lagerwhenindoubt:
i am in chiswick in august just for the drinks.. no argument

will be nice to meet a few nairalanders, but security is always paramount.

I have spoken to a few of us but only met one of us in real person a few weeks ago when I was in Nigeria.

All the same, let me know nearer the time.

^ why should you be afraid

DrummaBoy:

Researching to return with a bang!

In my undergraduate dayz, I played a lot of chess. Three ways the game ran: the fast, called blitz. The regular which you could finish in half an hour. The lengthy one that could take months.

I think this discuss will be the lengthy type. So Deep, allow Anony to grab his arsenal and shoot to aim.

I hope so, but I am worried. I just checked his profile, and he has not been on Nairaland since Tuesday. Rather unusual for Anony. I hope he is well.

^^^
He's(pls tell wiegraf I got it right this time ) viewing as a guest.

[quote
author=Deep Sight]

I hope so, but I am worried. I just checked his profile, and he has not
been on Nairaland since Tuesday. Rather unusual for Anony. I hope he is
well.

[/quote]

I trust God he is fine. He's probably caught with some stuff the way U were also.

We should find a way of contacting guys on this forum other than thread. Like email, phone, etc

Trust me Anony is okay, he must have other more important matters to attend to.

frosbel: Anony and team have gone AWOL.

AWOL kwa? When we have not even started?

*Taking my seat in the Academy auditorium.*

Deep Sight: D1 - I Tim. 2:5: - For there is one God, and one Mediator of God and mankind, a man Christ Jesus…”

History and Authenticity:

The First Epistle of Paul to Timothy, usually referred to simply as First Timothy and often written 1 Timothy, is one of three letters in the New Testament of the Bible often grouped together as the Pastoral Epistles, along with Second Timothy and Titus. The letter, traditionally attributed to the Apostle Paul, consists mainly of counsels to his younger colleague and delegate Timothy regarding his ministry in Ephesus (1:3).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Epistle_to_Timothy

Although there are modern day challenges as to the question of whether this epistle was actually written by St. Paul, it remains authentic for the purpose of this discussion given that it forms part of the normal and orthodox Bible and it has no verses alleged to be inserted or modified, and the verse in question is not in controversy in terms of being an authentic part of the bible.

Context

The context reads -

1 Tim 2: 1 - 7

1 Therefore I exhort first of all that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks be made for all men, 2 for kings and all who are in authority, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and reverence. 3 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, 4 who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. 5 For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus, 6 who gave Himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time, 7 for which I was appointed a preacher and an apostle—I am speaking the truth in Christ[a]and not lying—a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth.

Logical Critique

We can see that the preceding verse speaks of the desire of God being that all men be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. We notice that he refers to God as "God our Saviour" and this is something many Trinitarians seize upon.

But the reality is that he instantly clarifies exactly what he is talking about, exactly which God, and the relationship between God, Man, and the Lord Jesus Christ - he says -

For there is one God [size=16pt]and[/size] one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus!

I have placed in bold the key elements of this verse which completely dash away any notion of the deity of Christ whatsoever.

He states clearly and conscisely that there is but one God.

He then says "And"

This word is very important and that is why i enlarged it above.

"There is one God and one mediator" - This conclusively discloses that aside from the one God, there also exists another entity which he is referring to there.

But the most important word in that verse is the word "mediator"!

A mediator, by definition, serves as a go between between two parties!

A mediator cannot be one of the parties itself: that is firmly illogical and destroys the very meaning of the word "mediator." This is undeniable, and absolutely inescapable.

I therefore assert that Jesus is here described as a mediator between two parties - God and Man. As such, he cannot be one of the parties. That word "mediator" hammers this down.

And finally, the mediator is described as "the man Jesus Christ" - which shows that indeed -

1. He was a man

2. He certainly was not God

3. But being the mediator, could not possibly of normal mankind, otherwise, he is no mediator. A mediator cannot be either of the parties.

Linguistics and Scholastic Views -

I cull the following from Bible Education.com -

Collins English Dictionary (1974) tells us that the word ‘mediator’ is the noun of the verb, ‘to mediate’ which means ‘to bring peace or an understanding (usually between people who are not on friendly terms).’ This meaning approaches but does not fully reach the meaning assigned to the Greek word, mesites - ‘a go-between, reconciler or intercessor’. A mediator is some one who effects, or attempts to effect, reconciliation between two estranged parties.

WHO IS GOD’S MEDIATOR?

But we are interested here in the necessary one mediator who can bring about peace and unity between God most holy, and us frail, sinful, mortal people. Who is God’s mediator? Only the Holy Scriptures, written by inspiration of God can reveal this. In the New Testament the Greek word for mediator, mesites, occurs some seven times. Three times in Galatians 3/19,20, where the Apostle Paul speaks of a mediator to whom God gave the Law-Covenant at Sinai (the Law of Moses) to Israel, God’s chosen people. That mediator was the High Priest of Israel. Under the Mosaic Law, Aaron of the tribe of Levi and his successors mediated between God and Israel so as to effect atonement. This at-one-ment was necessary for both himself and Israel, and was effected annually on the Day of Atonement, (Leviticus ch. 16). Paul’s point in the Galatians references above is that the High Priest’s Law mediation did not and could never bring about true unity with an holy God. This is only possible through "the faith of Jesus Christ", v. 22 - emulated, or copied by all who like Jesus, believe God’s promises and are baptized, vv. 22-29. The other four times ‘mediator’is used in the N. T. are in 1 Timothy 2/5, quoted above, Hebrews 8/6; 9/15; and 12/24. The Apostle reveals who is God’s true Mediator - "the man Christ Jesus" - our risen Lord, who mediates a new covenant which is better than the old Law-covenant of Moses because it involves faith in God’s Word and trust in His redeeming grace.

Jesus Christ our Lord is the one and only Mediator between God and men. He represents God because, as the Son of God, God sent Him to live an exemplary life of holiness and be obedient unto death. He represents mankind because he is "the man Christ Jesus" and once bore the same mortal nature with all its weaknesses as we now bear, and he died as an acceptable offering for our sins. God raised Him from the dead, granted Him God’s own nature, immortality, and made Him "high priest after the order of Melchisedec",(Hebrews 5/5-10), and "the one mediator between God and men", (1 Timothy 2/5).

http://www.bibleed.com/bibleteachings/jesusandthepromises/onemediator.asp

I should place a caveat here. I extract this as a Christian view for your benefit. I do not say that I agree wholly with it - for I know that you may ask why the High Priest of Israel is designated a mediator if he is a man. To that, I say that he is a man, but is not the whole nation of Israel, who form one party in the mediation - in the same way that even where Christ is a man, he is not mankind as a whole, who form one party in the mediation referred to in D1. I also point out that when it is said - "One God AND one mediator", this still, inescapably, refers to two entities, two evidently separate entities. - [Edit: And it is clear therein that the Mediator is not the God]

As such, I conclude my Proposition on D1, by saying that it multiply denies the doctrine of the trinity or the idea that Jesus is God himself.

Wow, nice one. Someone came prepared. I'll respond to this in a bit.

Rebuttal of D1

I'll address what I believe to be the summary of your argument (correct me if I am wrong)

Your argument is basically that from 1Tim 2:5 we ought to conclude about Jesus Christ that:-

1. He was a man

2. He certainly was not God

3. But being the mediator, could not possibly of normal mankind, otherwise, he is no mediator. A mediator cannot be either of the parties.

My response is :

I agree with 1 that Christ was a man, I also somewhat agree with 3 that He could not possibly be normal mankind and that's because I hold that Christ while on earth was both God and man (note that by this, I don't mean half God and half man)

I do not agree with number 2 that Jesus is not God because that is simply not what the text says. Let us read the text again.

1 Therefore I exhort first of all that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks be made for all men, 2 for kings and all who are in authority, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and reverence. 3 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, 4 who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. 5 For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus, 6 who gave Himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time, 7 for which I was appointed a preacher and an apostle—I am speaking the truth in Christ[a]and not lying—a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth.


Remember that I pointed out to you that the Trinity is NOT 3 Gods. It is one God in three persons. Remember also that I pointed to you the subtle difference between form(nature) and function. This is very important because when describing someone as God or a man, you are describing his/her nature however when describing someone as a mediator, you are describing the person in terms of his/her function (what he/she does). Saying that the mediator can neither be God or man simply does not follow because being a mediator is a role that is played and not the nature of a thing.

For instance, assuming you had read a verse that said. "We have one God and one Father of all creation...." You would immediately understand that despite the "and" in the sentence, God and the Father of creation are not different entities but one and the same because "father" as used in the sentence shows the role God is playing therein.
In fact as you continue reading, 1 Timothy 2:6 says "who gave Himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time..." further showing us that "mediator" is as a result of what He did and not a definition of what He is.

To further prove to you that Paul couldn't possibly mean that Christ is not God, remember it was the same Paul who said in Romans 9:5

"....of whom are the fathers and from whom, according to the flesh, Christ came, who is over all, the eternally blessed God. Amen" (NKJV).

So my dear friend, from what we have read, that verse does not say that Christ is not God. Nowhere in the New testament says this. In fact we have parts of the New testament like Romans 9:5 which I have just shown you explicitly saying that Christ is God (theos)

This affirms the doctrine of the Trinity which is that The Father is God, The Son is God and yet they are not two Gods but one God.

The only way you could have read that Christ is not God in 1Tim 2:5 was if you started from a prior assumption that God is only and can only be one person of one being.
If you believed in the doctrine of Trinity and the fact that Christ was both God and Man, the verse would fit right into your theology with absolutely no problems.



P/s: One small point to take note of: The new testament writers usually would use "God"(Theos) to represent the Father and "Lord" (Kurios) to represent the Son though on a few occasions, they would switch the terms, referring to the Father as Kurios and the Son as Theos. Interestingly, they called Jesus Christ the Lord in the very same way old testament writers called the Father the Lord. It is also interesting to note that when new testament writers translated the Hebrew Tetragrammaton YHVH (Jehovah) they almost always translated it as Kurios (The Lord) a term they used to refer to Christ.

Welcome Anony

Wetin you buy come for us?

frosbel:

will be nice to meet a few nairalanders, but security is always paramount.

I have spoken to a few of us but only met one of us in real person a few weeks ago when I was in Nigeria.

All the same, let me know nearer the time.

Let's talk about our meetup here:

https://www.nairaland.com/1167082/religion-section-nlers-living-uk#16660921

DrummaBoy: Welcome Anony

Wetin you buy come for us?

Lol, Bros no vex, I buy plenty plenty things but Ekelebe block me for road seize am.

Mr anony:
Lol, Bros no vex, I buy plenty plenty things but Ekelebe block me for road seize am.

LOL!!!

no wahala.

Atleast dem no collect your doctrine.

We await your response to Deep.

DrummaBoy:

LOL!!!

no wahala.

Atleast dem no collect your doctrine.

We await your response to Deep.

Lol, no dem no fit collect that one. Na to kill me be that.

D1 - Response to Rebuttal

Mr anony:

I do not agree with number 2 that Jesus is not God because that is simply not what the text says. Let us read the text again.

1 Therefore I exhort first of all that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks be made for all men, 2 for kings and all who are in authority, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and reverence. 3 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, 4 who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. 5 [b]For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus, 6 who gave Himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time, 7 for which I was appointed a preacher and an apostle—I am speaking the truth in Christ[a]and not lying—a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth.


Remember that I pointed out to you that the Trinity is NOT 3 Gods. It is one God in three persons. Remember also that I pointed to you the subtle difference between form(nature) and function. This is very important because when describing someone as God or a man, you are describing his/her nature however when describing someone as a mediator, you are describing the person in terms of his/her function (what he/she does). Saying that the mediator can neither be God or man simply does not follow because being a mediator is a role that is played and not the nature of a thing.

For instance, assuming you had read a verse that said. "We have one God and one Father of all creation...." You would immediately understand that despite the "and" in the sentence, God and the Father of creation are not different entities but one and the same because "father" as used in the sentence shows the role God is playing therein.
In fact as you continue reading, 1 Timothy 2:6 says "who gave Himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time..." further showing us that "mediator" is as a result of what He did and not a definition of what He is.

I respond by saying that the word "Father" whenever ascribed to God, would not contradict the word "God", but the word "mediator" will always contradict the word "God" in so far as it specifically goes on to say that this is a mediator between God and men.

Further, your hypothetical verse substituting the word "mediator" for the word "father' is a very bad mis-application indeed, because the word "father" corroborates the word "God" whereas the word "mediator" does not.

Your hypothetical text would certainly not read - "There is but one God, and one Father between God and Men", would it?

That resolves your rebuttal: your rebuttal is very clearly mis-footed, because it does not subsume the core of that which I pointed out - namely, the function of a role said to be of one between God and men.

To further prove to you that Paul couldn't possibly mean that Christ is not God, remember it was the same Paul who said in Romans 9:5

"....of whom are the fathers and from whom, according to the flesh, Christ came, who is over all, the eternally blessed God. Amen" (NKJV).

The latter part of Romans 9:5 is said to be a doxology, a piece of praise to God. Indeed in many translations, it appears as a separate statement saying "God be forever praised." This would however depend on the punctuation. It should be noted that the original Greek (which I re produce further-on below) had no punctuation therein, and as such is open to a number of varying interpretations depending on the punctuation used in the translation. For this reason, many Trinitarian Scholars do not depend on this verse in proof of the Trinity.

I should draw your attention to the way that this verse is rendered in the KJV - "Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen."(AV). The latter part of the verse is a piece of doxology to God the Father, praise and blessing on God for the coming of Christ. This is quite clear as you will see below.

You will see from the Scholastic Views and particularly the rendition of the Greek, I have excerpted below, that depending on the punctuation, there are a number of ways to read that verse: my contention will be that the overall thrust of comparative scripture on the deity of Christ must lead us to read it as a follow on doxology to God.

I will leave you with Scholastic views which affirm that which I am saying regarding the punctuation of that verse, and the reality that the latter part of that verse is actually a follow-on doxology, a piece of praise to God -

Scholastic Views:

"However, the Greek grammar of this verse allows for three possible translations and this is admitted by all reputable Trinitarian scholars. The key issue at Romans 9:5 essentially concerns punctuation. Paul did not use the modern punctuation conventions that we use today. He did not provide commas and periods in Romans 9:5 as translators conveniently give us and translators have three options open to them.

1. Christ according to the flesh who is God over all be blessed to the ages. Amen.

2. Christ according to the flesh who is over all. God be blessed to the ages. Amen.

3. Christ according to the flesh. God who is over all be blessed to the ages. Amen.

The actual Greek text reads, "kai ex wn o cristoV to kata sarka o wn epi pantwn qeoV euloghtoV eiV touV aiwnaV amhn," and comes out word for word in English as, "and out of whom the Christ according to flesh the one being over all God be blessed to the ages amen." No commas, no periods.

The verse can be, and should be, translated as "from whom the Christ according to the flesh. God who is over all be blessed to the ages. Amen.", or possibly but not likely, "from whom the Christ according to the flesh who is over all. God be blessed to the ages. Amen." The phrase "God be blessed to the ages" is a Pauline doxology."

[Some excerpts from, and more at - http://www.angelfire.com/space/thegospeltruth/trinity/verses/Rom9_5.html]

This is the EXACT Greek rendition of the verse and its translation -

kai ex wn `o cristoV to kata sarka 'o
and out of whom the Christ the [one] according to flesh the [one]

wn epi pantwn qeoV euloghtoV eiV touV aiwnaV amhn
being over all God be blessed to the ages Amen

You can see very clearly that indeed, there is no punctuation and as such the natural reading should be that the latter part of the verse is a doxology to God.

This is VERY clear from the Greek word-for-word above.

This reading is further backed up by the fact that the term "the blessed one" is only ever used as a reference to God in the NT - The word eulogetes is variously translated as "be praised" or "be blessed." The "Blessed be" is the Jewish berakah, an ascription of praise to God the Father. (Mark 14:61), (Luke 1:68), (Romans 1:25), (2 Corinthians 1:3), (Ephesians 1:3), (1 Peter 1:3), (Romans 1:25), (2 Corinthians 11:31).

The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology:
"Rom. 9:5 is disputed...It would be easy, and linguistically perfectly possible to refer the expression to Christ. The verse would then read, 'Christ who is God over all, blessed for ever. Amen.' Even so, Christ would not be equated absolutely with God, but only described as a being of divine nature, for the word theos has no article. But this ascription of majesty does not occur anywhere else in Paul. The much more probable explanation is that the statement is a doxology directed to God."-(Grand Rapids, Mich.; 1976), Vol. 2, p.80.

John Ziesler in his book Pauline Christianity (Revised edition 1990, Oxford University Press 'Oxford Bible Series') comments:

"In facing the question of the relationship of Christ to Yahweh we must not outrun the evidence and read into Paul's language the Fourth Century definition of Christ as God the Son, co-equal and co-eternal, of one substance with the Father. Paul's language is one of the factors leading to that definition, and also part of the problem it attempted to solve, but it would be anachronistic to interpret his language in such later terms. Perhaps he preferred 'Lord' as a title because of its ambiguity, because it established Christ's relation to humanity, church, and cosmos, without too closely defining his relation to Yahweh. As a Jewish monotheist Paul would wish neither to be accused of believing in two Gods, nor that Yahweh died on the cross. The only place in the undisputed letters where he may equate Christ with God is Rom.9:5 if a full stop is not placed after 'Christ', so that it reads '...of their race...is the Christ who is God over all...' More probably it should read '....of their race...is the Christ. God who is over all be blessed....' -p.44

Anthony Buzzard, a Unitarian, in his book "The Doctrine of the Trinity--Christianity's Self-Inflicted Wound" wrote on page 268 quoting the great Catholic Renaissance writer, Erasmus; and note what Erasmus has to say regarding Romans 9:5:

"Those who contend that in this text[Rom.9:5] Christ is clearly termed God, either place little confidence in other passages of Scripture, deny all understanding to the Arians, or pay scarcely any attention to the style of the Apostle. A similar passage occurs in Second Corinthians 11:31: "The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who is blessed forever"; the latter clause being undeniably restricted to the Father."
(Quoted by Buzzard, but taken from "Works", ed. Jean Leclerc, 10 vols. Leiden)

The Expositor's Greek Testament by W. R. Nichol on pp 658, 659 states: "If we ask ourselves point blank, whether Paul, as we know his mind from his epistles, could express his sense of Christ's greatness by calling Him God blessed for ever, it seems to be almost impossible to answer in the affirmative. Such an asserion is not on the same plane with the conception of Christ which meets us everywhere in the Apostle's writings; and though there is some irregularity in the grammar, and perhaps some difficulty in seeing the point of a doxology, I agree with those who would put a colon or a period at SARKA, and make the words that follow refer not to Christ but to the Father."

[Excerpts From - http://onlytruegod.org/defense/romans9.5.htm]

Conclusively, the key point regarding Romans 9:5 is that Paul does not use punctuation as you have seen in the Greek above. Translators therefore liberally punctuate the verse to deliver different meanings. My conclusive point is that the Greek, without punctuation, does not disclose a statement that Jesus is God. This is clear and indisputable.

So my dear friend, from what we have read, that verse does not say that Christ is not God.

It certainly says that there is one God only, [size=16pt]and[/size] one mediator [size=16pt]between[/size] God and Men, the man Christ Jesus.

It saddens me that your entire rebuttal failed to take cognizance of the key and overriding importance of the meaning and function of the word "mediator" in the context of the words "between God and men"

Nowhere in the New testament says this.

It is in fact all over the New Testament and in the very words of Christ himself.

The only way you could have read that Christ is not God in 1Tim 2:5 was if you started from a prior assumption that God is only and can only be one person of one being.

The only way you could have read D1 the way you did is the fact that you are starting from a rigid and dogmatic position which holds that regardless of what you see in scripture, and no matter how clearly it is spelt-out, Christ is and must remain God.

I would caution you against this: do not uphold your pre conceived dogma over plain and evident scripture. Remember the Literal rule.

P/s: One small point to take note of: The new testament writers usually would use "God"(Theos) to represent the Father and "Lord" (Kurios) to represent the Son though on a few occasions, they would switch the terms, referring to the Father as Kurios and the Son as Theos. Interestingly, they called Jesus Christ the Lord in the very same way old testament writers called the Father the Lord. It is also interesting to note that when new testament writers translated the Hebrew Tetragrammaton YHVH (Jehovah) they almost always translated it as Kurios (The Lord) a term they used to refer to Christ.

Their view of Jesus as Messiah justifies such usage, without any necessary implication that they therefore thought that he was God. Today, we refer to Judges in court as "My Lord." Kings, Princes, Dukes, Generals, Popes and Regents throughout history have been referred to by Christians as "My Lord." Also the use of the word 'Theos' does not prove anything here, because they regarded the messiah as being of Divine origin, and theos, as noted above does not carry an article. Being of Divine origin - the monogenes of God, does not make him God. Any more than you and I being of spiritual origin makes me you.

At all events I submit that this point is completely irrelevant to D1 and you are free to bring it up for thorough discussion wherever it is relevant.

Deep sight:
It certainly says that there is one
God only, and one mediator
between God and Men, the man
Christ Jesus.
It saddens me that your entire
rebuttal failed to take cognizance
of the key and overriding
importance of the meaning and
function of the word " mediator" in
the context of the words "between
God and men"

It me too. Why are we here in this academy? Is not to see A and D pieces each verse they present with explanations, So that those who support/oppose trinity will know how to do it well?

@Anony
Please let all quotes/explanations have a clear link back to the focal quote(s) so you don't go against the rule. If God is the mediator between God and men, state it clearly without digression.

@Deep

While I could say U did justice to the Romans 9:5 scripture, to me, U failed to answer Anony's point that D1 was telling us of Christ's function as a mediator and not referring to his deity as such.

DrummaBoy: @Deep

While I could say U did justice to the Romans 9:5 scripture, to me, U failed to answer Anony's point that D1 was telling us of Christ's function as a mediator and not referring to his deity as such.

I believe I answered that question if you will read my post again carefully. Based on the rules of posting I agreed with Anony, it would be wrong for me to take a second bite at the cherry: right now, its Anony's response to be given, and that will be the end of our treatment of the verse. I do not get to say anything further. I can only suggest that you read my post again carefully.

^OK... I will do that

Checked again and I guess this is the answer to my question

I respond by saying that the word "Father" whenever ascribed to God, would not contradict the word "God", but the word "mediator" will always contradict the word "God" in so far as it specifically goes on to say that this is a mediator between God and men.

Further, your hypothetical verse substituting the word "mediator" for the word "father' is a very bad mis-application indeed, because the word "father" corroborates the word "God" whereas the word "mediator" does not.

Your hypothetical text would certainly not read - "There is but one God, and one Father between God and Men", would it?

That resolves your rebuttal: your rebuttal is very clearly mis-footed, because it does not subsume the core of that which I pointed out - namely, the function of a role said to be of one between God and men.

I confess that maybe it is my ability or inability to comprehend the English but I still do not think it answers my question.

You need not answer it though as I believe as the thread progresses I would understand what need be understood, so as not to divert the thread. I want you, Deep, to go back to the rules at the beginning and state how we the students or viewers of this thread can come into the discourse without unnecessarily derailing the thread with comments or questions like mine. Since this a meant to be an academy with tutors or debaters and students or viewers.

Thanks.

That Jesus played a role of a mediator does not alter the meaning of the term. According to the detailed description giving by Deep sight on the term's meaning, we cannot say that Jesus or anyone can be any of the persons he mediates BETWEEN. That would be illogical. It is just like saying that M is MEDIATING BETWEEN A and B. And someone tells you that M is still A or B. How funny!

DrummaBoy: ^OK... I will do that

Checked again and I guess this is the answer to my question



I confess that maybe it is my ability or inability to comprehend the English but I still do not think it answers my question.

You need not answer it though as I believe as the thread progresses I would understand what need be understood, so as not to divert the thread. I want you, Deep, to go back to the rules at the beginning and state how we the students or viewers of this thread can come into the discourse without unnecessarily derailing the thread with comments or questions like mine. Since this a meant to be an academy with tutors or debaters and students or viewers.

Thanks.

Well, I proposed the rules, and for a reason too. I suppose that it would be inappropriate to dishonor the rules now, at least, not without anony's consent. We are not tutors o, (not by a mile!) we are all putting our heads together to see if we can unravel the trajectory of biblical teaching on this controversial matter.

You raise a valid concern about other participants throwing in questions. I feel that such questions may lead to unending responses from discussants and as such we may have trouble reaching closure on each verse and proceeding to the next verse.

I suggest we await Anony's suggestion on this problem. While I see how the rules stifle extra participation, I also fear that this will lead to a disintegration of the flow and the speedy progression. If I begin to answer your question for example, i may raise issues that Anony will have to respond to, and so on and so forth.

My suggestion will be that discussants be permitted, after each verse has been treated, to answer questions only by referring the questioner to the portions of their treatment of the verse that they believe address the question, if any.

^Fine with me

Deep Sight:

Well, I proposed the rules, and for a reason too. I suppose that it would be inappropriate to dishonor the rules now, at least, not without anony's consent. We are not tutors o, (not by a mile!) we are all putting our heads together to see if we can unravel the trajectory of biblical teaching on this controversial matter.

You raise a valid concern about other participants throwing in questions. I feel that such questions may lead to unending responses from discussants and as such we may have trouble reaching closure on each verse and proceeding to the next verse.

I suggest we await Anony's suggestion on this problem. While I see how the rules stifle extra participation, I also fear that this will lead to a disintegration of the flow and the speedy progression. If I begin to answer your question for example, i may raise issues that Anony will have to respond to, and so on and so forth.

My suggestion will be that discussants be permitted, after each verse has been treated, to answer questions only by referring the questioner to the portions of their treatment of the verse that they believe address the question, if any.

Thanks deepsight, hope Mr anony wouldnt mind, becos i have an observation to make on the issue you raised...

^^^ Please feel free to make your observations.

D1 - Response to Response to Rebuttal Part 1. (post was too long I've had to break it)

Deep Sight: D1 - Response to Rebuttal
I respond by saying that the word "Father" whenever ascribed to God, would not contradict the word "God", but the word "mediator" will always contradict the word "God" in so far as it specifically goes on to say that this is a mediator between God and men.

Further, your hypothetical verse substituting the word "mediator" for the word "father' is a very bad mis-application indeed, because the word "father" corroborates the word "God" whereas the word "mediator" does not.

Your hypothetical text would certainly not read - "There is but one God, and one Father between God and Men", would it?

That resolves your rebuttal: your rebuttal is very clearly mis-footed, because it does not subsume the core of that which I pointed out - namely, the function of a role said to be of one between God and men.

I think you missed the entire point I was making there; I wasn't substituting the word "father" for mediator in the same sentence and in the same context as 1Tim 2:5 rather I was pointing out to you that the "and" in the sentence does not necessarily lead us to the conclusion that Jesus Christ is not God especially if you hold that God is one being in three persons. One of the persons of God can easily play the role of mediator between God and men; even more so since He took the form of a man.

The argument which my rebuttal actually addressed - and which I noticed you didn't contest here - was your argument that a mediator cannot be of either party. This is what I rejected as untrue because a mediator is a role played and not the nature of the player.

By arguing here that"mediator" as used in "mediator between God and man" will contradict the word "God". You will also have to agree that it will equally contradict the word "man" in the same sense. Unless of course you come with a prior assumption that God can only be and only is one person of one being.

The latter part of Romans 9:5 is said to be a doxology, a piece of praise to God. Indeed in many translations, it appears as a separate statement saying "God be forever praised." This would however depend on the punctuation. It should be noted that the original Greek (which I re produce further-on below) had no punctuation therein, and as such is open to a number of varying interpretations depending on the punctuation used in the translation. For this reason, many Trinitarian Scholars do not depend on this verse in proof of the Trinity.

I should draw your attention to the way that this verse is rendered in the KJV - "Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen."(AV). The latter part of the verse is a piece of doxology to God the Father, praise and blessing on God for the coming of Christ. This is quite clear as you will see below.

You will see from the Scholastic Views and particularly the rendition of the Greek, I have excerpted below, that depending on the punctuation, there are a number of ways to read that verse: my contention will be that the overall thrust of comparative scripture on the deity of Christ must lead us to read it as a follow on doxology to God.

I will leave you with Scholastic views which affirm that which I am saying regarding the punctuation of that verse, and the reality that the latter part of that verse is actually a follow-on doxology, a piece of praise to God -

Scholastic Views:

"However, the Greek grammar of this verse allows for three possible translations and this is admitted by all reputable Trinitarian scholars. The key issue at Romans 9:5 essentially concerns punctuation. Paul did not use the modern punctuation conventions that we use today. He did not provide commas and periods in Romans 9:5 as translators conveniently give us and translators have three options open to them.

1. Christ according to the flesh who is God over all be blessed to the ages. Amen.

2. Christ according to the flesh who is over all. God be blessed to the ages. Amen.

3. Christ according to the flesh. God who is over all be blessed to the ages. Amen.

The actual Greek text reads, "kai ex wn o cristoV to kata sarka o wn epi pantwn qeoV euloghtoV eiV touV aiwnaV amhn," and comes out word for word in English as, "and out of whom the Christ according to flesh the one being over all God be blessed to the ages amen." No commas, no periods.

The verse can be, and should be, translated as "from whom the Christ according to the flesh. God who is over all be blessed to the ages. Amen.", or possibly but not likely, "from whom the Christ according to the flesh who is over all. God be blessed to the ages. Amen." The phrase "God be blessed to the ages" is a Pauline doxology."

[Some excerpts from, and more at - http://www.angelfire.com/space/thegospeltruth/trinity/verses/Rom9_5.html]

This is the EXACT Greek grammar rendition of the verse and its translation -

kai ex wn `o cristoV to kata sarka 'o
and out of whom the Christ the [one] according to flesh the [one]

wn epi pantwn qeoV euloghtoV eiV touV aiwnaV amhn
being over all God be blessed to the ages Amen

You can see very clearly that indeed, there is no punctuation and as such the natural reading should be that the latter part of the verse is a doxology to God.

This is VERY clear from the Greek word-for-word above.

This reading is further backed up by the fact that the term "the blessed one" is only ever used as a reference to God in the NT - The word eulogetes is variously translated as "be praised" or "be blessed." The "Blessed be" is the Jewish berakah, an ascription of praise to God the Father. (Mark 14:61), (Luke 1:68), (Romans 1:25), (2 Corinthians 1:3), (Ephesians 1:3), (1 Peter 1:3), (Romans 1:25), (2 Corinthians 11:31).

The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology:
"Rom. 9:5 is disputed...It would be easy, and linguistically perfectly possible to refer the expression to Christ. The verse would then read, 'Christ who is God over all, blessed for ever. Amen.' Even so, Christ would not be equated absolutely with God, but only described as a being of divine nature, for the word theos has no article. But this ascription of majesty does not occur anywhere else in Paul. The much more probable explanation is that the statement is a doxology directed to God."-(Grand Rapids, Mich.; 1976), Vol. 2, p.80.

John Ziesler in his book Pauline Christianity (Revised edition 1990, Oxford University Press 'Oxford Bible Series') comments:

"In facing the question of the relationship of Christ to Yahweh we must not outrun the evidence and read into Paul's language the Fourth Century definition of Christ as God the Son, co-equal and co-eternal, of one substance with the Father. Paul's language is one of the factors leading to that definition, and also part of the problem it attempted to solve, but it would be anachronistic to interpret his language in such later terms. Perhaps he preferred 'Lord' as a title because of its ambiguity, because it established Christ's relation to humanity, church, and cosmos, without too closely defining his relation to Yahweh. As a Jewish monotheist Paul would wish neither to be accused of believing in two Gods, nor that Yahweh died on the cross. The only place in the undisputed letters where he may equate Christ with God is Rom.9:5 if a full stop is not placed after 'Christ', so that it reads '...of their race...is the Christ who is God over all...' More probably it should read '....of their race...is the Christ. God who is over all be blessed....' -p.44

Anthony Buzzard, a Unitarian, in his book "The Doctrine of the Trinity--Christianity's Self-Inflicted Wound" wrote on page 268 quoting the great Catholic Renaissance writer, Erasmus; and note what Erasmus has to say regarding Romans 9:5:

"Those who contend that in this text[Rom.9:5] Christ is clearly termed God, either place little confidence in other passages of Scripture, deny all understanding to the Arians, or pay scarcely any attention to the style of the Apostle. A similar passage occurs in Second Corinthians 11:31: "The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who is blessed forever"; the latter clause being undeniably restricted to the Father."
(Quoted by Buzzard, but taken from "Works", ed. Jean Leclerc, 10 vols. Leiden)

The Expositor's Greek Testament by W. R. Nichol on pp 658, 659 states: "If we ask ourselves point blank, whether Paul, as we know his mind from his epistles, could express his sense of Christ's greatness by calling Him God blessed for ever, it seems to be almost impossible to answer in the affirmative. Such an asserion is not on the same plane with the conception of Christ which meets us everywhere in the Apostle's writings; and though there is some irregularity in the grammar, and perhaps some difficulty in seeing the point of a doxology, I agree with those who would put a colon or a period at SARKA, and make the words that follow refer not to Christ but to the Father."

[Excerpts From - http://onlytruegod.org/defense/romans9.5.htm]

[Excerpts From - http://onlytruegod.org/defense/romans9.5.htm]

This is quite interesting except that Romans 9:5 is not the only place that Paul clearly identifies Jesus as God, he does the same thing in Titus 2:13.

It is interesting to note that what you resorted to was an appeal to ignorance namely: "the new testament Greek had no punctuations and therefore we really cannot tell exactly which translation is proper. But then if this is true and Trinitarian translators have just given themselves freedom to put punctuations wherever they like in order to promote their doctrine, wouldn't the same be said about Unitarian translators putting a full stop where they like in order to promote their doctrine too?

For instance, after you laid out the Greek word for word transliteration, you said and I quote:

You can see very clearly that indeed, there is no punctuation and as such the natural reading should be that the latter part of the verse is a doxology to God.

My question to the part in bold is WHY? How do you make the jump from "there is no punctuation" to "therefore you should put a full stop where I tell you to".
I hope you can see that you are doing the exact same thing you accuse trinitarians of doing. You cannot recommend that the last part ought to be a doxology without having a prior assumption that Christ is not God.

---

RESPONSE TO YOUR ARGUMENT ON THE PROPER USE OF EULOGETOS AS ONLY IN REFERENCE TO THE FATHER.

Now let us move further to the reason you gave i.e. that eulogetes means "blessed" and corresponds to the Hebrew berakah and is only used in reference to God the Father.

I am happy to tell you that that is simply not true. The word eulogetos simply means blessing or to bless or blessed or adore or to speak a good word of e.t.c. it also appears in the forms eulogeo and eulogia. It is the word from which we derive the English word eulogy.

"eulogetos" in particular only appears 8 times in the New testament and they all refer to God (not necessarily exclusively the Father). But is this because eulogetos is reserved solely for God? or is it simply because that is just Greek grammar depicting different shades of meaning and that's how it happened to show up in the New Testament. Well let us see.

Consider these verses:

Eph 1:3 Blessed(eulogetos) be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed(eulogeo) us in Christ with every spiritual blessing(eulogia) in the heavenly places,

Rev 7:12 saying, "Amen! Blessing(eulogia) and glory and wisdom and thanksgiving and honor and power and might be to our God forever and ever! Amen."

Notice that in Ephesians, eulogetos is used to denote blessed in adjective form as ascribed to God, but then down the line when blessed is as a verb (i.e. God acting the blessing upon man), we now have eulogeo, even further down, we have blessings as a thing eulogia.

Note that in Revelations we see eulogia ascribed to God. This makes it clear that "eulogetos" is not some special divine word, it is only an adjective form of "blessed"

Compare also with "freedom" (eleutheros)

1Pe 2:16 Act as free(eleutheros) men, and do not use your freedom(eleutheria) as a covering for evil, but use it as bondslaves of God.

Rom 8:21 that the creation itself also will be set free(eleutheroō) from its slavery to corruption into the freedom(eleutheria) of the glory of the children of God.

free men(adjective) = eleutheros
freedom (noun) = eleutheria
to set free (verb) = eleutheroo

Also compare

philia = friendship
phileo = to befriend
philos = friend (noun)

Notice a pattern yet?

I bet I could also show you the same with the Hebrew berakah but I think I've done enough foreign language studies for one day however let me show you somewhere berakah is used.

Gen 32:26 Then he said, "Let me go, for the day has broken." But Jacob said, "I will not let you go unless you bless me."

Now compare with this with:

And he said, Let me go, for shachar breaketh. And he said, I will not let thee go, unless thou make a berakah upon me. (Othordox Jewish Bible)

Notice here that Jacob is asking for berakah for himself and he is granted by God. This further proves that berakah and eulogetos simply mean blessing and are not necessarily restricted to God in Greek and Hebrew grammar.

What you really want to look for if you were to make that argument properly is to show that God is eternally blessed in the sense that He is worthy of adoration eternally. And if you had tried to do that, you will once again be accosted with the person of Christ having this same eternal blessings, honor glory and might ascribed to the father as seen in Revelations 5:13

And every creature which is in heaven and on the earth and under the earth and such as are in the sea, and all that are in them, I heard saying:

“Blessing and honor and glory and power
Be to Him who sits on the throne,
And to the Lamb, forever and ever!”

---

To be continued...

D1 - Response to Response to Rebuttal Part 2.

RESPONSE TO YOUR REFERENCES

Also interesting were those references you cited who gave reasons why they think Romans 9:5 doesn't say Jesus is God.

1.

The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology:
"Rom. 9:5 is disputed...It would be easy, and linguistically perfectly possible to refer the expression to Christ. The verse would then read, 'Christ who is God over all, blessed for ever. Amen.' Even so, Christ would not be equated absolutely with God, but only described as a being of divine nature, for the word theos has no article. But this ascription of majesty does not occur anywhere else in Paul. The much more probable explanation is that the statement is a doxology directed to God."-(Grand Rapids, Mich.; 1976), Vol. 2, p.80.

Now this text here is very interesting because the author here concedes a few things
1. It is linguistically perfectly possible for Romans 9:5 to refer to Christ. but then he goes on to say
2. That it wouldn't prove that Christ is equal to the Father but it would prove that Christ is divine. What he missed was that to say that Christ is divine in nature is to say that Christ is worthy of worship ascribed to a deity (i.e Paul's doxology in that verse). According to Christian theology, there is only one being worthy of worship and that is God. To say that Christ is a divine being from Romans 9:5 is to say that Christ is indeed equal to God.
But then he goes on to write that this description of of majesty i.e. Paul referring to Christ as theos does not occur anywhere else in Paul's writings and he is wrong because Paul does exactly this in Titus 2:13 "looking for the blessed hope, and the appearance of the glory of our great God(theos) and Savior Jesus Christ,"

So you can clearly see that the opinion presented here is really quite wrong

We move on to your second reference

2.

John Ziesler in his book Pauline Christianity (Revised edition 1990, Oxford University Press 'Oxford Bible Series') comments:

"In facing the question of the relationship of Christ to Yahweh we must not outrun the evidence and read into Paul's language the Fourth Century definition of Christ as God the Son, co-equal and co-eternal, of one substance with the Father. Paul's language is one of the factors leading to that definition, and also part of the problem it attempted to solve, but it would be anachronistic to interpret his language in such later terms. Perhaps he preferred 'Lord' as a title because of its ambiguity, because it established Christ's relation to humanity, church, and cosmos, without too closely defining his relation to Yahweh. As a Jewish monotheist Paul would wish neither to be accused of believing in two Gods, nor that Yahweh died on the cross. The only place in the undisputed letters where he may equate Christ with God is Rom.9:5 if a full stop is not placed after 'Christ', so that it reads '...of their race...is the Christ who is God over all...' More probably it should read '....of their race...is the Christ. God who is over all be blessed....' -p.44

Notice the part in bold, Zeisler sneaks his belief that Christ was not seen as God the Son until the 4th century. This is simply a false belief that comes from the urban myth that it was at the council of Nicaea that Christ began to be seen as God. We can trace Christ being referred to as God right back to the earliest church fathers for instance, Ignatius of Antioch(AD 35 - 107) opens his letter to the Ephesians by saying:

"Ignatius, who is also Theophorus, unto her which hath been blessed in greatness through the plentitude of God the Father; which hath been foreordained before the ages to be forever and unto abiding and unchangeable glory, united and elect in a true passion, by the will of the Father and of Jesus Christ our God; even unto the church which is at Ephesus (of Asia), worthy of all felicitation; abundant greeting in Christ Jesus and in blameless joy.

While I welcomed in God [your] well beloved name which ye bear by natural right, [in an upright and virtuous mind], by faith and love in Christ Jesus our Savior--being imitators of God, and having your hearts kindled in the blood of God, ye have perfectly fulfilled your congenial work--"

Notice he even goes as far as to use the phrase the "blood of God" (in case you missed who he meant) and guess what; he is said to have written like this because he contended against the heresy of docetism which held that Christ did not come in the flesh but was God merely appearing as if He was a man and he tried to emphasize things like God bleeding because he wanted to make it clear that God was actually in the form of man(note that this is the same heresy contended against by John in 1 John 4:2).

Now why is that interesting? It is interesting because the heresy of docetism can only spring up if there is a prior belief that Jesus Christ is indeed God. Mind you this heresy is as early as the time of the apostles themselves. So to argue that by reading Romans 9:5 as the Son is God we are reading from a 4th century lens is simply false. The belief that the Son is God dates right back to the apostles themselves and hence Romans 9:5 identifying Christ as God fits perfectly.

3.

Anthony Buzzard, a Unitarian, in his book "The Doctrine of the Trinity--Christianity's Self-Inflicted Wound" wrote on page 268 quoting the great Catholic Renaissance writer, Erasmus; and note what Erasmus has to say regarding Romans 9:5:

"Those who contend that in this text[Rom.9:5] Christ is clearly termed God, either place little confidence in other passages of Scripture, deny all understanding to the Arians, or pay scarcely any attention to the style of the Apostle. A similar passage occurs in Second Corinthians 11:31: "The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who is blessed forever"; the latter clause being undeniably restricted to the Father."
(Quoted by Buzzard, but taken from "Works", ed. Jean Leclerc, 10 vols. Leiden)

Here I suspect Buzzard is quote-mining Erasmus. I couldn't find Erasmus' original text but as far as I know, Erasmus was not an Arian (Arians believed that Christ was a created being and therefore was not God). Since we know that Erasmus believed in the Trinity and would obviously be arguing against the Arians we should read the quote to mean:
Those who contend that in this text[Rom.9:5] Christ is clearly termed God, either place little confidence in other passages of Scripture (I think there are other passages of scripture that clearly prove Christ is God better than Romans 9:5), deny all understanding to the Arians (don't underestimate the Arians) or pay scarcely any attention to the style of the Apostle. A similar passage occurs in Second Corinthians 11:31: "The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who is blessed forever"; the latter clause being undeniably restricted to the Father." (According to Paul's style of writing, we can see that the clause eulogetos in 2Corinthians 11:31 clearly points to the Father therefore we should assume that when used in Romans 9:5 it also points to the Father)
Please note that Erasmus was contending against the Arians in the 16th century but let us look at someone who contended against the Arians in the time of Arius himself.

I present to you Athanasius(think athanasian creed) - who by the way wrote in the same Kione Greek as Paul - contended with Arius at the council of Nicaea in 325AD and he had this to say:

10. Which of the two theologies sets forth our Lord Jesus Christ as God and Son of the Father, this which you vomited forth, or that which we have spoken and maintain from the Scriptures? If the Saviour be not God, nor Word, nor Son, you shall have leave to say what you will, and so shall the Gentiles, and the present Jews. But if He be Word of the Father and true Son, and God from God, and 'over all blessed for ever,' is it not becoming to obliterate and blot out those other phrases and that Arian Thalia, as but a pattern of evil, a store of all irreligion, into which, whoso falls, 'knows not that giants perish with her, and reaches the depths of Hades ?' … (Athanasius, Discourse 1 Against the Arians)

1. The Word is God from God; for 'the Word was God,' and again, 'Of whom are the Fathers, and of whom Christ, who is God over all, blessed for ever. Amen.' And since Christ is God from God, and God's Word, Wisdom, Son, and Power, therefore but One God is declared in the divine Scriptures. For the Word, being Son of the One God, is referred to Him of whom also He is; so that Father and Son are two, yet the Monad of the Godhead is indivisible and inseparable.... (Discourse 4 Against the Arians)

10. For this reason they also will henceforth keep silence, who once said that He who proceeded from Mary is not very Christ, or Lord, or God. For if He were not God in the Body, how came He, upon proceeding from Mary, straightway to be called 'Emmanuel, which is being interpreted God with us ?' Why again, if the Word was not in the flesh, did Paul write to the Romans 'of whom is Christ after the flesh, Who is above all God blessed for ever. Amen?' Let them therefore confess, even they who previously denied that the Crucified was God, that they have erred; for the divine Scriptures bid them, and especially Thomas, who, after seeing upon Him the print of the nails, cried out 'My Lord and my God !' For the Son, being God, and Lord of glory, was in the Body which was ingloriously nailed and dishonoured; but the Body, while it suffered, being pierced on the tree, and water and blood flowed from its side, yet because it was a temple of the Word was filled full of the Godhead. For this reason it was that the sun, seeing its creator suffering in His outraged body, withdrew its rays and darkened the earth. But the body itself being of mortal nature, beyond its own nature rose again by reason of the Word which was in it; and it has ceased from natural corruption, and, having put on the Word which is above man, has become incorruptible. (Letter 59. To Epictetus)

Recognize the arguments he is making? they are from Romans 9:5 (note that he didn't read it in English, He read it in the same native Kione Greek that he spoke)

Just in case you think the Greek may have changed by 325AD, I'll show you even earlier church fathers who wrote natively in the very Kione Greek and therefore wouldn't have the punctuation problems we have today but yet they made the same arguments using Romans 9:5.

Tertullian (160-225)

...For it was only right that Christians should shine in the world as children of light, adoring and invoking Him who is the One God and Lord as the light of the world. Besides, if, from that perfect knowledge which assures us that the title of God and Lord is suitable both to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit, we were to invoke a plurality of gods and lords, we should quench our torches, and we should become less courageous to endure the martyr’s sufferings, from which an easy escape would everywhere lie open to us, as soon as we swore by a plurality of gods and lords, as sundry heretics do, who hold more gods than One. I will therefore not speak of gods at all, nor of lords, but I shall follow the apostle; so that if the Father and the Son, are alike to be invoked, I shall call the Father God, and invoke Jesus Christ as Lord. But when Christ alone (is mentioned), I shall be able to call Him God, as the same apostle says: Of whom is Christ, who is over all, God blessed for ever. (Chapter 13, Against Preaxas)


Hippolytus (170-235)

6. Let us look next at the apostle's word: "Whose are the fathers, of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever." This word declares the mystery of the truth rightly and clearly. He who is over all is God; for thus He speaks boldly, "All things are delivered unto me of my Father." He who is over all, God blessed, has been born; and having been made man, He is (yet) God for ever. For to this effect John also has said, "Which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty." And well has he named Christ the Almighty.... (Against the Heresy of One Noetus)


I hope you have noticed from the above that as early as the second century AD people who were reading Romans 9:5 in the original language understood it as a confirmation of Christ's deity. They did not have the translator's problem we have today. In fact when read in context you would find that Hippolytus was arguing against Noetus, they were both agreed on the deity of Christ (in fact it was Noetus that first brought up the verse because he believed that the verse meant that the Father is the same person as Christ) Hippolytus was only correcting Noetus that the Father was not the same person as the Son but the Father and Son are two persons of one God.

It is remarkable how those who actually spoke the original language knew that Paul was clearly identifying Christ as God in Romans 9:5


4.

The Expositor's Greek Testament by W. R. Nichol on pp 658, 659 states: "If we ask ourselves point blank, whether Paul, as we know his mind from his epistles, could express his sense of Christ's greatness by calling Him God blessed for ever, it seems to be almost impossible to answer in the affirmative. Such an asserion is not on the same plane with the conception of Christ which meets us everywhere in the Apostle's writings; and though there is some irregularity in the grammar, and perhaps some difficulty in seeing the point of a doxology, I agree with those who would put a colon or a period at SARKA, and make the words that follow refer not to Christ but to the Father."

Once again we see another author running free with his assumptions. How can he say even talk about knowing the mind of Paul from his writings when he has interpreted the writings to his own tastes? He even willing to ignore the irregularity in the grammar just to force his conclusion from his special "knowledge" of Paul's mind. Isn't this precisely what you have accused me of doing in 1Tim 2:5? Wouldn't you agree that he has broken the literal rule especially since those who actually natively spoke the original language read it clearly as an affirmation that Paul was definitely referring to Christ as deity?

Also consider Tertullian's statement about using "Lord"(Kyrios) for Christ and "God"(theos) for the Father in order to differentiate between the two. Consider Ignatius' disregard for this convention, read through the New testament and notice how often Christ is referred to as The Lord (not "a lord" or "one of the lords" but "the Lord of Lords" himself) consider also who else bears that title (compare 1Tim 6:15 and Revelations 17:14). Read the old testament and see who else is exclusively referred to as The Lord. Finally pay close attention to how Paul refers to Christ as The Lord. By this time, it should be clear to you that Paul could not possibly have seen Christ as something other than God. If it is still not clear, don't worry we have 38 verses more to go to help us clarify it.

I believe that my argument above has shown without a shadow of doubt Paul firmly believed that Christ is God and therefore 1Tim 2:5 could not possibly have meant that Christ is not God unless Paul was shamelessly contradicting himself.

Conclusively, the key point regarding Romans 9:5 is that Paul does not use punctuation as you have seen in the Greek above. Translators therefore liberally punctuate the verse to deliver different meanings. My conclusive point is that the Greek, without punctuation, does not disclose a statement that Jesus is God. This is clear and indisputable.

Kione Greek did not have punctuations like modern English does. Since your whole objection depends on a translator's error, I have taken the pains to go beyond the translators and yet we find that even the native speakers of the language read the statement to mean that Jesus is God. This has rendered your point null and void.

It certainly says that there is one God only, [size=16pt]and[/size] one mediator [size=16pt]between[/size] God and Men, the man Christ Jesus.

It saddens me that your entire rebuttal failed to take cognizance of the key and overriding importance of the meaning and function of the word "mediator" in the context of the words "between God and men"

I did, I understood exactly what that verse said. I have also shown you that the said verse does not contradict Trinity at all. If God is one Being in three Persons, a Person of God can and did take on the form of a man so as to reconcile mankind to God. His name is Jesus Christ

It is in fact all over the New Testament and in the very words of Christ himself.

Lol, It will be interesting to see you show Christ explicitly deny that His Deity from the New Testament. Anyway moving on

The only way you could have read D1 the way you did is the fact that you are starting from a rigid and dogmatic position which holds that regardless of what you see in scripture, and no matter how clearly it is spelt-out, Christ is and must remain God.

I would caution you against this: do not uphold your pre conceived dogma over plain and evident scripture. Remember the Literal rule.

Now that I have shown you that Paul did in fact believe that Christ is God. Will you also follow the literal rule? Or do you believe that the quality of being "literal" is the same as having a prior assumption that Unitarianism is true by default? I would caution you against assuming the initial point which is being disputed.

We have not established that God is one person of one being, we are still disputing it. Please do not assume it by default and then proceed to quoting scripture to prove what you have already assumed initially, that is circular reasoning, my friend.

Their view of Jesus as Messiah justifies such usage, without any necessary implication that they therefore thought that he was God. Today, we refer to Judges in court as "My Lord." Kings, Princes, Dukes, Generals, Popes and Regents throughout history have been referred to by Christians as "My Lord." Also the use of the word 'Theos' does not prove anything here, because they regarded the messiah as being of Divine origin, and theos, as noted above does not carry an article. Being of Divine origin - the monogenes of God, does not make him God. Any more than you and I being of spiritual origin makes me you.

At all events I submit that this point is completely irrelevant to D1 and you are free to bring it up for thorough discussion wherever it is relevant.

That's a fair remark but it should be noted that I posted that as an aside so as to give us some context. I don't agree with your objection here but I will not push it further so as not to throw us on a tangent. I will further employ it as we move along though.

A2 coming up soon....ok, not so soon. it took me a whole day and half to type up my last post (if only I had the same dedication when writing my dissertation. lol)

Deep Sight:

Well, I proposed the rules, and for a reason too. I suppose that it would be inappropriate to dishonor the rules now, at least, not without anony's consent. We are not tutors o, (not by a mile!) we are all putting our heads together to see if we can unravel the trajectory of biblical teaching on this controversial matter.

You raise a valid concern about other participants throwing in questions. I feel that such questions may lead to unending responses from discussants and as such we may have trouble reaching closure on each verse and proceeding to the next verse.

I suggest we await Anony's suggestion on this problem. While I see how the rules stifle extra participation, I also fear that this will lead to a disintegration of the flow and the speedy progression. If I begin to answer your question for example, i may raise issues that Anony will have to respond to, and so on and so forth.

My suggestion will be that discussants be permitted, after each verse has been treated, to answer questions only by referring the questioner to the portions of their treatment of the verse that they believe address the question, if any.

I think I agree with you. I believe responding to questions will drag this exercise in all sorts of directions. I'm afraid it's the price we might just have to pay here. There are countless threads on Trinity that have gone round and round and back and forth to no avail. I wouldn't want this thread to be one of them.

Thank you for your very robust final response on D1, which I am still digesting. As per our rules, I can have no further comment until our concluding remarks at the end of the thread.

D1 has now been fully treated.

I would like to make a proposal on your treatment of A2. It seems to me to be similar in character to A1 - in that it is like a list of three. As such, I feel that you might end up repeating yourself. Can we take your comments on A1 to be mirrored in A2, and as such move on straight to the more substantive A3?

Nevertheless, I might be jumping the gun. Perhaps you might have an angle or a spin on A2 that I have not anticipated. I await you sire.

Mr anony:
I think I agree with you. I believe responding to questions will drag this exercise in all sorts of directions. I'm afraid it's the price we might just have to pay here. There are countless threads on Trinity that have gone round and round and back and forth to no avail. I wouldn't want this thread to be one of them.

Deepsight i hope you would agree and stay on course, And i prefer to hold my questions. Thanks to Mr Anony and Deepsight for this intelligent presentation of facts. May God open our eyes ever more Amen

Mr anony: ..... Zeisler sneaks his belief that Christ was not seen as God the Son until the 4th century. This is simply a false belief that comes from the urban myth that it was at the council of Nicaea that Christ began to be seen as God. We can trace Christ being referred to as God right back to the earliest church fathers .....

Cf. from here https://www.nairaland.com/497445/trinity-doctrine-invented-council-meeting/2#7181702

Enigma: ..... I would argue that it should be clear that to maintain or insist that the 'Trinity' was 'invented' at a council meeting smacks of either ignorance or intellectual dishonesty if not indeed intellectual fraud.....

Anony:
the sentence does
not necessarily lead us to the
conclusion that Jesus Christ is not
God especially if you hold that God
is one being in three persons. One
of the persons of God can easily
play the role of mediator between
God and men; even more so since
He took the form of a man.
The argument which my rebuttal
actually addressed - and which I
noticed you didn't contest here -
was your argument that a
mediator cannot be of either party.
This is what I rejected as untrue
because a mediator is a role played
and not the nature of the player.

this is actually the comment that try to validate trinity with respect to D1(1Tim 2:5).

Instead of one mediator who is Jesus according to how it was written, anony in his wisdom said that any person in the trinity can be the mediator. In other words, the Father can play the role of a mediator.

As Jesus is playing the role of a mediator, it will now remain 2 persons in one God. Therefore Christ is mediating between one God(2 persons) and men.

I hope we are learning?