Is Jesus still subject to God

[EricH]

I'm not a JW, but I don't believe the Trinity, and I know lots of Christians who don't believe it either.

[nebula]

Who made the Lion Kill the Prophet? And how did He do it?

Yes, the Lord commanded the lion to kill the prophet.

Why does "how" matter?

If "how" was important, He would have stated it.

But He didn't!

The important point was that the prophet disobeyed and the Lord sent a lion to send judgment and give a sign.

And a command is good enough.

[Atalyah]

I'm not a JW, but I don't believe the Trinity, and I know lots of Christians who don't believe it either.

[eric]

Oh dear, oh dear. What's the point.

[EricH]

I'm not a JW, but I don't believe the Trinity, and I know lots of Christians who don't believe it either.

[Atalyah]

1. First of all, Ithiel was not born of a virgin. Secondly, it does not tell us that His Name was "God with us." It says His Name shall be called "God with us." As applied to Jesus,"God with us" is not a name, but a title. The title denotes office. Jesus was God with man, on earth.

Being born of a virgin doesn't make Jesus literally God. And whether Immanuel is a title or a name doesn't really make any difference, as far as I can tell. I don't believe in the Trinity, yet I have no problems with believing that with Jesus' presence, God is with us, as Jesus perfectly represented the Father to us.

2. How it used elsewhere is irrelevant, really. It is how it is used in the verse in Isaiah, and what it is being conveyed THERE. Hebrew is really a small language. Many of the words in Hebrew play double, triple, even quadruple duty. It is not uncommon to find a word in Hebrew that can have 10 or more different meanings. It is the context of a particular passage that determines word usage/meaning. In Isaiah 9:6 "EL" is being used as a reference to God. There is no mistaking its usage in that verse. Taken with all the other titles ascribed there, it is clear that Isaiah is not talking about an ordinary human being, or even an extraordinary human being. He is talking about Jesus as God.

The crux of your argument was that " 'El is never used except to denote the God of Scripture. It is always God, and yet it is being applied to a human child. How can this be?" I've shown that el is not always used to denote the God of Scripture. On this, your argument falls.

3. However in the verses that follow which I provided, God Himself says that there is NO Savior besides Him. Therefore God could not make Jesus Savior beside Him if there is no other Savior but God alone. That means that if Jesus is Savior, then Jesus is God.

God provided Christ. Without God, there would be no salvation. God is our Saviour through Christ.

4. This is incorrect. God is saying that there is no savior beside Himself. He is talking about being Israel's ultimate Savior. Othniel was a judge he was not a "savior" in the absolute sense. God says that HE is THE absolute savior of Israel. It is in that sense that God says there is no Savior but Himself.

God provided Othniel, who is called a saviour. God provided Christ, who is called a Saviour. Ultimatly, God is our Saviour as he provided the means by which we are saved.

5. Yes, it is talking about the literal creation of the universe. Col. 1:16 says that all things were created by Jesus in both heaven and earth. It is not a reference to us as new creations. That is not Paul's point at all. And it says that Jesus is God. Jesus as God, pre-existed creation, and therefore Paul asserts Jesus role in creation as creator.

Jesus is the "image" (Gr. eikon) of the invisible God. The term image as used in Greek denotes a perfect copy which fully represents a thing, as opposed to a rough drawing. It means that the God is perfectly represented in Christ in every aspect. When we see Jesus, we see God. When we talk to Jesus, we are talking to God. It is AFTER he denotes Jesus as the perfect image of God, that he shows Jesus' deity as creator of the both the material universe, and the spiritual realm as well.

No, it's not talking about literal creation. Even trinitarian commentators will disagree with you on this. Do you believe that Jesus was literally "the firstborn of every creature"?

Jesus is in the image of God, thus he is not God. If we have seen Christ, we have seen the Father, as Christ perfectly portrayed Him. This doesn't mean that Jesus is the Father, in as much as to be in the image of God doesn't make Jesus God.

6. Again, context determines word usage. In verse three it says that all things were created by HIM. "Him" is a reference to Jesus, as the Word of God. You are trying to find a way to skirt around, and avoid the obvious. The first three verses are a clear reference to Jesus as the creator.

Jesus DID pre-exist creation as the Word of God. Jesus is the Word in the beginning according to John, and was later made flesh. He could not have been the Word made flesh, if he was not the Word prior to being made flesh.

"Him" is not a reference to Jesus. Logos" does not in itself denote personality. It's only translated as 'him" because logos is in the masculine gender. It could just as rightly be translated as "it", and in fact, it is such in versions prior to the KJV...

The Geneva Bible

Edited July 6, 2005 by Atalyah

[Atalyah]

I'm not a JW, but I don't believe the Trinity, and I know lots of Christians who don't believe it either.

[Atalyah]

Just a general Q for anybody...

If the trinity were false, what sort of statements would you expect to see in Scripture to prove it to you?

edited to clarify: The question is what statements regarding Christ and God *would* you expect to see, not what statements regarding Christ and God would you expect *not* to see. That's another question for later

Edited July 6, 2005 by Atalyah

[eric]

Atalyah, first a piece of scripture. Mat.8:26

And He said to them, Why are you fearful, you of little faith? Then He arose and rebuked the winds and the sea, and there was great calm.

My point, Whilst He was asleep, He was Jesus the man, and when He arose and rebuked the winds and the sea, He Jesus, the Lord. He didn't have to call on God because He was God.

There many more examples, but right now I have to go.

e.

[Guest shiloh357]

Just a general Q for anybody...

If the trinity were false, what sort of statements would you expect to see in Scripture to prove it to you?

edited to clarify: The question is what statements regarding Christ and God *would* you expect to see, not what statements regarding Christ and God would you expect *not* to see.