God's Word vs. Traditions of Men

[Guest shiloh357]

Here is one example, there are many and we should only consider them as the arise or else I will get typers cramp.

NIV Acts 7:59 While they were stoning him, Stephen prayed, "Lord Jesus, receive my spirit."

KJV Acts 7:59 And they stoned Stephen, calling upon God, and saying, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.

This verse supports the idea of the Trinity only as it appears to some translators. The KJV has the phrase, "calling upon God," but puts "God" in italics to show that the translators added the word and that it was not in the original text. The truth is that "God" does not appear in ANY Greek text of the verse. Thus, this verse does not support the Trinity as it originally did.

And God bless the NIV translators for despite their support of the Trinity they were honest enough to remove this word. There still remains italic (or not italicized) words that have not been removed. In most cases it is necessary to remove these extra words, no that we have a better understanding of the Greek language, and more copies of the original Greek New Testament.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well, since Jesus IS God, then there is no problem. When we call out to Jesus, we are calling out to God.

[Ovedya]

As for your second question, that is a pretty deep one. The bible speaks of itself simply. None of the major themes of the bible are complex. It is easy to interpret the Bible as it is in the overall context. I believe it is these obvious truths from bible text that should be our guide into other more complex but less crucial subjects concerning the Christian faith.

Okay. Thanks for the honest answer.

Now, with respect to the following verse, what do you believe should be done with it's assertion that the coming Messiah - Jesus - is the eternal Father?

Isa. 9:6, "For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government will be upon his shoulder, and his name will be called "Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace."

But before you respond to the question, let me preface a little by telling you that I understand the "human interpretation" of this verse, that the Messiah is "the Father of Eternity" according to the Hebrew. But that interpretation of the verse itself still does not negate the fact that this verse tells us that Jesus is Everlasting Father. So who do we believe? The Bible, which simply states that the Messiah is the Everlasting Father, or man's interpretation which attempts to explain this verse away in order to make it fit with the Trinitarian concept?

[Guest shiloh357]

As for your second question, that is a pretty deep one. The bible speaks of itself simply. None of the major themes of the bible are complex. It is easy to interpret the Bible as it is in the overall context. I believe it is these obvious truths from bible text that should be our guide into other more complex but less crucial subjects concerning the Christian faith.

Okay. Thanks for the honest answer.

Now, with respect to the following verse, what do you believe should be done with it's assertion that the coming Messiah - Jesus - is the eternal Father?

Isa. 9:6, "For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government will be upon his shoulder, and his name will be called "Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace."

But before you respond to the question, let me preface a little by telling you that I understand the "human interpretation" of this verse, that the Messiah is "the Father of Eternity" according to the Hebrew. But that interpretation of the verse itself still does not negate the fact that this verse tells us that Jesus is Everlasting Father. So who do we believe? The Bible, which simply states that the Messiah is the Everlasting Father, or man's interpretation which attempts to explain this verse away in order to make it fit with the Trinitarian concept?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Excellent reply Ovedya!! I would add that God says that He will not share His Glory with ANYONE else. Look at all the titles God is attributing to the Son mentioned in that verse: Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. Those titles ascribe glory to the person they are conferred upon. Since God is ascribing Glory to the child in verse 6, and God does not share glory, then the child who is Jesus/Yeshua MUST be God.

[Guest Acts1711]

Shiloh,

The first post of yours missed the point. The word "God" is not included in the original written text. So regardless if Jesus is God or not, it doesn't belong there.

And unto your second post...consider these,

NIV Romans 8:17 Now if we are children, then we are heirs-- heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ, if indeed we share in his sufferings in order that we may also share in his glory.

NIV 2 Thessalonians 2:14 He called you to this through our gospel, that you might share in the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.

NIV 1 Peter 5:1 To the elders among you, I appeal as a fellow elder, a witness of Christ's sufferings and one who also will share in the glory to be revealed:

Ovedya,

What a wonderful question, I'll answer the last one first, as you asked.

My answer is "The Bible," you see with proper work we can find the true meaning of this verse. 2 Tim. 2:15

1)Agreed, Trinitarians correctly deny that Jesus is th "Everlasting Father." It is a basic tenet of Trinitarian doctrine that Christians should "neither confound the Persons nor divide the Substance" (Athanasian Creed). Thus, if the verse is translated properly, then Trinitarian Christians have a real problem. However, the phrase is mistranslated. The word translated "everlasting" is actually "age," and the correct translation is that Jesus will be called "father of the (coming) age."

In the culture of the Bible, anyone who began anything or was important to something was called its "father."

2)The phrase "Mighty God" can be better translated. Although the word "God" in the Hebrew culture had a much wider range of application than it does in ours, the average reader does not know or unerstand that. Readers familiar with the Semitic languages know that a man who is acting with God's authority can be called "god." Both Martin Luther and James Moffatt translated the phrase as "divine hero" in their Bibles.

3)The context illuminates great truth about this verse, and also shows that there is no justification for believing that it refers to the Trinity, but rather to God's appointed ruler. The opening verse of the chapter foretells a time when "there will be no more gloom for those in distress." All war and death will cease, and "everyt warrior's boot...will be destined for burning." How will this come to pass? THe chapter goes on: "for to us a child is born and to us a son is given." There is no hint that this child will be "God," and reputable Trinitarian scholars will assert that the Jews of the Old Testament knew nothing of an "incarnation." For them, the Messiah was going to be a man annointed by God. He would start as a child, which of course, Yahweh, their eternal God could never be. And what a great ruler this man would grow to be, of the line of David. The 2nd Adam. The government will be on his shoulders, he will be called Mighty Counselor, Mighty Hero, Father of the Coming Age, Prince of Peace. The Son of God. (notice the phrase Son of God, Son of Man, Son of the Father occurs around 180 times in the NT but not one single time do we see God the Son, as the Trinitarian doctrine uses to describe Christ.)

WHy would such an important idea such as who Jesus is be so hard to recognize in God's wonderful words? Why would the ones who personally knew Jesus not stress that he was God on at least one occassion? Sometimes it is not what they say but what they don't say...in Acts 14 the people claim Paul and Barnabas to be the God's Zeus and Hermes incarnate. Yet when Paul and Barnabas heard this and were angered, they didn't say "No, No, we are not the God who is incarnated as a man!!" Nope they didn't say that at all. But it would have been an opportune time to clearify such a matter. Why did it not occur? Possibly because even they did not believe Jesus was God.

When I stated earlier that the works of Jesus are belittled by him being God I meant it. Just consider the importance of the resurection on this Easter holiday. Is it not important to us that Jesus survived death and was ressurected because he was the first man to do such a thing? Would it not be belittled if it was God who prettended to die (because God cannot physically die) and then raised himself up from this pretend death? To men it is a question of, so what if God can raise himself up from the dead, BUT if he raised a man from the dead and gave him a new life an eternal life not of the flesh but of the spirit!! AMEN!

[Ovedya]

1)Agreed, Trinitarians correctly deny that Jesus is th "Everlasting Father." It is a basic tenet of Trinitarian doctrine that Christians should "neither confound the Persons nor divide the Substance" (Athanasian Creed). Thus, if the verse is translated properly, then Trinitarian Christians have a real problem. However, the phrase is mistranslated. The word translated "everlasting" is actually "age," and the correct translation is that Jesus will be called "father of the (coming) age."

In the culture of the Bible, anyone who began anything or was important to something was called its "father."

2)The phrase "Mighty God" can be better translated. Although the word "God" in the Hebrew culture had a much wider range of application than it does in ours, the average reader does not know or unerstand that. Readers familiar with the Semitic languages know that a man who is acting with God's authority can be called "god." Both Martin Luther and James Moffatt translated the phrase as "divine hero" in their Bibles.

3)The context illuminates great truth about this verse, and also shows that there is no justification for believing that it refers to the Trinity, but rather to God's appointed ruler. The opening verse of the chapter foretells a time when "there will be no more gloom for those in distress." All war and death will cease, and "everyt warrior's boot...will be destined for burning." How will this come to pass? THe chapter goes on: "for to us a child is born and to us a son is given." There is no hint that this child will be "God," and reputable Trinitarian scholars will assert that the Jews of the Old Testament knew nothing of an "incarnation." For them, the Messiah was going to be a man annointed by God. He would start as a child, which of course, Yahweh, their eternal God could never be. And what a great ruler this man would grow to be, of the line of David. The 2nd Adam. The government will be on his shoulders, he will be called Mighty Counselor, Mighty Hero, Father of the Coming Age, Prince of Peace. The Son of God. (notice the phrase Son of God, Son of Man, Son of the Father occurs around 180 times in the NT but not one single time do we see God the Son, as the Trinitarian doctrine uses to describe Christ.)

WHy would such an important idea such as who Jesus is be so hard to recognize in God's wonderful words? Why would the ones who personally knew Jesus not stress that he was God on at least one occassion? Sometimes it is not what they say but what they don't say...in Acts 14 the people claim Paul and Barnabas to be the God's Zeus and Hermes incarnate. Yet when Paul and Barnabas heard this and were angered, they didn't say "No, No, we are not the God who is incarnated as a man!!" Nope they didn't say that at all. But it would have been an opportune time to clearify such a matter. Why did it not occur? Possibly because even they did not believe Jesus was God.

When I stated earlier that the works of Jesus are belittled by him being God I meant it. Just consider the importance of the resurection on this Easter holiday. Is it not important to us that Jesus survived death and was ressurected because he was the first man to do such a thing? Would it not be belittled if it was God who prettended to die (because God cannot physically die) and then raised himself up from this pretend death? To men it is a question of, so what if God can raise himself up from the dead, BUT if he raised a man from the dead and gave him a new life an eternal life not of the flesh but of the spirit!! AMEN!

Acts,

Please note my last post in which I asked YOU what YOU believe concerning these verses. I did not ask for a cut-and-paste from a Unitarian website! I have no desire to argue against points made in another website. It's a waste of my time and energy.

Also, I'm pretty surprised that you are relying upon the words of men rather than the Word of God, despite your previous comments. Or maybe those weren't your comments after all......?

[Guest Acts1711]

Now wait a second Ovedya,

I work by the side of the men who created this book and am allowed to use these words to express an answer to a question. But regardless of me using it or not it doesn't change the point made. Because of the source the point is unvalid? You are beginning to sound like the evolutionists. They won't even consider opposing views if the source is one who has already picked the side of creation.

As for trusting in men over the words of God. That is not correct. Everything stated is highly structured off of the words of God. The points made are within the limits of the Bible. The meaning of the words, the context, everything.

Are you willing to continue this discussion? What do you think about the point made?

[Ovedya]

Now wait a second Ovedya,

I work by the side of the men who created this book...

Book? I took this to be an article on the website I referenced. As a contributor to this book, then, I would appreciate if you cite the title and it's authors for me.

In either case, I find it disingenuous to promote an argument cited in another source without referencing the source itself. Had you provided the proper citation I would not have called you on it. I await your answer to this point.

But regardless of me using it or not it doesn't change the point made. Because of the source the point is unvalid? You are beginning to sound like the evolutionists. They won't even consider opposing views if the source is one who has already picked the side of creation.

As such neither would I consider the opposing view, since Unitarianism is abberant (and abhorrent) approach to genuine Christian thought. Nevertheless the website in question professes a belief that is a self-proclaimed divergent of Unitarian Universalism. However, the statement from "Our Statement of Beliefs":

"We believe that because of God being his father and Jesus' not being descended from Adam, that he was genetically perfect

[Guest shiloh357]

Shiloh,

The first post of yours missed the point. The word "God" is not included in the original written text. So regardless if Jesus is God or not, it doesn't belong there.

No, it does not miss the point. The point is that Jesus is God. Having the word God there in italics does not hurt the text since the translators made the point of letting us know that it was there for clarification.

The Father is God, Jesus is God and the Holy Spirit is God. In Hebrew we call that "Echad." In English it is called "Trinity."

The phrase "Mighty God" can be better translated. Although the word "God" in the Hebrew culture had a much wider range of application than it does in ours, the average reader does not know or unerstand that. Readers familiar with the Semitic languages know that a man who is acting with God's authority can be called "god." Both Martin Luther and James Moffatt translated the phrase as "divine hero" in their Bibles.

That is nonsense. "Mighty God in Hebrew is El Gibor. There is no way you can get "divine hero" out of that. I am at work and am on a short break or else I would break down the Hebrew and explain this better, but I am short on time. This passage specifically refers to Jesus as the Might God. I would not trust Unitarians (sheesh) when trying to comment on the Word of God. Your user name is Acts 17:11 I suggest you do what your name suggests, and start searching the Scriptures instead of quoting unbelievers to make your case. You have just lots loads of credibility at this point.

Agreed, Trinitarians correctly deny that Jesus is th "Everlasting Father." It is a basic tenet of Trinitarian doctrine that Christians should "neither confound the Persons nor divide the Substance" (Athanasian Creed). Thus, if the verse is translated properly, then Trinitarian Christians have a real problem. However, the phrase is mistranslated. The word translated "everlasting" is actually "age," and the correct translation is that Jesus will be called "father of the (coming) age."

In the culture of the Bible, anyone who began anything or was important to something was called its "father."

Avi Ad Translated "Everlasting Father" is not that far off. It can be also rendered as Father of Eternity, but that is not a problem since Jesus is the creator of the universe, and the architect of the ages. That by definition makes Him God, The Father of Eternity. Jesus is Father of Eternity and He is everlasting as pre-existed creation with God the Father. Jesus was God The Creator according to John Chapter 1 and also in the book of Colossians. Nothing exists except that it was created by Jesus at the very beginning in Genesis chapter 1. Again, The Father is God, Jesus is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, three in one.

THe chapter goes on: "for to us a child is born and to us a son is given." There is no hint that this child will be "God,"

Sorry, but that is nonsense. Everything written points to God Himself, and the child that bears these titles cannot be anyone other than God. The text ESPECIALLY in Hebrew does not allow for us to understand the identity of the Child to be anyone other than the Messiah, who is Jesus and who is also God.

I am out of time. I have A LOT more to say. I will respond to the rest of the this rubbish later tonight.

WHy would such an important idea such as who Jesus is be so hard to recognize in God's wonderful words? Why would the ones who personally knew Jesus not stress that he was God on at least one occassion? Sometimes it is not what they say but what they don't say...in Acts 14 the people claim Paul and Barnabas to be the God's Zeus and Hermes incarnate. Yet when Paul and Barnabas heard this and were angered, they didn't say "No, No, we are not the God who is incarnated as a man!!" Nope they didn't say that at all. But it would have been an opportune time to clearify such a matter. Why did it not occur? Possibly because even they did not believe Jesus was God.

When I stated earlier that the works of Jesus are belittled by him being God I meant it. Just consider the importance of the resurection on this Easter holiday. Is it not important to us that Jesus survived death and was ressurected because he was the first man to do such a thing? Would it not be belittled if it was God who prettended to die (because God cannot physically die) and then raised himself up from this pretend death? To men it is a question of, so what if God can raise himself up from the dead, BUT if he raised a man from the dead and gave him a new life an eternal life not of the flesh but of the spirit!! AMEN!

This is utter nonsense and I will respond after work.

[Guest Acts1711]

Yes book, One God One Lord: Reconsidering the Cornerstone of the Christian Faith

By: Mark Graeser, John Lynn and John Schoenheit

I do not have a problem apologizing for not sourcing and quoting my reply. I do apologize, it was inappropriate of me. I simply did not feel the need since we were on a message board. All future replies will be properly sourced.

As for having a decision already made up about a certian belief without considering it's arguments is the same position Evolutionist take. Which is pure ignorance...actually I would go as far as to say pure stupidity. Any intelligent man does not fear the statements made by an opposing person, he simply attempts to honestly consider and put the statements up to a test. Not state that since the posts support someone elses statements who lost an argument in the past therefore we will not even consider them. That is foolishness.

The reason why what I state is fair to consider is because we know that God is perfect and in not contradictory his words must be the same. We know that the Bible is the words of God. So there must not be any contradictions. But when accepting the Trinity and then putting that doctrine up against the Bible you find contradictions.

Lets take a look:

1) NASB Numbers 23:19

God is not a man, that He should lie, Nor a son of man, that He should repent.

Compared with

Edited March 24, 2005 by Acts1711

[Ovedya]

Acts,

I am beginning to run short of time as well.

But in short, the argument you just put forth against Jesus' divinity is practially identical to that of the Jehovah's Witnesses. Do you not have a problem with aligning yourself to the Jehovah's Witnesses?

In fact, for all intents and purposes, nearly all abberational groups (Some have called them cults even) calling themselves "genuine Bible believing Christians" (JW's, LDS, UU, etc.) have this one thing in common: The stout (even stoic) denial of Christ's divine quality or status.

I will direct my subsequent responses to the verses you put forth a little later. Hopefully later tonight.