How Can Trinity Believers Explain This

Sorry,
That last post of mine was for WM Scott!

Dear Truthlover,
Just to clarify,I totally agree with what you posted, I was actually challenging WM Scott on his position. I don't post very often in these forums , but to quote you:

quote:

---

The Nicene Creed, however, does not teach what you teach, nor what the the Christian Research Institute, writers of that web page (they own equip.org), teach. The Nicene Creed does not say "Father, Son, Holy Spirit, each God," nor does it say that "the Word is the one true Almighty God." On the contrary, it says "We believe in one God, the Father...and in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the Son of God," a teaching that could as easily be taken to agree with the Jehovah's Witnesses as with modern Protestants and Roman Catholics.

---

In AD 416 Augustine made the classical statement on the doctrine . And upon that, that the credal statement 'Quicunquie Vault' (c 430 AD) was based.'The Father is God, the Son is God, the Holy Spirit is God'In AD 451, the Council of Chalcedon finally drew together and ratified all orthodox ideas that had been accepted up to that date.

Dear Mike King;Yes I am one of Jehovah's Witnesses. I looked at your link and it was mostly the same old stuff that was on the first link. On Dodd, he is a Trinitarian, so of course he supports the Trinity. But the interesting part is that as a Trinitarian he made the statement about "a God" being a literal translation and then went on to use "God" because of his belief in the Trinity. Here I will quote what he said from the web site you linked to. I will put the key part in bold. What he means by "johannine thought" and "Christian thought" is the Trinity, so what he is saying is that at John 1:1 the reference to Jesus must not be translated literally as the Greek implies "a god" because it contradicts the Trinity doctrine! The old 'I am' argument doesn't work, for a very simple reason, it is an artifact of translation. The people of Jesus' day spoke Greek and used the Greek Septuagint which at Exodus 3:14 has Jehovah God stating "I am the Being" rather than "I AM" as many translations today render it. So the Jews would not have seen any connection between Jesus and Jehovah if he had replied with an "I AM", it would have been meaningless to them. Better translations of John 8:58 read "Before Abraham came into existence, I have been." or "I was" and at John 18: 5-6 Jesus is merely stating that he is Jesus the one that they are looking for, he made no claim that he was Jehovah God. The crowd was just surprised at his bold declaration that he was the one that they were looking for, if they had been awed by "God" being there, do you think they would have arrested him? You of course didn't use my favorite "I am" quote; John 14:28 "the Father is greater than I am." but I can see why you wouldn't. Yes that is indeed the Trinity creed, my question remains, since the Trinity states that they are one and Paul states there is no mediator if there is only one, and he applies it to God, so if the trinity were true, How can Jesus be the mediator? Here I will repost what I asked earlier.According to the Trinity Jesus is God, and "God is only one" so Jesus if he is God, he and God are one person. Which would mean according to Galatians 3:20, that there was no mediator. If Jesus was a manifestation/facet of God, he would be part of God and God is one. So as Paul stated at Galatians 3:20 "Now there is no mediator where only one person is concerned, but God is only one." According to your illustration and the Trinity doctrine, Jesus and God are one, which according to Paul would mean that there was no mediator. Jesus had to be a completely separate being to be a mediator between God and man. He had to be in the middle, between the two parties, which he couldn't do if he was a 'facet' of God. For if he was part of God, as Paul stated "God is only one", he could not be a separate party to act as a mediator. In Galatians 3:20 Paul clearly states that God is one, and when dealing with only one person, there is no mediator. Since Jesus was the mediator, it was impossible for him to be part of God, according to Paul. Paul obviously didn't believe in a Trinity, he clearly believed that Jesus was separate from God. My e-mail is in my profile, you may send your notes. But if they are not too long, why not post your notes? If you have notes that could really clear up the Trinity, I think everyone would want to see it since no Trinitarian has ever been able to do that. Of course us non-Trinitarians have already done that, just that the Trinitarians don't like the simple answer that the Trinity is obviously non-biblical.Sincerely Yours; Wm Scott Anderson

Dear Hangdawg13; Yes and no, Jesus is like Jehovah, but he is not equal to him so he is not almighty since only one being can so or the word loses it's meaning. If you are saying that Jehovah and Jesus are one in purpose but are two separate persons working together, you are scripturally correct, that is what the Bible teaches. Some Trinitarians view the Trinity as three working together as one, and other than quibbling over the fact that the holy spirit isn't a person, they have it right. If you view the Trinity as just a way of saying unity, and that is how Jehovah and Jesus are one, you are in harmony with scripture and I don't have any scriptures to use against that interpretation. If the scriptural fact that Jesus was created by Jehovah and is less powerful than Jehovah, is accepted, then you have the right viewpoint on Jesus as well. You would have effectively removed all the easy targets in a trinity debate by removing the major scriptural conflicts.Sincerely Yours; Wm Scott Anderson

This isn't true. The people of Jesus' day in Judea spoke Aramaic.It is true that the Septuagint would have been around at that time, but it would not have been in use in Judea.I think it's pretty clear that "Before Abraham was, I am," is the best translation. Trying "I have been" or something like that for "ego eimi" seems disingenuous to me.Besides, it doesn't solve the problem you're wanting to solve, which is Y'shua referring to himself with names that seem to belong only to the Father. Zech 2:8-11 has Yahweh speaking about being sent by Yahweh, and in John 2:37-41, John says that it was Y'shua's glory Isaiah saw when he spoke of blinding eyes and hearts. That's Isaiah 6, and Isaiah says there "Mine eyes have seen the King, Yahweh Sabaoth."If you want to appeal to the backing of the church fathers for the one God being the Father, you're going to have to deal with the fact that the church fathers are very clear that they believed the Son was entitled to the use of the name Yahweh.

dear wmscott I take your point and I don't claim that calling upon someone's name always means praying to that person. However, in the context of 1 Cor. 1:2 and Rom 10:12 I don't think the phrase could have any other meaning, simply by virtue of the wording used in the 'how to be saved / sanctified' context:The phrase "calling on someone's name" means ,simply, addressing someone. "Calling on Jesus's name" simply means communicating with Jesus. By implication, this also means:- A recognition of His deity and power (1 Kings 18:24; 2 Kings 5:11).- A submission to His authority and acknowledgement of his rights (Jer. 10:25).- A call to him for help in the expectation of an answer (1 Kings 18; 2 Kings 5; Psa. 99:6; Zech. 13:9).- An approach to him in worship and thanksgiving (Psa. 116:17).- following the Christian way of life, as you suggested in your previous post.But the inescapable fact is that Paul encourages us to communicate with Jesus, which * is * praying to Jesus. After all, this is what prayer is, just a form of communication. Correct, which is why both 1 Cor 1:2 and Rom 10:12 use the present tense ("call", "calling") suggesting regularity of action. Regular praying, of course, is part of a Christian way of life. How did you reach that conclusion? Paul is saying "with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord". Where are you seeing the 'whole way of life as Christians' ? Remember Occam's razor ? The simplest explanation is most likely the correct one. Rom 10:12 tells us -quite literally- that, to be saved, we have to be calling on Jesus's name. Yes, that implies accepting him as our saviour and following the Christian way of life, but the key point made here, which you seem to be ignoring while trying to take the long way round, is that part of the Christian way of life involves communicating / calling upon (praying to) him. This what Paul is sayng here: part of the relationship with Jesus, which leads to being saved, is communicating with him. You can't have a realtionship with someone you don't communicate with. If that wasn't essential why is the phrase "call upon" being used, in this context? The writers could have easily said "do as Jesus did", "follow his teachings" or whatever else you think they meant.You have already decided that being saved excludes praying to Jesus and are applying this post-hoc reasoning to Paul's verses, discarding the simplest interpretation. You have already assumed what you are trying to prove.You are accusing Trinitarians of 'mental gymnastics' in trying to justify their position, while at the same time you are reverting to mental gymnastics yourself in trying to make a simple phrase fit in with your pre-conceived dogma.

---

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the pigeon and some days you'll be the statue."

Where are you basing this ? Are you suggesting that prayers don't get answered ?! yes, agreed. Nope, Pauls reveals that as a result of the vision, he received a thorn in the flesh (though he doesn't say exactly what the problem was). To relieve this he prayed to Jesus three times (8: "For this thing I besought the Lord thrice").The quotes from Galatians bear no effect on the story told in 2 Cor 12. Yes, Paul had visions, but there is nothing to indicate that he made a request to Jesus, in person, in 2 Cor 12. On the contrary, by verse 5 he has already finished talking about the vision, in verses 5,6 he talks about glorying in his weaknesses. In verse 7 he mentions the suffering caused to him and in verse 8 he says he prayed to Jesus three times to alleviate this suffering.So, the fact remains: Paul prayed to Jesus three times! What is transalted as 'Amen' in your translation is nothing but the Greek word "nai", meaning "yes". Literally translated from the Septuagint, John says, "Yes, Come Lord Jesus". This has also been translated as, "Even so, Come Lord Jesus", "So be it, Come Lord Jesus" or "Amen, Come Lord Jesus". So you can't use this purely speculative translation as support for your position. You also don't use imperative mood when agreeing with someone, only when addressing someone. John is addressing Jesus in asking him to return. That * is * prayer!The Song of Solomon ( Sgs 8:14 ) also closes with the same yearning prayer for Christ's coming.

---

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the pigeon and some days you'll be the statue."

Dear truthlover; Aramaic was spoken in the area at that time, but we do not know how extensively. We do know that 'Hebrew,' Greek and latin were used.
(Acts 6:1) . . ., a murmuring arose on the part of the Greek-speaking Jews against the Hebrew-speaking Jews, . . .
(Acts 21:40) . . .Paul, standing on the stairs, motioned with his hand to the people. When a great silence fell, he addressed them in the Hebrew language,. . .
(John 19:19-20) . . .Pilate wrote a title also and put it on the torture stake. It was written: "Jesus the Nazarene the King of the Jews." Therefore many of the Jews read this title, because the place where Jesus was impaled was near the city; and it was written in Hebrew, in Latin, in Greek.Now we know that Aramaic was used by the Jews since parts of the OT were written in it, but judging from the languages chosen for Pilate's sign, it may not have been that common of a language at that time. The OT was mostly written in Hebrew with some small later parts in Aramaic, the NT writers quote from the Greek Septuagint and not the Aramaic Targums, for a very simple reason, the Targums hadn't been written yet. The NT has at least 320 direct quotes and as many as 890 quotes from the OT, nearly all of them are from the Greek Septuagint version. So the Greek Septuagint was widely used by Greek speaking Jews in Judea. According to Acts 6:1 there were considerable numbers of Greek speaking Christians in Jerusalem, so the Septuagint was in use in Judea as shown by the NT quotes. Strong's Number: 1510 Transliterated: eimi Phonetic: i-mee'
Text: the first person singular present indicative; a prolonged form of a primary and defective verb; I exist (used only when emphatic): --am, have been, Zechariah 2:8 "For this is what Jehovah of armies has said, 'Following after [the] glory he has sent me to the nations that were despoiling YOU people; for he that is touching YOU is touching my eyeball." Who the first 'he' is referring to is answered by the next verse. "And YOU people will certainly know that Jehovah of armies himself has sent me." The person referred to of course, is not Jehovah but Zechariah. The fulfillment of the prophecy would prove that Zechariah was sent as a prophet by Jehovah. The second chapter of John has only 25 verses, so there isn't a John 2:37-41, so I don't know what verse you are trying to refer to here. And in Isaiah 6, are you referring to verse 1? If so, what is your point? Only the Bible is inspired, our beliefs should find their foundation in the word of God, not the word of men.Sincerely Yours; Wm Scott Anderson

Dear Legend; (1 Corinthians 1:2) "to the congregation of God that is in Corinth, to YOU who have been sanctified in union with Christ Jesus, called to be holy ones, together with all who everywhere are calling upon the name of our Lord, Jesus Christ, their Lord and ours:" The letter was addressed to the Corinthian congregation and to Christians everywhere. Christians call upon Jesus' name as their saviour and mediator, and pray through him, in his name, to Jehovah.(Romans 10:12-13) "For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek, for there is the same Lord over all, who is rich to all those calling upon him. For "everyone who calls on the name of Jehovah will be saved."" In verse 12, 'Lord' refers to Jehovah God as indicated by verse 13, which is quoting Joel 2:32 "everyone who calls on the name of Jehovah.". Christians call upon Jesus' name as their saviour and mediator, and pray through him, in his name, to Jehovah. Paul's point was that to be saved we need to call upon Jehovah's name through Jesus by exercising faith in Jesus as our saviour and mediator, and accepting him as our spiritual leader.In trying to prove that we have to pray to Jesus, in terms of mental gymnastics you are doing a long reach and failing. I don't believe in allowing preconceived ideas to blind one self to what the Bible states. In the verses you have selected you are reading in a doctrine not supported by scriptures. As for which of us has the correct interpretation, we should let the scriptures decide. (2 Timothy 3:16) "All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight,"First, as we have already discussed, prayer is a form of worship. Jesus stated (Matthew 4:10) "'It is Jehovah your God you must worship, and it is to him alone you must render sacred service.'" Now did Jesus teach his followers that they were to worship only Jehovah or did he include himself as one they should also worship? (John 4:23-26) "the true worshipers will worship the Father with spirit and truth, for, indeed, the Father is looking for suchlike ones to worship him. God is a Spirit, and those worshiping him must worship with spirit and truth." The woman said to him: "I know that Messiah is coming, who is called Christ. Whenever that one arrives, he will declare all things to us openly." Jesus said to her: "I who am speaking to you am he."" Here in a discussion in which Jesus openly identified himself as the messiah, he taught that only Jehovah was to be worshipped, he never said that any of the worship was to be directed to himself.Jesus clarifies the point himself in John 15:16 on who is to be prayed to when we ask or call upon Jesus' name. "that no matter what YOU ask the Father in my name he might give it to YOU." and he restates the point again. John 16:23-26 "If YOU ask the Father for anything he will give it to YOU in my name. Until this present time YOU have not asked a single thing in my name. Ask and YOU will receive, that YOUR joy may be made full. "I have spoken these things to YOU in comparisons. The hour is coming when I will speak to YOU no more in comparisons, but I will report to YOU with plainness concerning the Father. In that day YOU will ask in my name, and I do not say to YOU that I shall make request of the Father concerning YOU." That is what Jesus and his disciples are talking about when they ask things in Jesus name, they are asking Jehovah in Jesus' name as our mediator to Jehovah God. They call upon Jesus name as mediator, but the prayer is to Jehovah God. That is what a mediator is, if we were to pray to Jesus, he would no longer be our mediator. When we call upon Jesus' name, it is as our mediator to Jehovah God.You still haven't resolved the paradox presented by the Trinity doctrine and Paul's words at Galatians 3:20 "Now there is no mediator where only one person is concerned, but God is only one." According to the Trinity doctrine, Jesus and God are one, which according to Paul would mean that there was no mediator. Jesus had to be a completely separate being to be a mediator between God and man. He had to be in the middle, between the two parties, which he couldn't do if he was a 'facet' of God. For if he was part of God, as Paul stated "God is only one", he could not be a separate party to act as a mediator. In Galatians 3:20 Paul clearly states that God is one, and when dealing with only one person, there is no mediator. Since Jesus was the mediator, it was impossible for him to be part of God, according to Paul. Paul obviously didn't believe in a Trinity, he clearly believed that Jesus was separate from God.In regards to your second post: Like I said in my last post on; 2 Corinthians 12:9 "yet he really said to me: "My undeserved kindness is sufficient for you; for [my] power is being made perfect in weakness."" Paul got an immediate verbal answer from Jesus. Which indicates it was an exchange made in a vision and not in a prayer since Paul did not consider it unusual that he got an immediate audible answer. The audible verbal reply to Paul's request, indicates the exchange took place in a conversation and not a prayer in which the conversation is generally one way. The thorn in the flesh of which Paul spoke was a long term health problem which he had for some time earlier, it did not come from the vision he had in 2 Corinthians chapter 12. Paul had an eye problem that effected his vision which was probably what he was referring to. Galatians 4:13-15 ".But YOU know that it was through a sickness of my flesh I declared the good news to YOU the first time. And what was a trial to YOU in my flesh, YOU did not treat with contempt or spit at in disgust; but YOU received me like an angel of God, like Christ Jesus. Where, then, is that happiness YOU had? For I bear YOU witness that, if it had been possible, YOU would have gouged out YOUR eyes and given them to me."
Paul wrote the letter to the Galatians in about the years 50—52 C.E. which was three to five years before he wrote the two letters to the Corinthians in 55 C.E. So he had had the problem with his eyes for at least three years all ready, which is why he could have been referring to it as a 'thorn in the flesh' which would be a long term troublesome condition and not a sudden recent affliction. If you remove the 'amen' you have even less resemblance to a prayer being made. If (Revelation 22:20) "Amen! Come, Lord Jesus." is translated as "Yes, Come Lord Jesus" it sounds even more like a reply or just a statement. I don't see anything that requires John's expression to be a prayer to Jesus, just wishful interpretation.Sincerely Yours; Wm Scott AndersonThis message has been edited by wmscott, 01-15-2005 19:58 AM

Ok, first of all let's put this verse into context:If you read the rest of Galatians 3, it becomes clear that Paul is talking about the Christian law and living by faith. In the verses preceding v20, (15-18) he talks about the permanence of God's covenant with Abraham. He first establishes the principle that even with a covenant among men, that covenant stands firm once it is made - the implication being that a covenant with God is even stronger. He then suggests that because this (Abraham's) was a covenant with a promise in it to the Messiah, we cannot think that it was over-ruled by the covenant God later established with the Israelites.If the inheritance offered to Abraham was on the basis of law, it might not be permanent - because it would depend, at least in part, on Abraham's performance of the law. But since the inheritance was offered on the basis of promise, God's promise, it is guaranteed. The law was given because of man's transgression, it was ordained by Angels in the hand of a mediator (v19).So we reach verse 20 where Paul explains why the law is different to the promise. A promise depends on one person; a mediated agreement depends on two. This is the crux of what Paul says here: The weakness of the law compared to the covenant of Abraham is shown because it depends on two parties, not God alone.So, this verse has nothing to do with Jesus being able to mediate while being God. You've taken this verse entirely out of context in trying to show that Jesus cannot be God and still be the mediator. I will now show you that it can be so:Obviously, like Paul says, there is no mediator where one party is concerned, but Jesus is the mediator between two parties (God & man). Can he be the mediator if he is part of God? Of course he can, for two reasons:
1) he has a separate / distinct will and personality.
2) he is of Dual Nature (man and God).These two characteristics not only attest to his role as a mediator, they are also necessitated by it.In his role as a Mediator, he had to posses a human nature, so that the sins of his people were laid upon him, and the wrath of God, as his purpose to punish sin, came upon him; and the penalty of death, was to be met and endured. By living and suffering as a human, Jesus made himself easily and credibly accessible to one of the mediated parties.In his role as a Mediator he also had to be divine, to give value to his redemptive work. The divine nature gave a worthiness and an efficacy to the sufferings endured by the human nature, which render them entirely different from -and of higher value than- the sufferings of any mere man. This marks the difference between the sufferings of Jesus and of the martyrs. Also, without the divine nature, there would have been no access on the part of the Mediator into the presence of God at all.In his role as a Mediator, he also had to have a free / distinct will, not act as a mere automaton for God. The Bible testifies to his exercising his power and authority at will, as he sees fit.Hence, Jesus is truly God and truly man, yet there is only one Jesus and one Mediator between God and man.What Paul is saying doesn't contradict (not even refer to) Jesus's being part of God. I'll repeat: Jesus is a separate party, by virtue of his distinct personality and his human & divine nature. Jesus is both man and God, so he is in the middle. Furthermore, though one with the Father, he has a distinct will & personality so he can be in the middle.I'll put it as simply as I can:
If Jesus wasn't human and was only God, he couldn't be in the middle.
If Jesus wasn't God but human, he couldn't be in the middle.
If Jesus didn't have free will, he couldn't be in the middle.** But **, these conditions are false. Jesus is God, he also is human and he has free will. He is in the middle. He is the mediator. Yes, but the new covenant is dealing with two parties (God and man), so this verse is irrelevant, poses no contradiction to Jesus mediating between man and God and also used entirely out of context. Like I explained above, Paul is not stating the obvious here (that a mediator is between two parties), he is talking about the weakness of the law compared to the promise. According to you, not according to Paul. Clearly, he believed that Jesus was God:- He taught the churches to pray to Jesus to be saved and sanctified (as per my previous posts)- He ascribed glory to the Lord (2 Tim 4:18) and looked forward to a time when heaven and earth will worship Christ (Phil 2:10-11).- He referred to all three facets of the Trinity acting as one.
2 Cor 13:14("The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all. Amen.")-He always used the word "manifestation" ("appearing") of Christ: 2Th 2:8; 1Ti 6:14; 2Ti 1:10; 4:1.Paul believed in and taught of, the Trinity.

---

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the pigeon and some days you'll be the statue."

Actually, all those quotes from the Septuagint prove only that the LXX was in wide use by Paul, Luke, and the Gospel writers. Those writings are about 2/3 of the NT, and since Paul and Luke are writing to Greeks, it's really not surprising that the Septuagint is their version of choice.The people you are talking about lived in Jerusalem in AD 30 or so, where admittedly there would have been Hellenistic synagogues (which I did forget about). However, these are Jews, opposed to Y'shua and taking the time to oppose him. It is extremely unlikely that these were Hellenists. Despite your Strong's quote, I stand by my statement that it's disingenuous to translate it "I have been." There are two reasons.One, that list you're giving at the end is simply Strong's listing different ways eimi is translated in whatever version it's made for (probably KJV, but not necessarily). It is not a suggested translation.Two, context determines those rare instances when it might be used as "have been," and to translate it out of its present tense into a different one means the context must require it, not just allow it. If John had wanted to quote Y'shua in the past tense, he could have. A perfectly good version of eimi was available to him. I see. Because you don't believe that Jehovah of armies (Yahweh Sabaoth) could have sent anyone name Jehovah, then this statement must refer to Zechariah. The problem with this is that the passage STATES quite clearly that it's Jehovah (Yahweh) talking, not Zechariah, and it doesn't just say so once, but three times.

quote:

---

For this is what Yahweh Sabaoth says, "After the glory has he sent me to the nations which spoiled you."

---

That's the start, and it's clear enough even in your version ("'Following after [the] glory he has sent me to the nations that were despoiling YOU people; for he that is touching YOU is touching my eyeball.") Someone is sending Jehovah of armies. You, with your doctrine, have a problem, and it's a pretty big one, which is why your translators have to change the text to "my eyeball" rather than "his eyeball," like every other version available. They didn't change enough, though, because it's still clear throughout that passage, even in your version, that Jehovah is sending Jehovah.Listen, you throw around the church fathers where they agree with you. Why don't you just agree with them on this one? Sorry, typo. It's John 12:37-41. Hmm. Personally, I think when you appeal to them as backing your doctrine that the Father is the one God and that Y'shua is his Word/Son, you ought to point out that they specifically disagree with you on the manner of Y'shua's birth/creation and on the use of the Father's names and titles. Don't you think that would be more honest?Okay, here's one more. Maybe this ought to be a new thread. Why in the world do you think the 66 books of your Bible are inspired? Because they were affirmed at some 4th century church council? No one in the 1st century, when many of the books were still being written, nor in the 2nd century, when we know the lists they gave, would have affirmed those 66 books in particular.Those 66 books were chosen by the Catholic councils. There is no other source for them. Earlier lists were always different, and would have included "fathers" like Clement & Barnabas, and books like the Shepherd of Hermas and the Didache (The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles). Even Paul mentions books like Jannes & Jambres, the Martyrdom of Isaiah (actually that's referenced in Hebrews), and James directly quotes First Enoch as a writing of Enoch, the 7th from Adam. Why isn't Enoch part of your Scriptures? It's not like there's no precedent for that. The Ethiopian Orthodox Church still has it in their Bible, and it's referenced by Justin Martyr (AD 150) and quoted my many of the fathers. Who, besides the Catholic Councils, decided for you that it's not Scripture? Thank you. And I yours.Shammah

It just dawned on me that you might be saying you don't want to appeal to the backing of the church fathers. I didn't go back through this thread (don't have time) to see if you've actually appealed yourself to the fathers, but I thought you did. Even if you didn't, your church published a series of booklets on the father's and their view of God and his Son.It is to that I am referring. If you're going to appeal to their backing, it seems honest to me to point out that while siding with you on part of the issue, they are not in your camp on their view of the Godhead.

it just dawned on me that I've asked you this a couple of times before and never got an answer. So I'll ask again:If Jehovah is the Almighty God and Jesus is the Mighty God, as you claim, how do you explain that Jehovah is called the Mighty God in Jeremiah 32:18, Isaiah 10:21 and Isaiah 9:6 ?!In all three verses the Hebrew word for "mighty" (gibbor) is used.If Jesus is not the Almighty God and only the Mighty God, then that makes Jesus GOD since GOD is called the Mighty God!

---

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the pigeon and some days you'll be the statue."

Incorrect! Paul himself says why he was afflicted (I highlight in bold) :12:7 "And lest I should be exalted above measure through the abundance of the revelations, there was given to me a thorn in the flesh, the messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I should be exalted above measure. "Paul's talking about a man (himself), who -in a vision- ascended to heaven and heard 'unspeakable words'(verse 4). He then switches to first person and states that he won't use it (the vision) as a means to glory in himself, but instead his boast will be in his weaknesses. (verse 5,6). He then proceeds to talk about such a weakness, that was inflicted on him so that he doesn't get exalted above measure as a result of the revelations . Just in case you missed it the first time, he re-iterates at the end of the verse why this affliction was given him: "lest I should be exalted above measure".So, in Paul's words, the thorn in his flesh was caused as a result of the revelations he received in his vision. By referring to it as a 'thorn in the flesh' he's probably suggesting a personal physical affliction, instead of a mental / spiritual anguish, or something relating to his apostolic calling. In any case, your 'eye-ailment' theory is an interesting possibility, but the fact remains that whatever ailment Paul's talking about in 2Cor12:7 was not a pre-existing problem, but was caused as a result of the revelations he received in his vision. The first part of the statement ('Yes', 'Amen', 'Even so', whatever translation you want to use) is in expressing agreement/approval of the previous statements about Jesus's coming. The second part ('Come Lord Jesus') is a personal request, addressed to Jesus, to effect his coming.It's really quite simple, tell me, if someone says "Jesus, come" or "God, please do something", what are they doing? .......Yes, that's right, they're praying!

---

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the pigeon and some days you'll be the statue."

Dear truthlover; You forgot about the book of Hebrews. Plus many of the other NT books were written for or to Greek speaking Jews of which there were apparently great numbers. And what is the context of the tense at John 8:58? Jesus is replying to question, he was just asked "You are not yet fifty years old, and still you have seen Abraham?" Jesus was being asked if he had been alive when Abraham was alive. Would it make sense for him to say basically 'I am alive now' or 'I am'? It wouldn't even have been an answer to the question asked and would have sounded like an evasion. Because of the obvious context of the tense here, that is why the past tense is used in translating the Hebrew word 'eimi' in this verse in a number of translations.The "I AM" argument is translation dependant, since only some translations have that phrase in both verses, in other translations the wording is different and the whole argument collapses. What Jesus said in Greek at John 8:58 was "eimi" while what Jehovah said in Hebrew at Exodus 3:14 was "Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh", to claim that one is a direct quote of the other is unfounded. It merely shows the great lengths that Trinitarians will go to in desperation in trying to find or in this case, even trying to create support for the Trinity by using the same phrase while translating from two different languages and claiming that the original expression was identical. The only possible weight their argument could have, is if Jesus made his reply in Hebrew and used the exact wording of "Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh" and yet we have no evidence that he do so or that he was even speaking Hebrew at the time! Plus even if we allow for those short falls, they still have the problem that even if what we have is Translated from a Greek translation of what Jesus may have said in Hebrew, if we check the Greek Septuagint's translation of "Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh" at Exodus 3:14 we find "ego eimi ho Ohn (I am the Being) instead of "ego eimi" at John 8:58. If the wording was so critical as it is to the Trinity argument, Why didn't John use the same wording as found at Exodus 3:14 in the Greek Septuagint Version from which he quoted a number of times in writing the book of John? The fact that John did not use the exact same wording as the then available Greek translation used, proves that he did not think that Jesus was quoting Exodus 3:14. The whole "I AM" argument collapses, it has no support and only reveals how far disparate Trinitarians will go in trying to find or even create support for the Trinity. "my eye" -- New Jerusalem
"my eye"--New Revised Standard Version
"my eye"--New American BibleYour argument is self contradictory, for even Trinitarians believe that in the "Godhead" that only one member is call "Jehovah". If there are two or three "Jehovahs" you have created a real doctrinal problem and are in conflict with not only the Bible, but the very doctrine you are trying to defend. It appears that you have been looking so hard for support for the Trinity, that you have gotten your self tangled up in the grammar at Zechariah 2:8. The solution is very simple, the New Revised Standard Version makes the answer the most obvious in it's rendering; "For thus sad the Lord of hosts (after his glory sent me) regarding the nations that plundered you;" if you look in other translations part of the verse is between two commas, it is a separate phrase. In quoting Jehovah, Zechariah inserted a clarifying comment referring to what Jehovah had spoken to him. Look at it in the NWT with what are probably Zechariah's clarifications in bold.Zechariah 2:7-9 "Hey there, Zion! Make your escape, you who are dwelling with the daughter of Babylon. For this is what Jehovah of armies has said, 'Following after [the] glory he has sent me to the nations that were despoiling YOU people; for he that is touching YOU is touching my eyeball. For here I am waving my hand against them, and they will have to become spoil to their slaves.' And YOU people will certainly know that Jehovah of armies himself has sent me.To reconstruct what Jehovah said to Zechariah, it was probably something like "I am sending you Zechariah to the nations that were despoiling YOU people; for he that is touching YOU is touching my eyeball. For here I am waving my hand against them, and they will have to become spoil to their slaves." and then Zechariah adds his comment in verse 9. Hopefully this makes sense to you, I think it is a much more reasonable answer than creating multiple 'Jehovah's. So your argument is that Jesus is Jehovah because Jesus is spoken of as showing them 'the glory of God'? Jesus was sent by his Father to reveal his Father's glory to us, he didn't have to be his Father any more than any of the prophets had to be. Or the heavens, Psalm 19:1 "The heavens are declaring the glory of God;" Or New Jerusalem, Revelation 21:10-11 "and he showed me the holy city Jerusalem coming down out of heaven from God and having the glory of God." In fact each one of us is to show the glory of Jehovah. 2 Corinthians 3:18 "And all of us, while we with unveiled faces reflect like mirrors the glory of Jehovah,' Jesus had Jehovah's glory in the same sense. Hebrews 1:3 "He is the reflection of [his] glory' Jesus reflects or reveals Jehovah's glory. You would have to ask the publishers on that one. But according to scripture there was a falling away after the death of the apostles, so errors are expected to appear in later history. The citing of the early church history is used to reveal that many current doctrines were adopted later and were not part of the Christian faith earlier. But even by the time of the earlier church that is sometimes quoted from, a number of errors had already come in. When Peter wrote 2 Peter (64 AD), the letters of Paul were already recognized as being part of the Scriptures or Bible. 2 Peter 3:15-16 "Paul according to the wisdom given him also wrote YOU, speaking about these things as he does also in all [his] letters. In them, however, are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unsteady are twisting, as [they do] also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction." The reason why Paul's letters and the other books of the NT were accepted at once as being inspired scripture is given by Paul.
1 Corinthians 12:7-10 "the manifestation of the spirit is given to each one for a beneficial purpose. For example, to one there is given through the spirit . . . discernment of inspired utterances,"The early Christians through the power of the holy spirit knew what was part of the inspired Word of God as soon as they read it. With this ability, the NT books were recognized as cannon as soon as they were written."James directly quotes First Enoch" you are thinking of Jude 14 "Enoch, prophesied also regarding them." which was written by Jude of course and not James. Jude writing under inspiration apparently quoted Enoch directly, or he could have cited a historical source not now available, there is no evidence that he was quoting from the book of Enoch which is not inspired and is in conflict with scripture.On scholars opinions on whether or not the Bible quotes from the apocrypha, you can probably find one to support any position if you look long enough, which is why it is not wise to believe something just because a "scholar" states it. It is necessary to consider the overall majority viewpoint of scholars in general when considering such opinions and it must be remembered that even the mainstream view can still be wrong sometimes, which is why it is always best to look at the evidence and make up your own mind. The mainstream opinion on the matter of the NT quoting the apocrypha is that there are no direct quotes but possibly indirect quotes. I disagree with that, looking at the evidence myself it is my opinion that the supposed indirect quotes are accidental word matches due in large part to a common cultural and literary background of the respective writers. The 'indirect quotes' which seem to be apocryphal references can be viewed as such if only the words are looked at by themselves, which is the trap it appears that some of the scholars have fallen into, looking at the meaning of the words it is clear that the NT and the apocryphal are cut from two very different cloths. It would make no sense for the NT writers to use as inspired sources books which were in conflict with the things they were teaching, it would be like a mainstream respected geologist quoting from the book "The Genesis Flood" as a reference, no matter if there were common phrases used by both it would be ridiculous to expect a genuine quotation. The NT writers could have quoted the historical events related in some of the apocrypha when such were correct, without implying anything about the rest of the book, but they didn't seem to do even that. What we find instead is a common word usage here or there, or a common reference to events in the OT, such occurrences are probably coincidental and considering the intend of the NT writers they must indeed be unintended.Sincerely Yours; Wm Scott Anderson