Third "Self." Even if IS is WAS sir. In the Beginning sir. Oh, and who is..."THEY" sir? The dummies among us, the fongus?
God is not made of body therefore His Word is not just idea or utterance, but His very hypostatic being. Hence words are words when they are words or spoken, nevertheless the Word was God Himself. We call Him the begotten Son which is in the bosom of the Father He has declared Him.

Oh Genesis says," the spirit moved upon the face of the deep" And we number so as not to confound and confuse the subsistence.

Alan.....
 
Last edited:

aeg4971

New member
Another gumby momento?
Trinitarianism is based on the Biblical version of the Shema that reads Elohim (Gods) is “a united one” (echard).
Unitarianism, however, currently is based on an altered version of the Shema introduced by Maimonides. Maimonides changed the Shema from Elohim (Gods) is ‘a united one’ to Elohim (Gods) is ‘a unique one’ (yachid). Though the OT never used yachid to refer to Yahveh, Maimonides’ altered yachid version of the Shema has become a pivotal article of the modern Jewish faith.”
from “The Jewish Trinity” by YoelNatan

Revelation 19:13 (KJV)
And he [was] clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word

Deut 6:4 is not the...UNITY OF ESSENCE, Aeg. Good golly you're cracked. You REPLACED the singularity or UNIQUENESS, of YHWH with...a UNITY of what...essence? This is in fact the OUSIA of the Nicene Creed sir. CRACKED sir.
Good golly why does anti Trinitarians somehow think asserting singularity or uniqueness is more monotheistic than Unity of essence. It isn't . What is unique about The Almighty God is that there is nothing that exist outside the species. God is His very own Godhead, like He told Moses on the mount.

Alan.....
 

aeg4971

New member
Another gumby momento?
Trinitarianism is based on the Biblical version of the Shema that reads Elohim (Gods) is “a united one” (echard).
Unitarianism, however, currently is based on an altered version of the Shema introduced by Maimonides. Maimonides changed the Shema from Elohim (Gods) is ‘a united one’ to Elohim (Gods) is ‘a unique one’ (yachid). Though the OT never used yachid to refer to Yahveh, Maimonides’ altered yachid version of the Shema has become a pivotal article of the modern Jewish faith.”
from “The Jewish Trinity” by YoelNatan

Revelation 19:13 (KJV)
And he [was] clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.
On the contrary so as not to have the impious of Sebellius, nor the heresy of Arius, neither be repugnant to the SHEMA, the 4th century Greek Cappadocian fathers says;,

" God the Father has never been without His Wisdom and His Sanctity, and thus the First person/ Father EXTENDS hypostasis to the Second/Son and Third/ Holy Spirit" persons". Not caused ,but communicated.
So the Greeks say," Tres hypostases un Ousia".

Hope that helps.....Alan
 
Last edited:
His name

Immanuel (Hebrew: עִמָּנוּאֵל‎ meaning, "God is with us"
LOL's, you can't do that with titles and I will soon show you why also, for the name and title was only given to reveal what God would be to his people through the son that would be born and in fact, each name of the son's born to Isaiah were given as a message to the people of Israel. .

Therefore, this only shows that you are ignorant of the fact that the prophecy of Isaiah 7:14 was one of others also that had a duel fulfillment and the first was the birth of Isaiah's second son and whose actual name would be Immanuel and who would be born from the "young woman", Isaiah's wife.

By the way, the word translated "virgin" can mean either a real virgin or a young woman and so the prophecy would apply first to the birth of Isaiah's second son by the young woman married to Isaiah and then later also to Jesus who was born of the virgin Mary.

For many of your own trinitarian scholar's also agree that it had a duel fulfillment.


Now let me show you something that you probably are not aware of but is a fact concerning titles given in the scriptures and why you have to be careful how you take them to be meaning.

For in Jeremiah 23:5-6 Jesus is being spoken of and it states that he shall be called "Yahweh Our Righteousness", however the same thing is also said of Judah and Jerusalem and given by God to the same prophet Jeremiah in 33:15-16.


Jeremiah 23:5-6​

New American Standard Bible​

5 “Behold, the days are coming,” declares the Lord, “When I will raise up for David a righteous Branch;
And He will reign as king and act wisely And do justice and righteousness in the land.
6 “In His days Judah will be saved, And Israel will dwell securely; And this is His name by which He will be called,
‘The Lord our righteousness.’






Jeremiah 33:15-16​

New American Standard Bible​

15 In those days and at that time I will cause a righteous Branch of David to spring forth; and He shall execute justice and righteousness on the earth. 16 In those days Judah will be saved and Jerusalem will dwell in safety; and this is the name by which she will be called: the Lord is our righteousness.’


So then, just as Jesus is in perfect unity with his father and therefore shares in God's title, so it would be the case also with that remnant of Judah and Jerusalem who believe through Jesus, and therefore through their unity with God through Christ Jesus, they also share in the same title likewise.


But the title doesn't make either Jesus or Judah and Jerusalem also Almighty God and this proves it also.


By the way, I can't tell you how many trinitarians will argue that Jesus is being called God in Jeremiah 23:5-6 and who are also totally unware that Judah and Jerusalem are called by the same title in Jeremiah 33:15-16 also.


When they do this, they are telling a lie and whether they know they are or not, because it simply isn't the truth and anything that is not of the truth when concerning the word of God is still a lie.


Now then let's go a little further here and reconsider 2 Peter 1:1, for Peter is not calling Jesus God here, but he is calling him instead "The Righteousness of Our God and Savior" and as we see also in Jeremiah 23:6,.

For that is actually why God gave him this title in Jeremiah 23:6 also, because God's own righteousness was demonstrated and revealed through Jesus and then through Jesus it is also demonstrated in the church and as we see in Jeremiah 33:16 likewise..
 
Last edited:
Top