The Trinity

[Vincent Butler]

I thought we were starting with the premise that the Bible is divinely inspired.

You lot are missing a few books in that version, but Catholics also believe the Bible to be divinely inspired scripture, and not a regular text.

Well, I guess according to the doctrine of preservation, those weren't scripture. If you are referring to the Apocrypha, the translators of the KJV did not deem them to be divinely inspired, though they believed they were good reading and could be used for teaching. That is why original 1611 editions had the Apocrypha in them.
There were other books too that have been lost to history, such as the book of Jasher and the Book of the Wars of the Lord. Obviously, if those were lost, then they would not be considered Scripture, because they were not copied by the scribes.

[Sigurd]

Sorry about the late reply... the flu and other stuff interfered.

I never claimed that Trinitarianism was the dominant position within Christendom at the time of Nicaea or Athanasius. From what I have read, I would be agreement that Trinitarianism was a minority position at that time. What I was trying to say was that I believe that the scriptures show Trinitarianism to be the position of the earliest church - the church in the time of Christ and the apostles..

Well… it is my claim that Trinitarianism was doctored by the Church-fathers (not the Apostles – the Church-fathers are those responsible for the church which emerged after the downfall of the early church which the New Testament predicted.

For this reason, I think it is important to appeal to the scripture as effectively the best source we have on what exactly the very earliest Christians believed - not those hundreds of years later at Nicaea.

Ah.. But you see… It was after Nicæa that the scriptures were canonized.

I thought a key belief of Subordinationism which distinguished it from Trinitarianism was the idea that Christ and the Holy Spirit are subordinate to the Father both in nature and their 'office' or 'function'? Isn't that why, after all, you appeal to those verses of scripture which speak of minor created gods, and identify Christ with them? The wikipedia article on Subordinationism opens with:

"Subordinationism is a doctrine in Christian theology which holds that the Son and the Holy Spirit are subordinate to God the Father in nature and being."

I know its not the best source but I did initially refer to that to try to understand where you are coming from. Would you disagree that Subordinationism says Christ is subordinate in nature to the Father?

I think the author is being sloppy in the definition. Subordinationism doesn't agree with Arius that Christ was simply a man created at birth and bestowed with Godliness. Yes Jesus Christ is different in nature and being – but the point is ontologically separate from God. As two full grown elephants are different, they are the same species and would have roughly the same strength and attributes, one is however dominant and the other subordinate because that is their way.

The idea of interpreting scripture with scripture doesn't mean excluding all other sources for understanding the scripture. It just means that when you come across a verse which is unclear to you, you should attempt to understand it in a way that is consistent with other verses of scripture which speak more clearly on the matter. Naturally, you also have to look to scholarly extra-scriptural sources to understand the historical and cultural contexts.

Then we agree. There are scholars out there that have a greater understanding of the scriptures and its context, and we would be wise to read their books.

I don't think there is anything in the context of Isaiah 43:10-11, to suggest that when God speaks of gods being formed, he means only gods being formed by clay.

Sure .. include gold and other substances. Do you suggest other ways of forming a god?

Also, I would say it is unfair for you to simply state that my belief in Trinitarianism comes from the Church Fathers and not from scripture. Have I ever appealed to their authority to justify Trinitarianism?

Ah but you do… This idea originated by them. Do you suggest that if Athanasius and his minority supporters had not convinced the church to adapt to their view, you would still believe in Trinitarianism today as you say: found in the scriptures?

"And again, when he [the Father] bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him." (Hebrews 1:6)

Not a contradiction, but the Father does speak of God as though God is somehow distinguished from himself [the Father]. In the same way that Paul distinguished between God the Father and Christ the Son.

So, both the Son and the Father are distinguished as being distinct from God.

That is not how I read it. Angels of God is a title and it should be qualified like that as the word in Hebrew means messenger.

You are right in that he isn't necessarily talking about them having different roles or being ontologically distinct beings. That was my point - you offered this verse as an argument for them being ontologically distinct, but there are other reasonable interpretations of this verse.

This is a verse used by Trinitarians to show how God and Jesus is the same. I used it to show that it could be interpreted differently.

"But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him." (1 Corinthians 8:6)

Paul here says there is one Lord, Jesus Christ. Elsewhere, God is called Lord:

"And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord." (Mark 12:29)

Quoting the gospels can be tricky as you should find 4 versions of the same event and hence if they all say the same, it should be a truth established by several witnesses. But in this case it is only Mark that has the prefix to the great commandment of loving God and neighbors. Is this then the insertion of a misguided translator at one point?

A similar example:

"Neither is there salvation in any other [than Christ]: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved." (Acts 4:12)

Jesus is here called our only Saviour. Elsewhere, God is called our Saviour:

"To the only wise God our Saviour, be glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and ever. Amen." (Jude 1:25)

You are quoting a doxology. Saviour is not mentioned in your first quote, you are inferring it. But still, it is through Christ’s atonement whereby men can be saved, but it was God who sent the Messiah – and hence he can easily be called a Saviour as the Assyrian King Cyrus who was named Saviour of Israel.

From my OP:

"Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am." (John 8:58)
"I [Jesus] am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty." (Revelation 1:8)

These statements are not compatible with the idea of Christ being a subordinate, created god. These are claims of being the God, as the parallel verses (which Christ was deliberately referencing) regarding God make clear:

"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." (Isaiah 44:6)
"And God said unto Moses, I Am That I Am: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I Am hath sent me unto you." (Exodus 3:14)

I think you have heard of divine agents, it is a common argument used by the Unitarians against Trinitarians. There are many instances in the Bible and especially in the Old Testament that an angel speaks as he was God the Father. I am the great I AM could be uttered by an angel as a divine agent of God. The best example of this is Moses and the burning bush as the Angel says: I AM WHO I AM and “I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob”.
It is the view of many Christians that Jesus was this angel and especially with Unitarians.

Other examples would be Exodus 13:21
And the LORD went before them by day in a pillar of a cloud, to lead them the way; and by night in a pillar of fire, to give them light; to go by day and night
Exodus 14:19
And the angel of God, which went before the camp of Israel, removed and went behind them; and the pillar of the cloud went from before their face, and stood behind them

I think you have too narrow a view of Trinitarianism.

Could be as I basically think of Trinitarians as modalists.

Didn't you say that the unity that Christ and the Father share is the same unity shared amongst the saints? In what special sense is Christ then the Father's Son? In what way is it merciful to send one of your brethren to be punished for the sins of a third party? It would only be merciful and selfless to bear that punishment yourself.

Really?? God and Jesus can’t be two separate entities because he shouldn’t send anyone but himself as a ransom against justice.

This begs the question… why use phrased such as Father and Son? Why not state the apparent full truth then? The Father condescended to make himself subject to the full law and brought justice to heel by paying for all sin himself. He himself being the embodiment of Justice and executioner at the same time as being the one executed.

Christ doesn't put himself in the category of the lesser gods. He quotes Psalm 82 to say that if those who hear the word are called gods, how great then is the blasphemy to deny someone so much greater - the Son of God who has been sanctified and sent into the world by the Father?

I don’t think so… he would have further supported his claim as The God IF that was his claim in the first place. Not basically say that they were as much God as he was in the sense of sons and daughters of God whom they call Father.

First of all, dealing the the "ye are gods" phrase. Actually, a good idea is to look at a dictionary closer to the times to help determine meaning. Wine nowadays is strictly alcoholic, back in 1611 it simply meant "the fruit of the vine". Gods can refer to deity, but it can also refer to people in high power, such as princes and kings. That is a possible explanation.

It doesn't answer why this would be his argument against his accusers.

Sigurd, I am familiar with the controversy surrounding 1 John 5:7, I will respond to that later when I have studied what I have learned about it

I eagerly await your comments.

Christ talks about the glory he left when he came down (John 17:5). He did not surrender his deity, as shown that he had power to raise himself from the dead. Yet other places say that God raised him from the dead. Only a God could raise himself from the dead. Yet this shows there has to be more than one aspect of God, the one who raises the dead part.
The Son, when quoting seeming inferiority to the Father, is speaking from his man state. Other passages clearly show he still retained his God state.

I am not arguing against his status as God (a god).

Sigurd, there is a doctrine of preservation, which states that God has perfectly preserved his Word. We accept that by faith, and I believe it to be the Authorized Version, otherwise known as the King James Version. That is why we interpret Scripture with Scripture, because it is God's (written) Word, so we can't treat it like a normal book.

So you are a KJV onlyist. This begs the question. Take my bible which is a Norwegian translation of Luther’s bible, Am I not able to discern the word of God from this? Is the word of God as preserved by Him only available to the English speaking Christians?

[Vincent Butler]

It doesn't answer why this would be his argument against his accusers.

It would more seem that he is using the wording to say why what he said doesn't necessarily mean he is speaking blasphemy, not to actually state any doctrine. He liked turning their reverence for David, Moses, and Abraham against them.

So you are a KJV onlyist. This begs the question. Take my bible which is a Norwegian translation of Luther’s bible, Am I not able to discern the word of God from this? Is the word of God as preserved by Him only available to the English speaking Christians?

KJV onlyist for the English-speaking people. I should have been more clear, I forgot that not everybody on the thread is from an English-speaking country. I guess if somebody wants to use the Geneva Bible or Coverdale Bible I don't really have too much against that, I don't know. That bears more thought. What I look for in a Bible is, was it taken from the Textus Receptus, the Received Text? For other languages, that will not necessarily be the KJV.

There are scholars out there that have a greater understanding of the scriptures and its context, and we would be wise to read their books.

OK, but remember that it is the Holy Ghost that reveals his word to us. A lost scholar can study the Bible all day, and not get it. That is why non-Christians have such issues with the Bible.

"But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." 1 Corinthians 2:14

About 1 John 5:7. Let me first point out that every part of Scripture in the KJV was reviewed at least fourteen times before it was cleared to be put in, so if that many comparisons led to 1 John 5:7 being considered part of the text, it should have been in there. We are still taking into account the doctrine of preservation, after all.
Erasmus only used two manuscripts for the bulk of his work. Erasmus omitted this passage because he could not find it in any Greek Text. But in the third edition, in 1522, he put it in because he received the manuscript that had it. Numerous codices do have it, so it was accepted in the KJV by the KJV's translators. If you are using a translation by Luther, Sigurd, that explains why you don't have it. He compiled his translation from Erasmus's works, printing his Bible in 1522, evidently from Erasmus's first or second edition.

I am not arguing against his status as God (a god).

But God says that there is no God beside him, see Isaiah 45:5. And the Son is called in Isaiah 9:6 the Everlasting Father and the Mighty God. Jesus is also called Emmanuel, which means "God with us". So if he is a god, he has to be The God.
I think I have said all I was wanting to say for now. If I see anything else I think begs a response, I will respond. Otherwise, I await comments from the others.

[Sigurd]

It would more seem that he is using the wording to say why what he said doesn't necessarily mean he is speaking blasphemy, not to actually state any doctrine. He liked turning their reverence for David, Moses, and Abraham against them.

What is the point of quoting psalm 82 if they accuse him of being God (the Father)? They could just brush it off - what has that to do with you claiming to be the Father? But that is not what they accuse him of... the word is Theos and it can be translated as 'a god' and suddenly the quote from the psalms makes sense.

OK, but remember that it is the Holy Ghost that reveals his word to us. A lost scholar can study the Bible all day, and not get it. That is why non-Christians have such issues with the Bible.

I have a problem with this statement.
It begs the question of why there are 35 000 Christian denominations. Why is there contention within the different sects on matters of doctrine when the Holy Ghost should reveal the same understanding to all honest seekers. Two so called saved persons (at least that is what they claim) can contend over a passage of scripture, both professing to have been guided by the spirit to understand its meaning. Believe me, I have 20 years of experience with these things, I have met many who claim to have been given the truth by the Holy Ghost, yet they say different things.

About 1 John 5:7. Let me first point out that every part of Scripture in the KJV was reviewed at least fourteen times before it was cleared to be put in, so if that many comparisons led to 1 John 5:7 being considered part of the text, it should have been in there. We are still taking into account the doctrine of preservation, after all.
Erasmus only used two manuscripts for the bulk of his work. Erasmus omitted this passage because he could not find it in any Greek Text. But in the third edition, in 1522, he put it in because he received the manuscript that had it. Numerous codices do have it, so it was accepted in the KJV by the KJV's translators. If you are using a translation by Luther, Sigurd, that explains why you don't have it. He compiled his translation from Erasmus's works, printing his Bible in 1522, evidently from Erasmus's first or second edition.

It should be noted that Erasmus considered the manuscript forged for the purpose of forcing him to include it. As he had wagered that if anyone found a Greek manuscript with the controversial text, he would include it in his translation.

I have a slight problem with KJV-onlyism. The problem is found on the title page : by his Majesties special Commandment. What was the instruction given the translators from the King? -to guarantee that the new version would conform to the ecclesiology and reflect the episcopal structure of the Church of England and its belief in an ordained clergy. Ah... problem. it had to conform to the Church of England's ecclesiology or how they viewed the Godhead, how they viewed salvation etc.

Well.. The Church of England commissioned a new Bible and in 1962 the Bible which is called The New English Bible (NEB) saw light in this world and lo and behold the verse in 1 John 5:7 is as it should be without the reference to the Trinity.

For there are three witnesses, the Spirit, the water, and the blood, and these three are in agreement.
(1.John 5:7 - NEB)

But God says that there is no God beside him, see Isaiah 45:5. And the Son is called in Isaiah 9:6 the Everlasting Father and the Mighty God. Jesus is also called Emmanuel, which means "God with us". So if he is a god, he has to be The God.
I think I have said all I was wanting to say for now. If I see anything else I think begs a response, I will respond. Otherwise, I await comments from the others.

We have already been over this. The Bible do allow for more than one God, no need to rehash One-God claims... as the purpose of the wording has been explained.
Either The Bible contradicts itself - or there are a specific purpose of the quoted verses that doesn't refute the doctrine of more than one true god.
Also, read about divine agents. I have another card up my sleeve that I haven't used yet. Look up Deuteronomical Reform.

[Beskar]

Also, read about divine agents. I have another card up my sleeve that I haven't used yet. Look up Deuteronomical Reform.

I have already played that card before, it received a astounding "meh" and then completely ignored.

[Vincent Butler]

What is the point of quoting psalm 82 if they accuse him of being God (the Father)? They could just brush it off - what has that to do with you claiming to be the Father? But that is not what they accuse him of... the word is Theos and it can be translated as 'a god' and suddenly the quote from the psalms makes sense.

Just because it can be translated a certain way doesn't mean it needs to be taken that way. Besides, in Psalm 82, it says they will die. Now, in most cultures, deities are immortal; I know Norse deities die, and I am not sure if any other cultures have that the case, the Norse are the only ones I know of.

It begs the question of why there are 35 000 Christian denominations. Why is there contention within the different sects on matters of doctrine when the Holy Ghost should reveal the same understanding to all honest seekers.
Believe me, I have 20 years of experience with these things, I have met many who claim to have been given the truth by the Holy Ghost, yet they say different things.

Well, "Christian" covers a wide range of religions, from a secular point of view, it includes Catholics and Mormons, among others, whom I personally would not call Christian, why I would not is outside the scope of this discussion. When somebody tells you something the Holy Ghost showed them, you have to line it up with what the Bible actually says. 1 John says to "try the spirits, whether they are of God", which we do with God's Word. The Holy Spirit will not reveal something that does not line up with the Word of God. Also, many passages can be applied multiple ways and still be right, example, parable of the prodigal son. Look at what the Bible says.
A common mistake many people make is to take a Scripture out of context and use that to support their cause. Like anything else, it has to be taken in context. "A text taken out of its context becomes a pretext."

It should be noted that Erasmus considered the manuscript forged for the purpose of forcing him to include it. As he had wagered that if anyone found a Greek manuscript with the controversial text, he would include it in his translation.

My mom's Dutch Bible, which is taken mainly from Latin texts, has 1 John 5:7. There was no officially accepted Greek text, though there were numerous Greek texts available. There are enough references to this passage from other sources that it is not a problem. I don't need that passage to support my claim about Christ's part in the Trinity anyway(but it helps), numerous other passages directly call him God, and numerous passages state the existence of only one God.

The problem is found on the title page : by his Majesties special Commandment. What was the instruction given the translators from the King? -to guarantee that the new version would conform to the ecclesiology and reflect the episcopal structure of the Church of England and its belief in an ordained clergy.

I checked several of my Bibles, none have that comment, they all say something like "Translated out of the original tongues, diligently compared and revised with other texts". It is called the Authorized Version because King James saw the need for an officially accepted text, so he commissioned the translators to come up with one. Again, many of these "conflicting passages" are in numerous manuscripts as well, cited in other sources.

We have already been over this. The Bible do allow for more than one God, no need to rehash One-God claims... as the purpose of the wording has been explained

I guess we will keep going over it. No, the Bible does not allow for the existence of multiple Gods, God clearly states that "there is none else", and "the Lord our God is one Lord".

Also, read about divine agents. I have another card up my sleeve that I haven't used yet. Look up Deuteronomical Reform.

All I can find on it is something to do with Josiah bringing back the following of the law to Judah. If that is what you mean, I don't see how that supports your case.
By "divine agents", are you talking about such instances as Joshua meeting the Captain of the Host of the Lord, and such like? If so, those are considered preincarnate appearances of Christ. You see verses where standard angels refuse worship. Yet these characters accept worship. They must be God. But since there is only one God, it must be Jehovah these people are talking to.

Look, we can argue all day long about what certain passages may mean, what is the interpretation, and all that stuff. Very clear references have been given stating that there is ONLY one God, and verses where Jesus is directly called God. If you don't accept what the Bible clearly says, then arguing about interpretation of passages would be pointless.

[Sigurd]

Just because it can be translated a certain way doesn't mean it needs to be taken that way. Besides, in Psalm 82, it says they will die. Now, in most cultures, deities are immortal; I know Norse deities die, and I am not sure if any other cultures have that the case, the Norse are the only ones I know of.

Christ died. Although he chose to do so, the fact still remains.

Well, "Christian" covers a wide range of religions, from a secular point of view, it includes Catholics and Mormons, among others, whom I personally would not call Christian, why I would not is outside the scope of this discussion. When somebody tells you something the Holy Ghost showed them, you have to line it up with what the Bible actually says. 1 John says to "try the spirits, whether they are of God", which we do with God's Word. The Holy Spirit will not reveal something that does not line up with the Word of God. Also, many passages can be applied multiple ways and still be right, example, parable of the prodigal son. Look at what the Bible says.
A common mistake many people make is to take a Scripture out of context and use that to support their cause. Like anything else, it has to be taken in context. "A text taken out of its context becomes a pretext."

I have a serious problem with this. I am using context provided by many theologians and scholars. All though I am presenting these interpretations, they have been presented before by others.
But that is beside the point. You make a claim to have knowledge from the Holy Ghost. How would I verify this? What if the claims are contrary to others who make the same claim of divine revelation?
Ok... lets get scientific about this. How does the Holy Ghost reveal the truth to you? What is the process involved. I will have to check this against more than one claim of divine revelation.

My mom's Dutch Bible, which is taken mainly from Latin texts, has 1 John 5:7. There was no officially accepted Greek text, though there were numerous Greek texts available. There are enough references to this passage from other sources that it is not a problem. I don't need that passage to support my claim about Christ's part in the Trinity anyway(but it helps), numerous other passages directly call him God, and numerous passages state the existence of only one God.

It is a controversy and should have been removed using the same rules as in the process of canonization the Bible back whenever.

I checked several of my Bibles, none have that comment, they all say something like "Translated out of the original tongues, diligently compared and revised with other texts". It is called the Authorized Version because King James saw the need for an officially accepted text, so he commissioned the translators to come up with one. Again, many of these "conflicting passages" are in numerous manuscripts as well, cited in other sources.

You of course checked the original 1611 version?

I guess we will keep going over it. No, the Bible does not allow for the existence of multiple Gods, God clearly states that "there is none else", and "the Lord our God is one Lord".

Yes it does. It says Gods (plural) every time Elohim is named. Christ quotes psalm 82:6 which uses the word Elohim (’ănî- ’ā-mar-tî ’ĕ-lō-hîm). And to say that this is the tri-une God is clearly missing the context in every instance of the use of this word (also see next comment).

All I can find on it is something to do with Josiah bringing back the following of the law to Judah. If that is what you mean, I don't see how that supports your case.
By "divine agents", are you talking about such instances as Joshua meeting the Captain of the Host of the Lord, and such like? If so, those are considered preincarnate appearances of Christ. You see verses where standard angels refuse worship. Yet these characters accept worship. They must be God. But since there is only one God, it must be Jehovah these people are talking to.

That you are not aware of the travesty around the Deutoronomic reform is surprising. Maybe it is a buzz-killer and is therefore not taught in the Christian churches. You (not you specifically, but your team-mates) keep the fidelity of the Bible so close to heart that you won't allow for even the slightest possibility that someone along the line tampered with and changed scripture. This might come as a surprise, but this reform did just that. They changed the texts to conform to a single God - Jahveh, and removed everything else that was referring to worship of other deities. The intention was good as they wanted to slam down on idolatry or rather false worship of true deity. One particular is the Asherah. We don't know much about her since more or less everything about her worship was wiped from the records. She was a part of the temple worship and worshiped among the patriarchs since at least Abraham. She stood in the temple as a symbol of the tree of life next to the holy anointing oil in the holy of holies 2/3 of the Temple's existence in Jerusalem. Josiah threw her out together with the brazen serpent that Moses had fashioned. Not long after the South Kingdom with Jerusalem fell to Babylon, no longer supported by their God as prophesied by among others Isaiah.

[Rhyfelwyr]

I will prepare a proper reply to your main response Sigurd, but in the meantime...

Look up Deuteronomical Reform.

I have already played that card before, it received a astounding "meh" and then completely ignored.

I think it is very problematic if you want to start saying that the Bible contradicts itself, and that different parts of the book argue for different Gods or gods.

As I said earlier when I interpret verses from the Bible, I do so in a way that is consistent with the entirety of scripture. Naturally, if I was to abandon this approach and only study verses in the isolation of a particular book or part of the Bible, I could come to a variety of different conclusions on what the scripture teaches on a particular topic.

If we have a situation where as you seem to be saying, that Genesis is polytheistic and Deuteronomy is monotheistic, then I suppose that both our ideas of God(s) could be half-right, and this debate would be a bit pointless.

I also think you must remember that the early Christians who you appeal to to justify Subordinationism, would never have accepted the idea that the scripture contradicts itself. Certainly not in such a fundamental way as you are suggesting.

[Vincent Butler]

Christ died. Although he chose to do so, the fact still remains.

His human body died. Because sin came by man, redemption had to come by man. Thor dies and that is it. Odin dies and that is it. Jesus died and rose again. He said that he himself had power to lay down his life, and power to take it up again. The God part of him did not die.

I have a serious problem with this. I am using context provided by many theologians and scholars. All though I am presenting these interpretations, they have been presented before by others.
But that is beside the point. You make a claim to have knowledge from the Holy Ghost. How would I verify this? What if the claims are contrary to others who make the same claim of divine revelation?
Ok... lets get scientific about this. How does the Holy Ghost reveal the truth to you? What is the process involved. I will have to check this against more than one claim of divine revelation.

As I said before, look at other Scriptures. If somebody claims revelation, but that part conflicts with what the Bible says, we can ignore them. Case in point, the people who claim to know the hour of the return of Christ. The Bible says that no man knows the hour. That is an easy example.
I can't explain how the Holy Ghost reveals things, I just know he does. But if I do see something, I had better make sure it lines up with other Scripture or the nature of God as revealed in his word, or however I am trying to apply that verse. If it does not, then I know it was not the Holy Spirit.

It is a controversy and should have been removed using the same rules as in the process of canonization the Bible back whenever.

If we are going to remove every controversy found in the manuscripts, Esther would have to go, Proverbs would have to go, Kings and Chronicles would have to go, all that stuff. The translators of the KJV knew of those controversies, that is why each part went through fourteen different examinations, to determine if they should leave it in or out.

Yes it does. It says Gods (plural) every time Elohim is named. Christ quotes psalm 82:6 which uses the word Elohim (’ănî- ’ā-mar-tî ’ĕ-lō-hîm). And to say that this is the tri-une God is clearly missing the context in every instance of the use of this word (also see next comment).

I guess we will just disagree on the interpretation of how Elohim is used, I believe it to refer the three parts of Elohim. "Let us make man in our image". Christ is in the image of God, he did tell Philip "He that hath seen me hath seen the Father."
Look at the possible definitions of Elohiym in the Strong's Concordance. Then look at the context. It is not necessarily referring to Jehovah, obviously not there. When Christ quotes that verse, look at the surrounding verses, he made them mad because he made himself God, not a god.

A couple of comments on your last paragraph. I don't know where you heard of Deutoronomical reform, it sounds more like a conspiracy theory to me. We don't have the originals, we can't say for sure what they say (from a purely secular standpoint). But I believe in the inerrant preservation of God's word, so I believe that God kept his word pure throughout history. If I did not believe that, what would be the point of believing the Bible? If I was not sure that what it says was really the Word of God as given in the originals, it would be pointless to believe any Bible.
Oh, I fully believe that people would tamper with the Word of God, that is why we have all those other translations, again, I am speaking from an English-speaking standpoint. For those who use other translations, that is my personal opinion, you are welcome to yours. I will say there are bigger fish to fry than arguing about Bible versions.
Ultimately, Sigurd, it comes down to faith in God. Just because the Trinity is beyond reason does not mean it is against reason. I can't explain everything about it, I have to take what the Bible says on it.
I have shown very clear reasons for my viewpoint. You keep coming back to one or two passages and trying to interpret their meaning, or at least what you believe they say. How about looking at very direct passages that don't need interpretation? And quoting the Hebrew is nice, but God gave me his Word in my own language. I take by faith that it was translated according to the true words of God.
I look forward to seeing why Rhy has to say.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Well… it is my claim that Trinitarianism was doctored by the Church-fathers (not the Apostles – the Church-fathers are those responsible for the church which emerged after the downfall of the early church which the New Testament predicted.

Ah.. But you see… It was after Nicæa that the scriptures were canonized.

What we know from the pre-Nicaea centuries suggests that the scripture that was canonized around the time of Nicaea was not hugely different from what it was in its more primitive incarnations. The Muratorian canon for example is dated to the 2nd Century and lists the four Gospels, as well as several Pauline Epistles. Indeed, the four Gospels seem to have been the core New Testament documents well before Nicaea, and were championed by Iraneus, Tatian and Origen, to name a few. The Pauline Espitles (although the particular epistles are not specified) are shown to have scriptural status at the time of their very writing (2 Peter 3:16).

It is this historic scripture of the four Gospels and the Pauline Epistles that was affirmed by the Trinitarians - they did not just concont the scripture to support their beliefs.

I think the author is being sloppy in the definition. Subordinationism doesn't agree with Arius that Christ was simply a man created at birth and bestowed with Godliness. Yes Jesus Christ is different in nature and being – but the point is ontologically separate from God. As two full grown elephants are different, they are the same species and would have roughly the same strength and attributes, one is however dominant and the other subordinate because that is their way.

Subordinate in what sense though? By virtue of nature, or just by circumstance? If you say that Christ is entirely equal by nature with the Father, but submits to the Father in taking upon a human body and suffering his wrath upon the cross, then you are not in disagreement with the Trinitarians on this point.

Sure .. include gold and other substances. Do you suggest other ways of forming a god?

Supernatural formation - for example the Jehovah's Witnesses belief that God created Jesus as an inferior divine being. In the passage here in question (Isaiah 43:10-11), God is saying that no other God was formed by any means. And even if minor gods were created, we know that Christ isn't one of them, since Christ claimed to be the uncreated I AM, the alpha and the omega. Therefore, Christ must be that single, uncreated God.

Ah but you do… This idea originated by them. Do you suggest that if Athanasius and his minority supporters had not convinced the church to adapt to their view, you would still believe in Trinitarianism today as you say: found in the scriptures?

That is what I say. Have I appealed to the authority of Athanasius, or to the scriptures that were accepted for hundreds of years before him?

That is not how I read it. Angels of God is a title and it should be qualified like that as the word in Hebrew means messenger.

That is also a valid interpretation. You can see the problem with these grey areas - where as you note elsewhere - we have to be careful to balance a plain reading with an appreciation for the author's intent, and the use of doxologies, etc.

To return to your original example of 1 Corinthians 8:4-6, I would say that in speaking of "one God, the Father" and "one Lord Jesus Christ", Paul is using a sort of doxology to show the role of the various aspects of the Godhead in our salvation - the Son submitting himself to perform the traditional role of the sacrificial lamb, with the Father performing the traditional role of God as the punisher of sin.

This is a verse used by Trinitarians to show how God and Jesus is the same. I used it to show that it could be interpreted differently.

Fair enough, but I think its best to stick to the arguments that the other person is making themselves.

Quoting the gospels can be tricky as you should find 4 versions of the same event and hence if they all say the same, it should be a truth established by several witnesses. But in this case it is only Mark that has the prefix to the great commandment of loving God and neighbors. Is this then the insertion of a misguided translator at one point?

To save us from debating the translation of this disputed verse of Mark, I will just point to the Old Testmant verse that Jesus was referencing, which makes the exact same point:

"Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord." (Deuteronomy 6:4)
"And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord." (Mark 12:29)

You are quoting a doxology. Saviour is not mentioned in your first quote, you are inferring it. But still, it is through Christ’s atonement whereby men can be saved, but it was God who sent the Messiah – and hence he can easily be called a Saviour as the Assyrian King Cyrus who was named Saviour of Israel.

Cyrus is considered a 'type' or foreshadow of Christ as Messiah, in the same way that David foreshadowed Christ's kingship, and Melchizedek his priesthood. He is a messiah, but not the Messiah. I guess you are referring to verses such as Isaiah 45:1? Cyrus is indeed called God's "anointed", a word which may also be translated as "messiah" - it means generally one given a special purpose by God. It is the same way that many are called apostle in the New Testament, yet we speak in particular of the Twelve Apostles as having a unique apostleship - there is a distinction to be made between the basic meaning of the word on the one hand, and its use as a special title on the other.

This is not just some sort of Christian revisionism. In other parts of Isaiah, although Cyrus is called messiah, a far greater messiah is prophecied of, the one who would be called "Immanuel", or "God with us" (Isaiah 7:14, Matthew 1:23). To this day, the Jews wait for the Messiah, not just a messiah.

I think you have heard of divine agents, it is a common argument used by the Unitarians against Trinitarians. There are many instances in the Bible and especially in the Old Testament that an angel speaks as he was God the Father. I am the great I AM could be uttered by an angel as a divine agent of God. The best example of this is Moses and the burning bush as the Angel says: I AM WHO I AM and “I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob”.
It is the view of many Christians that Jesus was this angel and especially with Unitarians.

Other examples would be Exodus 13:21
And the LORD went before them by day in a pillar of a cloud, to lead them the way; and by night in a pillar of fire, to give them light; to go by day and night
Exodus 14:19
And the angel of God, which went before the camp of Israel, removed and went behind them; and the pillar of the cloud went from before their face, and stood behind them

OK, but you are not arguing for Unitarianism. As a Subordinationist, how would you respond to those verses I gave you, which I'll list again below:

"Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am." (John 8:58)
"I [Jesus] am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty." (Revelation 1:8)

"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." (Isaiah 44:6)
"And God said unto Moses, I Am That I Am: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I Am hath sent me unto you." (Exodus 3:14)

As a Subordinationist, I presume that you do not agree with the Unitarians. Surely you would believe that when Christ called himself the I AM, the alpha and the omega, he was in fact speaking of himself, and not merely acting as a mouthpiece for the Father. How does a Subordinationist reconcile those verses with their idea that Christ is one of the elohim, an inferior created god?

I don’t think so… he would have further supported his claim as The God IF that was his claim in the first place. Not basically say that they were as much God as he was in the sense of sons and daughters of God whom they call Father.

Would you not agree that Christ is claiming to be something greater than them? Christ claims to be he "whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world" in this passage, so surely his point must be that if it is not blasphemy to call those who hear the word "gods", then is it not far less blasphemy for Christ to call himself God?

There is another passage where Christ is claimed to be equal with God, and is subordinate only in the sense of taking upon himself a human body for his death upon the cross:

"Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross." (Philippians 2:5-8).

Really?? God and Jesus can’t be two separate entities because he shouldn’t send anyone but himself as a ransom against justice.

This begs the question… why use phrased such as Father and Son? Why not state the apparent full truth then? The Father condescended to make himself subject to the full law and brought justice to heel by paying for all sin himself. He himself being the embodiment of Justice and executioner at the same time as being the one executed.

Because the Father didn't die for our sins upon the cross. The Son did. We can agree on that much.

Where we differ is when I say that God died for our sins upon the cross, whereas you would say that a god died for us. I believe that the Father is God, Jesus is God, and the Spirit is God. Father, Son and Spirit all share a single essence that dwells fully and indivisibly in each of them. If the Son died for us on the cross, then the fullness of God died for us upon the cross. God's entire essence/nature suffered for us upon the cross in the person of the Son. The beauty of the Gospel lies in that perfect, sefless act of sacrifice by God himself.

Subordinationists on the other hand would say that the supreme God never endured any suffering, but rather a separate created god. From a legalistic perspective it allows for our salvation, but it takes away so much of the power of the Gospel message.

[Sigurd]

I will answer these as soon as my schedule allows it (It has been a crazy few weeks - which ends on this upcoming Thursday).
I am about to drive to the airport, flying to Sweden where I will be leading a crash course in SAP. I'll be back Thursday.

[Sigurd]

His human body died. Because sin came by man, redemption had to come by man. Thor dies and that is it. Odin dies and that is it. Jesus died and rose again. He said that he himself had power to lay down his life, and power to take it up again. The God part of him did not die.

This is a dishonest answer. You drew Thor and Odin into this discussion not I.
You claim that only Jesus’ body died. Really? And you have scriptural backup for this?
We all know what he told the robber who hung next to him; today shalt thou be with me in paradise.
I don’t know about your faith, but in the protestant and catholic churches here, they site the apostolic creed (article of faith) at every mass and there is one particular line which is of interest (which is found in both versions):

passus sub Pontio Pilato, crucifixus, mortuus, et sepultus,
descendit ad inferos

Which reads:

He suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried,
He descended into hell (Norwegian: kingdom of the dead);

He died, as you believe all men (humans) die. The body and soul separated, the body is buried and the soul goes to hell/paradise awaiting resurrection (In Jesus' case, 3 days).

As I said before, look at other Scriptures. If somebody claims revelation, but that part conflicts with what the Bible says, we can ignore them. Case in point, the people who claim to know the hour of the return of Christ. The Bible says that no man knows the hour. That is an easy example.
I can't explain how the Holy Ghost reveals things, I just know he does. But if I do see something, I had better make sure it lines up with other Scripture or the nature of God as revealed in his word, or however I am trying to apply that verse. If it does not, then I know it was not the Holy Spirit.

Fair enough. This very interesting topic in Christendom should answer why there are so many different strains of “truth” out there, one claiming to be right whilst another condemns it. I am very interested in the topic of “Why do you think you are right?” and if the answer is: “The Holy Ghost told me” or “The scriptures teaches it” or the combination of the two: “Scriptures teaches it and the Spirit confirms it”; you should arrive at one truth and one way. Yet… how many of the 35 000 denominations in the Christian faith believes just that, that their way is the correct one and it is based on the scriptures and the Holy Ghost?

If we are going to remove every controversy found in the manuscripts, Esther would have to go, Proverbs would have to go, Kings and Chronicles would have to go, all that stuff. The translators of the KJV knew of those controversies, that is why each part went through fourteen different examinations, to determine if they should leave it in or out.

At least you acknowledge that there are controversies, and that is a small victory. I have discussed with quite close-minded Christians and sometimes I forget to treat you individually. Not many will admit there are any controversies.

I guess we will just disagree on the interpretation of how Elohim is used, I believe it to refer the three parts of Elohim. "Let us make man in our image". Christ is in the image of God, he did tell Philip "He that hath seen me hath seen the Father."
Look at the possible definitions of Elohiym in the Strong's Concordance. Then look at the context. It is not necessarily referring to Jehovah, obviously not there. When Christ quotes that verse, look at the surrounding verses, he made them mad because he made himself God, not a god.

The context does not give that. All you can draw from this is that Christ claims in this instance to be of a godly race as are the people he is arguing with. Doesn’t mean this is his final or complete claim, but in this particular instance – that is all you can draw from it.

A couple of comments on your last paragraph. I don't know where you heard of Deutoronomical reform, it sounds more like a conspiracy theory to me. We don't have the originals, we can't say for sure what they say (from a purely secular standpoint). But I believe in the inerrant preservation of God's word, so I believe that God kept his word pure throughout history. If I did not believe that, what would be the point of believing the Bible? If I was not sure that what it says was really the Word of God as given in the originals, it would be pointless to believe any Bible.

I wish people would investigate more before declaring their faith. One particular scholar, which you should read, is Margaret Barker, a Methodist scholar that has received awards for her work on understanding the Temple. One criticism she makes is against the Deuteronomy reform, they reformed much of the temple and she gives a specific list of which changes. What did Israel believe before and after the reform? One of the points is about monotheism and how they changed texts. Removing references to e.g. The Hosts of heaven etc.

Oh, I fully believe that people would tamper with the Word of God, that is why we have all those other translations,

Again, I admire the Christian who admits this.

What we know from the pre-Nicaea centuries suggests that the scripture that was canonized around the time of Nicaea was not hugely different from what it was in its more primitive incarnations. The Muratorian canon for example is dated to the 2nd Century and lists the four Gospels, as well as several Pauline Epistles. Indeed, the four Gospels seem to have been the core New Testament documents well before Nicaea, and were championed by Iraneus, Tatian and Origen, to name a few. The Pauline Espitles (although the particular epistles are not specified) are shown to have scriptural status at the time of their very writing (2 Peter 3:16).

It is this historic scripture of the four Gospels and the Pauline Epistles that was affirmed by the Trinitarians - they did not just concont the scripture to support their beliefs.

Ah but you miss my point. and are you really going to use the Muratiorian fragment as an authority on what the canon is and is not? Because you will run into problems with today’s canon. Back to my point, the fact that the official canonization of the bible happened after Nicæa suggests that they were in a position to make a canon that conforms to the new doctrine of Trinitarianism and even change parts of it that would distract from it. Did it happen? Well parts of John would suggest that they did. Was this the extent of it? Probably not.

Subordinate in what sense though? By virtue of nature, or just by circumstance? If you say that Christ is entirely equal by nature with the Father, but submits to the Father in taking upon a human body and suffering his wrath upon the cross, then you are not in disagreement with the Trinitarians on this point.

Ok… I might not be according to you. However, I have argued this with other Trinitarians, which still thinks that two separate ontological Gods is a heresy.

Supernatural formation - for example the Jehovah's Witnesses belief that God created Jesus as an inferior divine being. In the passage here in question (Isaiah 43:10-11), God is saying that no other God was formed by any means. And even if minor gods were created, we know that Christ isn't one of them, since Christ claimed to be the uncreated I AM, the alpha and the omega. Therefore, Christ must be that single, uncreated God.

Well… Christ could well be acting in his role as a divine agent of the almighty, giving him licence to use such phrases even though he does not possess those attributes.

That is what I say. Have I appealed to the authority of Athanasius, or to the scriptures that were accepted for hundreds of years before him?

Sorry m8, I do not believe you would reach this understanding if not for Athanasius or someone like him.

To save us from debating the translation of this disputed verse of Mark, I will just point to the Old Testmant verse that Jesus was referencing, which makes the exact same point:

"Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord." (Deuteronomy 6:4)
"And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord." (Mark 12:29)

I read Deuteronomy with great skepticism. I suspect it to be a fabrication.

Cyrus is considered a 'type' or foreshadow of Christ as Messiah, in the same way that David foreshadowed Christ's kingship, and Melchizedek his priesthood. He is a messiah, but not the Messiah. I guess you are referring to verses such as Isaiah 45:1? Cyrus is indeed called God's "anointed", a word which may also be translated as "messiah" - it means generally one given a special purpose by God. It is the same way that many are called apostle in the New Testament, yet we speak in particular of the Twelve Apostles as having a unique apostleship - there is a distinction to be made between the basic meaning of the word on the one hand, and its use as a special title on the other.

This is not just some sort of Christian revisionism. In other parts of Isaiah, although Cyrus is called messiah, a far greater messiah is prophecied of, the one who would be called "Immanuel", or "God with us" (Isaiah 7:14, Matthew 1:23). To this day, the Jews wait for the Messiah, not just a messiah.

You completely sidestepped my point.

OK, but you are not arguing for Unitarianism. As a Subordinationist, how would you respond to those verses I gave you, which I'll list again below:

"Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am." (John 8:58)
"I [Jesus] am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty." (Revelation 1:8)

"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." (Isaiah 44:6)
"And God said unto Moses, I Am That I Am: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I Am hath sent me unto you." (Exodus 3:14)

As a Subordinationist, I presume that you do not agree with the Unitarians. Surely you would believe that when Christ called himself the I AM, the alpha and the omega, he was in fact speaking of himself, and not merely acting as a mouthpiece for the Father. How does a Subordinationist reconcile those verses with their idea that Christ is one of the elohim, an inferior created god?

Well you see… All of your quoted scriptures needs to be reconciled with the following scriptures:

And straightway coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens opened, and the Spirit like a dove descending upon him: And there came a voice from heaven,saying, Thou art my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
(Mark 1:10-11)

Now when all the people were baptized, it came to pass, that Jesus also being baptized, and praying, the heaven was opened, And the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him, and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased.
(Luke 3:21-23)

And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffered him. And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him: And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
(Matt 3:15-17)

Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men. And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come.

(Matt 12:31-32)

Now is my soul troubled; and what shall I say? Father, save me from this hour: but for this cause came I unto this hour. Father, glorify thy name. Then came there a voice from heaven, saying, I have both glorified it, and will glorify it again. The people therefore, that stood by, and heard it, said that it thundered: others said, An angel spake to him.
(John 12:28-29)

These words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee: As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him. And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent. I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do. And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.
(John 17:1-5)

And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are. While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled.
And now come I to thee; and these things I speak in the world, that they might have my joy fulfilled in themselves. I have given them thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. I pray not that thou shouldest take them out of the world, but that thou shouldest keep them from the evil. They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth. As thou hast sent me into the world, even so have I also sent them into the world. And for their sakes I sanctify myself, that they also might be sanctified through the truth.
Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; That they all may be one; as thou, Father, artin me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.
And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one: I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.
(John 17:11-23)

Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.
(John 20:17)

(Stephen the martyr:)
But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God, And said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God.
(Acts 7:55-56)

This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses. Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear.

How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him.
(Acts 2:32-33, 10:38)

And he went a little further, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt.
(Matt 26:39)

Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
(Philippians 2:5-6)

But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven.
(Matt 10:33)

For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak. And I know that his commandment is life everlasting: whatsoever I speak therefore, even as the Father said unto me, so I speak.
(John 12:49-50)

Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me.
(John 8:42)

Where we differ is when I say that God died for our sins upon the cross, whereas you would say that a god died for us. I believe that the Father is God, Jesus is God, and the Spirit is God. Father, Son and Spirit all share a single essence that dwells fully and indivisibly in each of them. If the Son died for us on the cross, then the fullness of God died for us upon the cross. God's entire essence/nature suffered for us upon the cross in the person of the Son. The beauty of the Gospel lies in that perfect, sefless act of sacrifice by God himself.

Subordinationists on the other hand would say that the supreme God never endured any suffering, but rather a separate created god. From a legalistic perspective it allows for our salvation, but it takes away so much of the power of the Gospel message.

The problem with your view is “a single essence” this do not allow for ontological different in nature.
The scriptures I quoted clearly speaks of ontological difference, in that they were separate in space (location) at those specific incidents. Witnesses saw and heard three different sources. The Jesus on earth, the ascending dove and the voice from heaven. Stephen the martyr saw two personages in his vision: God the Almighty and his son who stood at the almighty’s right hand. Jesus clearly deferred to his father in judgment and action. It was not according to Jesus’ will, but to God the Father’s will. Clearly a distinction of nature.

[Greyblades]

Oh good now there's 2 of them. I suppose its too much to expect such a... unresolvable subject be contained in one thread.

[Vincent Butler]

This is a dishonest answer. You drew Thor and Odin into this discussion not I.
You claim that only Jesus’ body died. Really? And you have scriptural backup for this?
We all know what he told the robber who hung next to him; today shalt thou be with me in paradise.
I don’t know about your faith, but in the protestant and catholic churches here, they site the apostolic creed (article of faith) at every mass and there is one particular line which is of interest (which is found in both versions):

passus sub Pontio Pilato, crucifixus, mortuus, et sepultus,
descendit ad inferos

Which reads:

He suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried,
He descended into hell (Norwegian: kingdom of the dead);

He died, as you believe all men (humans) die. The body and soul separated, the body is buried and the soul goes to hell/paradise awaiting resurrection (In Jesus' case, 3 days).


Fair enough. This very interesting topic in Christendom should answer why there are so many different strains of “truth” out there, one claiming to be right whilst another condemns it. I am very interested in the topic of “Why do you think you are right?” and if the answer is: “The Holy Ghost told me” or “The scriptures teaches it” or the combination of the two: “Scriptures teaches it and the Spirit confirms it”; you should arrive at one truth and one way. Yet… how many of the 35 000 denominations in the Christian faith believes just that, that their way is the correct one and it is based on the scriptures and the Holy Ghost?


At least you acknowledge that there are controversies, and that is a small victory. I have discussed with quite close-minded Christians and sometimes I forget to treat you individually. Not many will admit there are any controversies.

Those controversies are controversies on the part of men, not God. As I have stated before, if there is an apparent problem in the Bible, it is with our understanding, not in the Bible. As for the gods dying, you don't see Thor and Odin coming back to life.
This bears a little more explanation. Yes, Christ did ascend into hell for us.

7 But unto every one of us is given grace according to the measure of the gift of Christ.

8 Wherefore he saith, When he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men.

9 (Now that he ascended, what is it but that he also descended first into the lower parts of the earth?

10 He that descended is the same also that ascended up far above all heavens, that he might fill all things.) Ephesians 4:7-10

He said he has the keys of hell and of death (Revelation 1). Note verse nine says that Christ descended first, then ascended up to heaven. How could he ascend after descending unless he had resurrected? That occurred during the three days in the tomb. Matthew 12:40 said that Christ must be three days in the heart of the earth. Praise God, he is not there now, because if the resurrection had not occurred, our faith would be in vain (1 Corinthians 15:14, 17).
From my understanding of scripture, the dead who died before Christ's death went to a place called Abraham's bosom, which was in the earth, though I am not saying that Christ went there, I believe he actually did descend into hell. We use the story of the rich man and Lazarus in Luke 16 for this. The rich man and Lazarus could see each other. Nowadays, to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord (2 Corinthians 5:8). There was a change, and the Bible is not clear on when. Possibly right at Christ's death, though that is conjecture. Maybe it has something to do with the massive resurrection Matthew talks about at Christ's death.
Just curious, how do you explain a verse like Colossians 1:9, "For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily." Or Colossians 1:12-20, which says that Christ created all things, and that he reconciled us to himself.
I think that is all I will post for now, the thing about different people claiming to be right, again, just observe what the Bible says.

If the plain sense makes common sense, seek no other sense lest it become nonsense.
A text taken out of its context becomes a pretext.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Ah but you miss my point. and are you really going to use the Muratiorian fragment as an authority on what the canon is and is not? Because you will run into problems with today’s canon. Back to my point, the fact that the official canonization of the bible happened after Nicæa suggests that they were in a position to make a canon that conforms to the new doctrine of Trinitarianism and even change parts of it that would distract from it. Did it happen? Well parts of John would suggest that they did. Was this the extent of it? Probably not.

My problem with your argument here is the idea that canonization was a single post-Nicaea event. It would be more accurate to speak of canonization as a gradual process (indeed it was still ongoing over a millenia after Nicaea), and I stand by my use of the Muratorian fragment to show that the the canon existed in a very similar form to its modern incarnation long before Nicaea. We know that the Muratorian canon shows four Gospels and thirteen of the fourteen Pauline Epistles - the very same writings which make up the bulk of the modern New Testament. And this of course was long before the Arian controversy and the emergence of a distinct Trinitarian faction.

For that reason, I don't think you can say that the Trinitarians made any substantial alterations to the scripture. Perhaps you could tell me some particular books/verses you had in mind? I don't doubt there will be divergences from the Muratorian fragment, and indeed other ancient manuscripts, but I would be surprised if there is anything that alters core doctrines.

Ok… I might not be according to you. However, I have argued this with other Trinitarians, which still thinks that two separate ontological Gods is a heresy.

I said we did not have a big difference between us in terms of how we view any potential subordination of Christ to God/the Father. In this regard, I do not think you diverge from traditional Trinitarian views on the matter. Of course, I think it is very much heretical to speak of two separate Gods. But besides this last point, I think we have more in common than perhaps what either of us originally thought we did. I am genuinely cautiously optimistic that in time we might come to some sort of agreement.

Well… Christ could well be acting in his role as a divine agent of the almighty, giving him licence to use such phrases even though he does not possess those attributes.

In John 8:58, the context makes it clear that Jesus is making this claim for himself, and not simply speaking on God/the Father's behalf:

"Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad.
Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?
Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.
Then took they up stones to cast at him: but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by. (John 8:56-59)"

If Jesus claims to be the uncreated "I AM", how can you claim that he is one of the inferior, created elohim?

Sorry m8, I do not believe you would reach this understanding if not for Athanasius or someone like him.

And I doubt you would be arguing for Subordinationism if a group of early Christians had not articulated the idea. Ultimately what matters is whether our beliefs stand up to scrutiny, and that's what this debate should be about.

I read Deuteronomy with great skepticism. I suspect it to be a fabrication.

I think this sort of reasoning is very problematic for our discussion here. We are trying to arrive at an understanding of scriptural truth, and that depends on the idea that there is a particular truth contained within the scripture. If you are going to start saying that Jesus himself quoted fabrications and erred in such a way, and that Jesus in fact had a wrong understanding of what the original, non-fabricated Deuteronomy said, well then there is no one scriptural truth for us to arrive at. We might as well say it is a bunch of contradictions, and abandon all our previous efforts to reconcile different passages.

At the end of the day we both came here to defend a particular interpretation of scripture. Subordinationism for yourself and Trinitarianism for myself. The very nature of the debate presupposes an inherent truth and consistency within the scripture. Without these things, this debate becomes meaningless.

You completely sidestepped my point.

I'll bring things back to your original point here, which was this:

"You are quoting a doxology. Saviour is not mentioned in your first quote, you are inferring it. But still, it is through Christ’s atonement whereby men can be saved, but it was God who sent the Messiah – and hence he can easily be called a Saviour as the Assyrian King Cyrus who was named Saviour of Israel."

First off, I would say that the context in which Cyrus is called saviour is incomparable to when God or Christ is called saviour. To return to the verse I gave to which you were responding here, it is important to remember that in the New Testament and speaking in terms of spiritual salvation, we are told that there is only one, singular Saviour:

"Neither is there salvation in any other [than Christ]: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved." (Acts 4:12)

And yet, of course, elsewhere God is called saviour (Jude 1:25), and Cyrus also is called saviour (Isaiah 45:1). Right away, an important piece of context to note is that one is from the New Testament, and one from the Old. In the Old Testament, the Jewish word "mashiach", meaning "messiah" or "anointed", was used to refer to everything from kings, to prophets, to the ritual components within the Temple. In the New Testament, it is used in a very different way, being used instead as a particular title for Jesus (hence "Jesus Christ", with "Christ" coming from the Greek "Khristos" and that in turn coming from the Hebrew "mashiach" - I know that you already know this, I just say this so you can follow my reasoning). This context makes it clear that when God is called our Saviour in the New Testament, this word was being used in a much more particular sense than when it was used in the Old Testament to refer to a variety of people and objects.

So, that's why I don't think you can compare God being called Saviour in Jude 1:25 to Cyrus being called Saviour in Isaiah 45:1. The New Testament Gospels and Epistles speak very clearly of one Saviour, yet bestow that title to both Christ and God in a way that they never do to any other figure like Cyrus.

But I recognize that there is another aspect to your argument, where you say that God can be called our Saviour on the grounds that he sent the Saviour to us. This would of course only make God our Saviour in a very roundabout sort of way, and for that reason I don't think it is the plainest way to read the verse. I would also say that it conflicts with the use of "messiah" as a specific title throughout the New Testament, and one which was reserved only for the Saviour himself. As a Trinitarian, I can say that God was that Saviour himself, and that's why I think Trinitarianism is the best way to understand such verses.

Well you see… All of your quoted scriptures needs to be reconciled with the following scriptures:

*various verses speaking of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit seen acting independently and simultaneously*

Right, but you didn't make any attempt to answer the question and verses which I put to you! But I have brought them up again earlier in this post so I'll leave this here.

As for the verses which you put to me, I have no problem with them as a Trinitarian. The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are physically distinct from each other (at least when/if any of them takes on physical form) but share a single essence or nature which dwells fully in each of them. That is Trinitarianism and it is fully compatible with the verses you showed me.

Also, I agree we need to have a view to reconcile various passages. On the one hand we have those which talk of Father, Son and Holy Spirit as seemingly independent entities. On the other, we have those which seem to suggest a sort of unity and indivisibility of nature. For most Christians, Trinitarianism is the answer which allows for the reconciliation of such verses - one nature fully and indivisibly present in three persons.

The problem with your view is “a single essence” this do not allow for ontological different in nature.
The scriptures I quoted clearly speaks of ontological difference, in that they were separate in space (location) at those specific incidents. Witnesses saw and heard three different sources. The Jesus on earth, the ascending dove and the voice from heaven. Stephen the martyr saw two personages in his vision: God the Almighty and his son who stood at the almighty’s right hand. Jesus clearly deferred to his father in judgment and action. It was not according to Jesus’ will, but to God the Father’s will. Clearly a distinction of nature.

Of course, I agree that "a single essence" does not allow for "ontological difference in nature", especially when we are using the terms 'essence' and 'nature' interchangeably. Which is why I would not argue for ontological difference in nature; rather, I would argue for ontological difference in personhood. I believe in one God and one divine nature, that dwells fully and indivisibly in both the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Each are capable of independent action, yet share entirely a single nature. That is Trinitarianism.

[Sigurd]

He said he has the keys of hell and of death (Revelation 1). Note verse nine says that Christ descended first, then ascended up to heaven. How could he ascend after descending unless he had resurrected? That occurred during the three days in the tomb. Matthew 12:40 said that Christ must be three days in the heart of the earth. Praise God, he is not there now, because if the resurrection had not occurred, our faith would be in vain (1 Corinthians 15:14, 17).
From my understanding of scripture, the dead who died before Christ's death went to a place called Abraham's bosom, which was in the earth, though I am not saying that Christ went there, I believe he actually did descend into hell. We use the story of the rich man and Lazarus in Luke 16 for this. The rich man and Lazarus could see each other. Nowadays, to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord (2 Corinthians 5:8). There was a change, and the Bible is not clear on when. Possibly right at Christ's death, though that is conjecture. Maybe it has something to do with the massive resurrection Matthew talks about at Christ's death.
Just curious, how do you explain a verse like Colossians 1:9, "For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily." Or Colossians 1:12-20, which says that Christ created all things, and that he reconciled us to himself.
I think that is all I will post for now, the thing about different people claiming to be right, again, just observe what the Bible says.

The Hebrew understanding of Abraham's bosom (concept is theirs) is where the dead awaits. Abraham is there and you should picture it as someone leaning towards the chest area of Abraham (see John the beloved in the Lord's supper for reference). The place is Sheol and it is a place which is divided into two - paradise (Abraham's bosom) and hell where the unrighteous dwell. Obviously this is not the place of the Father. Christ upon death (he died for our sins) probably went to paradise and not to hell - which was a miss match when "translating" Hebrew concepts to Greek (Sheol became Hades which became Hell in English).

I know the common Christian thinks that good souls go to the Father (heaven) but that kinda makes Judgement Day (Ecclesiastes 3:17) moot wouldn't it?
Christ had not yet ascended to the Father when meeting with Mary the first time (Sunday morning) and bade her not touch him (Some say she was his wife, but that is another discussion altogether). So he did not descend and ascend during the three days in the grave. He resurrected or was about to when he met with Mary, but had yet to Ascend to his Father (Heaven).
About the massive Resurrection in Matthew, I think the King James version does it right when it states: after His Resurrection (capital H), meaning it was after Christ's Resurrection that many saints came from their graves (like Lazarus?), not necessarily Resurrected. Besides, scholars do not trust this as historical as the other Gospel writers don't mention it.

Colossians 2:9 - the word should be theotes and should be understood as Deity and not Godhead. And viola, just a claim to be a god.
Colossians 1:15-20 - You need to consider the context. Colossians were apostatizing and thought lesser of Christ (wonder why if the orthodox view was Trinitarianism(it was not)). Paul had to reaffirm the divinity of Christ as the creator of their reborn-ness and the Church and having prepared a place in his Father's kingdom.
Read any book on Figures of Speech Used in the Bible and you will notice this is more like reproving your kids for having eaten all the cookies (perfectly understood NOT to be all the cookies in the world) as in a limited sense to Christ created all things.

[Sigurd]

My problem with your argument here is the idea that canonization was a single post-Nicaea event. It would be more accurate to speak of canonization as a gradual process (indeed it was still ongoing over a millenia after Nicaea), and I stand by my use of the Muratorian fragment to show that the the canon existed in a very similar form to its modern incarnation long before Nicaea. We know that the Muratorian canon shows four Gospels and thirteen of the fourteen Pauline Epistles - the very same writings which make up the bulk of the modern New Testament. And this of course was long before the Arian controversy and the emergence of a distinct Trinitarian faction.

Well... If you think canonization of scripture is limited to a decision to which book to be included, you are right that it began long before Nicæa. But canonization includes translation and the perils it will bring. If all translators became Trinitarian before any notable translation was performed, you suddenly have a bias towards Trinitarianism and you get situations like with Erasmus and 1. John 5:7.

For that reason, I don't think you can say that the Trinitarians made any substantial alterations to the scripture. Perhaps you could tell me some particular books/verses you had in mind? I don't doubt there will be divergences from the Muratorian fragment, and indeed other ancient manuscripts, but I would be surprised if there is anything that alters core doctrines.

Little things like godhead instead of Divine, God instead of a god etc... there are many places where Trinitarian bias is shown in the translations, especially if the translators are ordered to make the translation reflect a specific understanding of doctrine (see KJV).

In John 8:58, the context makes it clear that Jesus is making this claim for himself, and not simply speaking on God/the Father's behalf:

"Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad.
Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?
Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.
Then took they up stones to cast at him: but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by. (John 8:56-59)"

If Jesus claims to be the uncreated "I AM", how can you claim that he is one of the inferior, created elohim?

See... you take the English translation too literally. This is the main problem with Biblical fundamentalism.
If you go and look at the Greek, you will notice it is a phrase used multiple times in the NT, yet it is only translated like this in John 8:58. The words are ego eimi and is used among others of Paul. Does he claim divinity when he wishes all where like I am (not a reference to YWHW)? I notice that in other translations of the Bible, this phrase is translated as: I was, I was before Abraham, I have existed before Abraham was born etc.

The very nature of the debate presupposes an inherent truth and consistency within the scripture. Without these things, this debate becomes meaningless.

Alright... but as there are as many interpretations of scripture as there are denominations of Christendom, it becomes difficult to rely solely on the texts alone.

I'll bring things back to your original point here, which was this:
…
But I recognize that there is another aspect to your argument, where you say that God can be called our Saviour on the grounds that he sent the Saviour to us. This would of course only make God our Saviour in a very roundabout sort of way, and for that reason I don't think it is the plainest way to read the verse. I would also say that it conflicts with the use of "messiah" as a specific title throughout the New Testament, and one which was reserved only for the Saviour himself. As a Trinitarian, I can say that God was that Saviour himself, and that's why I think Trinitarianism is the best way to understand such verses.

Yet Cyrus was called messiah in his own right, and of course as you say in a dualistic way as all of Esaias' writings, used as a Messianic prophecy.

Right, but you didn't make any attempt to answer the question and verses which I put to you! But I have brought them up again earlier in this post so I'll leave this here.

The use of I AM in NT is not the same as the use of I AM in the OT... It really shouldn't be I AM in the OT, the phrase is ’eh·yeh and is translated into English as I AM. If you go to a translation in another language, you will see what I mean. The two phrases are not the same and shouldn't be recognized as such.

[Vincent Butler]

The Hebrew understanding of Abraham's bosom (concept is theirs) is where the dead awaits. Abraham is there and you should picture it as someone leaning towards the chest area of Abraham (see John the beloved in the Lord's supper for reference). The place is Sheol and it is a place which is divided into two - paradise (Abraham's bosom) and hell where the unrighteous dwell. Obviously this is not the place of the Father. Christ upon death (he died for our sins) probably went to paradise and not to hell - which was a miss match when "translating" Hebrew concepts to Greek (Sheol became Hades which became Hell in English).

Well, what actually happened and where he went are somewhat speculation. We are not given all the details. Personally I believe that he actually went to hell, to receive a taste of sin's punishment. I don't believe that we can be dogmatic on where he went, no verses come to mind at the moment that state he was actually in hell as opposed to Abraham's bosom. All it says is that he went into the lower part of the earth, or the deep. I will not argue on the Hebrew word, God gave me his word in English, that is what I need to worry about.

I know the common Christian thinks that good souls go to the Father (heaven) but that kinda makes Judgement Day (Ecclesiastes 3:17) moot wouldn't it?
Christ had not yet ascended to the Father when meeting with Mary the first time (Sunday morning) and bade her not touch him (Some say she was his wife, but that is another discussion altogether). So he did not descend and ascend during the three days in the grave. He resurrected or was about to when he met with Mary, but had yet to Ascend to his Father (Heaven).
About the massive Resurrection in Matthew, I think the King James version does it right when it states: after His Resurrection (capital H), meaning it was after Christ's Resurrection that many saints came from their graves (like Lazarus?), not necessarily Resurrected. Besides, scholars do not trust this as historical as the other Gospel writers don't mention it.

Works salvation is not according to Scripture, and there are two separate judgment days, one for the saved(the judgment seat of Christ) and the Great White Throne judgment (for the lost, see Revelation 20).
Agreed, he ascended after his resurrection. He did it sometime after meeting Mary Magdalene, and before meeting some other disciples, because he did not forbid them from touching him then.
With the massive resurrection, I read that as saying that they rose from the dead and went into Jerusalem (they appeared unto many), I do know it just calls it "the holy city". This could be heaven, but why would it say "they appeared unto many"? I trust it as historical because it is in the Bible. I don't care what the scholars accept or don't accept.
Just for clarification, what do you mean, "like Lazarus"? What is your distinction between "Resurrection" and "coming from the grave"?

Colossians 2:9 - the word should be theotes and should be understood as Deity and not Godhead. And viola, just a claim to be a god.
Colossians 1:15-20 - You need to consider the context. Colossians were apostatizing and thought lesser of Christ (wonder why if the orthodox view was Trinitarianism(it was not)). Paul had to reaffirm the divinity of Christ as the creator of their reborn-ness and the Church and having prepared a place in his Father's kingdom.

Again, I don't like to argue Greek or Hebrew words, I am using what God gave me in English and trusting that it is the inerrant preserved Word of God. It says "Godhead". Saying "it should have been translated" or something like that gives you no credit, because that involves correcting the Bible.
Using your version of "all" would not be according to context. The use of the word "all" very plainly states that it is talking about a global "all", not just a regional "all".

13) Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son: 14) In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:15) Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: 16) For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: 17) And he is before all things, and by him all things consist. 18) And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence. 19) For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell; 20) And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven.

The only other possible argument is that it is saying that Christ is the image of God, who created everything. The reading does not seem to indicate that, as verse 13 makes Christ the subject of the next group of verses.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Well... If you think canonization of scripture is limited to a decision to which book to be included, you are right that it began long before Nicæa. But canonization includes translation and the perils it will bring. If all translators became Trinitarian before any notable translation was performed, you suddenly have a bias towards Trinitarianism and you get situations like with Erasmus and 1. John 5:7.

Little things like godhead instead of Divine, God instead of a god etc... there are many places where Trinitarian bias is shown in the translations, especially if the translators are ordered to make the translation reflect a specific understanding of doctrine (see KJV).

Its very easy to say that so and so may have corrupted bits and pieces here and there... but that's only a relevant argument insofar as you can show the verses I am using to be corruptions. Like I said, we have enough historic evidence to know that the Trinitarian faction around the time of the Arian controversy did not substantially alter the Bible. At the end of the day, I am not Erasmus and I'm not bringing up 1 John 5:7.

See... you take the English translation too literally. This is the main problem with Biblical fundamentalism.
If you go and look at the Greek, you will notice it is a phrase used multiple times in the NT, yet it is only translated like this in John 8:58. The words are ego eimi and is used among others of Paul. Does he claim divinity when he wishes all where like I am (not a reference to YWHW)? I notice that in other translations of the Bible, this phrase is translated as: I was, I was before Abraham, I have existed before Abraham was born etc.

I am not educated in other languages, but the wikipedia page says that "ego eimi" is translated as "I am" in several places throughout the Bible, including the New Testament, citing the example of John 9:8. This part seemed particularly relevant:

When used as a copula, with a predicate, "I am X", then usage is equivalent to English.

When used alone, without a predicate, "I am", "he is", "they are", typically mean "I exist" etc.

Homer Odyssey 4:133 ‘Wouldest thou then return again with us to thy home, that thou mayest see the high-roofed house of thy father and mother, and see them too? For of a truth they still live (eisi, 3rd person plural of eimi), and are accounted rich.’[1]

This is so unless there is an implied predicate in immediate context.

This would appear to suggest that the KJV makes the correct translation.

Yet Cyrus was called messiah in his own right, and of course as you say in a dualistic way as all of Esaias' writings, used as a Messianic prophecy.

Do you not agree that the New Testament makes it clear that we have one Lord and Saviour? Would you agree that that Saviour is not Cyrus? Because that's what things boil down to here.

The use of I AM in NT is not the same as the use of I AM in the OT... It really shouldn't be I AM in the OT, the phrase is ’eh·yeh and is translated into English as I AM. If you go to a translation in another language, you will see what I mean. The two phrases are not the same and shouldn't be recognized as such.

Of course, in the OT it is in Hebrew, and in the NT it is in Koine Greek, so it will not be exactly the same. However from what I've come across it seems to me that "I am that I am" is consistent with the way in which the Hebrew was translated into Greek by the Jewish diaspora. Again I can only offer wikipedia, but it lists the various ways in which the diaspora translated the Hebrew:

Septuagint Exodus 3:14 And God said unto Moses, I am HE WHO IS (ho ōn): and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, HE WHO IS (ho ōn) hath sent me unto you.[2]
Philo : And God said, "At first say unto them, 'I am (egō eimi) THE BEING', (ho ōn, nominative of ontos) that, when they have learnt that there is a difference between THE BEING (ontos, genitive of ho ōn) and that-that-is-not (me ontos), they may be further taught that there is no name whatever that can properly be assigned to Me (ep' emou kuriologeitai), to whom (hoi) only (monoi) belongs (prosesti) the existence (to einai). (Philo Life Of Moses Vol.1 :75)[3][4]
ho Ōn, "He who is" (Philo, Life of Moses I 75)
to Ōn, "the Being who is" (Philo, Life of Moses II 67),
tou Ontos, "of Him that is" (II 99)
tou Ontos, "of the Self-Existent" (II 132)
to Ōn, "the Self-Existent" (II 161)

The theme would seem to be one of self-existence or being unbegotten and eternal, which I think the KJV captures nicely.

[Sigurd]

Well, what actually happened and where he went are somewhat speculation. We are not given all the details. Personally I believe that he actually went to hell, to receive a taste of sin's punishment. I don't believe that we can be dogmatic on where he went, no verses come to mind at the moment that state he was actually in hell as opposed to Abraham's bosom. All it says is that he went into the lower part of the earth, or the deep. I will not argue on the Hebrew word, God gave me his word in English, that is what I need to worry about.

Weird argument from a Trinitarian to make. He went to receive a taste of...
KJV onlyism is a weird concept to get around. What if I stated: God gave me this word in Norwegian and that is all I have to worry about? What is this word? It is "Dødsriket" what does it mean? not "Helvete" (google is your friend).

Works salvation is not according to Scripture, and there are two separate judgment days, one for the saved(the judgment seat of Christ) and the Great White Throne judgment (for the lost, see Revelation 20).

ehm.. where did the works salvation come from?
Two separate Judgment Days? I think you won't find any agreement on this with the Mainstream Christendom. There will be one Final Judgment day where all will be resurrected and thereafter receive Judgment and told where to go - Heaven or Hell. That's why in theory no-one has gone to either places yet. (Basic Protestant notion and taught in among others Lutheranism).

Just for clarification, what do you mean, "like Lazarus"? What is your distinction between "Resurrection" and "coming from the grave"?

Zombie or made new. The former being like Lazarus. He died again, didn't he? Being Resurrected would be to be made immortal. Whether this is a material or immaterial state is for scholars to discuss. The problem is that Jesus heralds the First Resurrection, being the first to do so. Hence all other animations of the dead was not a resurrection (Elijah and Elisha did raise people from the dead).

Again, I don't like to argue Greek or Hebrew words, I am using what God gave me in English and trusting that it is the inerrant preserved Word of God. It says "Godhead". Saying "it should have been translated" or something like that gives you no credit, because that involves correcting the Bible.
Using your version of "all" would not be according to context. The use of the word "all" very plainly states that it is talking about a global "all", not just a regional "all".

You know my stance on this KJV-onlyism, and as a Norwegian I would never prefer the English to Norwegian. It doesn't say Godhead in my Norwegian, hence I suspected that it shouldn't say so in the English - and turning to the Greek, It still doesn't say Godhead.

The only other possible argument is that it is saying that Christ is the image of God, who created everything. The reading does not seem to indicate that, as verse 13 makes Christ the subject of the next group of verses.

Well, I was going to make a fuss about the use of the phrase Christ is the image of God (Col 1:15, Heb 1:3) But I think we already went over this quite convincingly earlier.

[Vincent Butler]

Weird argument from a Trinitarian to make. He went to receive a taste of...
KJV onlyism is a weird concept to get around. What if I stated: God gave me this word in Norwegian and that is all I have to worry about? What is this word? It is "Dødsriket" what does it mean? not "Helvete" (google is your friend).

That is where belief in the preservation of Scriptures comes in. I have to believe that what I have is the inerrant, infallible, inspired Word of God. That is why when there are some words that can be translated multiple ways, I accept that what I have was what God led the translators to write. Again, with KJV, I accept that for the English speaking people, not for every language.

ehm.. where did the works salvation come from?
Two separate Judgment Days? I think you won't find any agreement on this with the Mainstream Christendom. There will be one Final Judgment day where all will be resurrected and thereafter receive Judgment and told where to go - Heaven or Hell. That's why in theory no-one has gone to either places yet. (Basic Protestant notion and taught in among others Lutheranism).

The works salvation reference was about belief about good souls going to heaven.
Not to get too into depth, there is obviously a White Throne Judgment after the Millennial Reign, see Revelation 20. The Judgment Seat of Christ (referred to by many as the Bema seat), where the saved are judged, appears to be different, because at the White Throne, death and hell deliver up the dead which are in them. In Philippians, Paul said for him to die would mean he was with Christ. So he would not be delivered up then, unless maybe one reads Revelation 20 as the reuniting of body and soul. I guess one could possibly read that passage that way, though the saved already have their new bodies as seen earlier in Revelation.
The idea of two separate judgments comes from the order of parables in Matthew 25, along with comparisons with other parts of Scripture. As said before, the saved have their new bodies already, so one could conclude from Revelation 19, though it is not specifically stated there, that they have already been judged.

Zombie or made new. The former being like Lazarus. He died again, didn't he? Being Resurrected would be to be made immortal. Whether this is a material or immaterial state is for scholars to discuss. The problem is that Jesus heralds the First Resurrection, being the first to do so. Hence all other animations of the dead was not a resurrection (Elijah and Elisha did raise people from the dead).

I don't know that I would exactly call them zombies, I guess our definitions of resurrection are different. A zombie has no mind of its own, from what I understand about them, which isn't much. Those in the Bible who were raised from the dead were normal people afterwards, though they ended up dying later.
I would say resurrection is restoration to life, such as happened to Lazarus and the others, not being made immortal. There will be a resurrection for the saved, in which they will receive their immortal bodies. That is not what happened to Lazarus and the others, their human bodies were resurrected and their spirit/soul returned.

You know my stance on this KJV-onlyism, and as a Norwegian I would never prefer the English to Norwegian. It doesn't say Godhead in my Norwegian, hence I suspected that it shouldn't say so in the English - and turning to the Greek, It still doesn't say Godhead.

I would never expect you to take the English over Norwegian. With the translations into different languages, words will be different in some places, though the meaning would be the same. I would wager that a Trinitarian Norwegian could still make his arguments from a Norwegian Bible, because of his Trinitarian presupposition. You would (most likely) interpret those passages differently because of your Subordinationist presupposition. I can't say that for certain, I don't know Norwegian and have never seen a Norwegian Bible.

I am starting a new job over the Christmas break, so I may not be able to answer as quickly as I would like.

[Sigurd]

Its very easy to say that so and so may have corrupted bits and pieces here and there... but that's only a relevant argument insofar as you can show the verses I am using to be corruptions. Like I said, we have enough historic evidence to know that the Trinitarian faction around the time of the Arian controversy did not substantially alter the Bible. At the end of the day, I am not Erasmus and I'm not bringing up 1 John 5:7.

Somebody brought up 1 Joh. 5:7 and it is a well known verse to use supporting Trinitarianism.
Historic? Name one surviving complete copy of the Bible or a NT document from around the time of Arian. Do we even know all the contenders? Besides, this is a debate in its own right - Bible infallibility one which I would love to join.
But let this be my point; The move from Subordinationism to Trinitarianism is very subtle. There is no need to do substantial editing and since the beginning of the use of the method eclecticism, it shows that there are differences between the fragments existing of the traditional canon (the one we have to day). Either there has been a purposeful editing or the translators weren't so concerned with the preservation of the original text.

I am not educated in other languages, but the wikipedia page says that "ego eimi" is translated as "I am" in several places throughout the Bible, including the New Testament, citing the example of John 9:8. This part seemed particularly relevant:

This would appear to suggest that the KJV makes the correct translation.

I think you missed my point. You compared I AM from the old Testament with the use of I AM in the New Testament saying they are the same. I said - no, they are different. You can't quote OT and its use of I AM and put it next to the use of I AM in the NT - and declare; See, it is the same. That would be completely misguided Bible literalism.

Wikipedia is not considered to be a good source of reference in any scientific discipline.

The theme would seem to be one of self-existence or being unbegotten and eternal, which I think the KJV captures nicely.

Yet Christ is begotten and can therefore not be the one which is discussed here.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Somebody brought up 1 Joh. 5:7 and it is a well known verse to use supporting Trinitarianism.
Historic? Name one surviving complete copy of the Bible or a NT document from around the time of Arian. Do we even know all the contenders? Besides, this is a debate in its own right - Bible infallibility one which I would love to join.
But let this be my point; The move from Subordinationism to Trinitarianism is very subtle. There is no need to do substantial editing and since the beginning of the use of the method eclecticism, it shows that there are differences between the fragments existing of the traditional canon (the one we have to day). Either there has been a purposeful editing or the translators weren't so concerned with the preservation of the original text.

Once again though, do you have any evidence that the particular verses I am using are forgeries? Until you do so, all you can say is that you think it is plausible that they may be.

I think you missed my point. You compared I AM from the old Testament with the use of I AM in the New Testament saying they are the same. I said - no, they are different. You can't quote OT and its use of I AM and put it next to the use of I AM in the NT - and declare; See, it is the same. That would be completely misguided Bible literalism.

Wikipedia is not considered to be a good source of reference in any scientific discipline.

The part you quoted of me here was where I was addressing your concerns about the consistency of how "ego eimi" is translated throughout the NT. Later on in my post I did indeed argue that "ego eimi" and "’eh·yeh" were seen as having essentially the same meaning by the Jewish diaspora, and were translated as such. Like I said all I could turn to was wikipedia and it is not perfect, but its usually accurate and its the best I can offer as an ordinary layman. Again, let's just get down to business - do you disagree with the evidence I used from it?

Yet Christ is begotten and can therefore not be the one which is discussed here.

This is where an important distinction comes in, and one that is well established in orthodox theology - the idea of the eternal generation of the Son. Of particular relevance:

"There is no question that Calvin espoused the doctrine of the Son's eternal generation as being true with respect to his hypostatic identity, that is, with respect to his Sonship, and he employed the doctrine to distinguish between the Father and the Son as to their order, but he did not espouse the doctrine as being true with respect to the Son's divine essence."