I came across a discussion with some good points which I thought I would present as seen below to everyone for their thoughts...


"...God tells us in Psalm 86:10 "Thou art the monos (only) and the great God." Isaiah tells us [37:16] O Lord of hosts, God of Israel, who sittest upon the cherubs, thou ALONE (monos) art the God of every kingdom of the world: thou hast made heaven and earth." "Thus saith the Lord that redeems thee, and who formed thee from the womb, I am the Lord that performs all things: I stretched out the heaven monos (alone), and established the earth." [Isa 44:24];"

Jesus also tells us something that adds to the evidence. ""I am not alone, (ouk monos), because the father is with me." [John 16:32].

While Jehovah points out that he created all things monos (alone) Jesus tells us that when he and the father are together, they are "ouk monos (NOT ALONE.)

IF Jesus is deity, beyond being a FORM OF deity, then who is he? He is not Jehovah, he is not the Father, he is not prior to Adam, he is "before Abraham" but only in Prophecy, and he is after John in actuallity. Jesus, being a "form of God," cannot be God of whom he is a form...."

How would you answer the questions raised?

for me its simple, keeping in mind that ellen white uses "trio".

which, again, for me, is purely bible:

Psalm 86:10 "Thou art the monos (only) and the great God (it isnt "monos" it is "bad")

Isaiah [37:16] (is "bad" again, not "monos")O Lord of hosts, God of Israel, who sittest upon the cherubs, thou ALONE (monos) art the God of every kingdom of the world: thou hast made heaven and earth."

1. alone, by itself, besides, a part, separation, being alone
1. separation, alone, by itself
1. only (adv)
2. apart from, besides (prep)
2. part
3. parts (eg limbs, shoots), bars

"God" is being compared to the heathen gods for one thing. He is the only true, real God.

for another elohiym is plural - Gods



"Thus saith the Lord that redeems thee, and who formed thee from the womb, I am the Lord that performs all things: I stretched out the heaven monos (alone), and established the earth." [Isa 44:24];"

LORD while translated Jehovah, as a name, means eternal, self-existent.

in the new testament, and the writings of ellen white, "God" is used for the Father exclusively, as an identifier as to Whom is being referred to. it is possible that is true for the ot as well, but i havent made a deep study into that yet.

ill let another show how Jehovah applies to Jesus as much as to the Father.

Jesus Christ is the Creator of all things.
He WAS in the beginning as God the Father was in the beginning.


His name Jesus Christ is derived from the Greek form of the name Jeshua meaning "Jehovah-Savior".
The title Christ is derived from the Greek word for Messiah or Mashiach meaning "anointed one".



The New Testament clearly presents Christ as God.

For example, Jesus is called God in the following texts:



Jesus claims equality with God as his Father and asserts that He was one with the Father.
It is evident that those who heard this statement recognized it as Jesus claiming to be God.

Jesus continuously spoke of himself as one with the Father:



Christ forgave sins. None could forgive sin save the One against whom all have sinned. When Christ forgave sin, He was demonstrating that He was God.



Oh, some may say, I can forgive, too, that doesn't make me God.
Well yes you can forgive someone who wronged YOU. But SIN is against God. He is the One who is sinned against. The paralytic had sinned against God -- sins that forfeited his eternal life! Who alone can forgive those sins?

Jesus -- the Creator and the One Who died upon the cross taking our sins upon Himself ALONE can forgive sin.

Christ claimed to be the Great I AM.



He doesn't say, Before Abraham "I WAS", He uses the continual presense of the "I AM"
The name God revealed to Moses

I had a look at the hebrew texts as did teresa and indeed monos is not found there. It is however found in the LXX, so linguistic objections sort of fall.
However, I think dedications points are good. They are enough answer for me.

lol. there were no "linguistics objections". merely pointing out that in hebrew the word is bad and in greek it is monos, which the LXX is but a translation of the hebrew, right?

but do they answer the person with the objections? is it thorough and deep enough covering all the points raised?

proving to someone who already believes is easy. being able to prove a point convincingly to someone who belives differently is the challenge.

i am not standing in criticism of your post, dedication, in saying this, merely making a point.

Pointing out that the word claimed to be the issue does not occur in the original sure do look like a linguistic to me.

Wether the points are sufficient very much depends on where the questioneer stands, as you point out. Preaching to the choir is a much different thing from preaching to the ignorant, but preaching to those who have already rejected the message is nearly pointless. Is there such a thing as enough evidence for someone who is willfully blind? So is this a person who has rejected the divinity of Jesus or is it a person who is trying to form an opinion about the question? Maybe Richard knows...

Sadly, there will always be those who insist that Jesus Christ is not God (Diety) along with God the Father. After all, that is the belief that "the spirits" want people to believe.







1 Timothy 3:16 God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
1:2 The same was in the beginning with God.
1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
1:4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

Matt. 1:23 they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.

isnt that making a judgment?

we can be fully convinced that Jesus is just as much God as the Father is, and others can be fully convinced He is not. spiritual things are spiritually discerned, a difficult lesson to learn when it comes to (judging) others.

is that completely true, or more of a judgment? what about the honest muslims through the centuries who will be saved?

i understand that being like Jesus
is more important than believing He is God also.

i had been wondering if antitrinitarians could come to a saving knowledge if they didnt acknowledge Christ as God also, but i think i just answered my own question.

i like this. for me its all about the humility of Christ, and the Godhead, that He, as God, would stoop to become man and come to live in this world as one of us. to associate with us...

I dont think it is judging since the point about willfull blindness is a general statement while the point to the one asking the initial questions is itself a question. No connection intended due to insufficient information. Or the honest animist or the honest atheist? Would Paul have been saved had he not replied as he did to meeting Jesus on the Damascus road? He sertainly was very honest in his very eager atempts at rooting out the church. And will these speculations ever give more answer than the question regarding angels dancing on a needle tip?

Regarding antitrinitarians it would depend on the meaning of the antichrists of Johns letter, would it not?