Olde English

I'd like to think that you were drawn to this site to help the likes of me out, a self confessed non Trinitarian, who has always been in the minority here. I guess I see myself as possibly ... entering through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction - Matthew 7:13-14. I could downvote each and every one of the answers here (excepting your own) without saying another word (here anyways), but then how would that help those that may, but then not necessarily, have gotten themselves lost on the way. FWIW, you now have my (up)vote at least.

Another good Q., + 1. The literal translation for (doubting) Thomas' expression, an outsized expression to be sure, is:- "The Lord of me and the God (ho Theos) of me!". Although Thomas here, addresses Jesus as "my God", with a capital (G), he's truly excited and consequently overly expresses Jesus' own divinity. Thomas undoubtedly (no pun intended) knew that Jesus was not the Almighty God, not "the only true God," to whom Thomas had often heard Jesus pray. (Joh 17: 1-3).

His spiritual awareness inspired him (the owner) - You nailed it, + 1.

We are probably going to have to go to a "Chat" room regarding this discussion as to Jesus' true identity but, and with all due respect, I've already spent more than enough time with you. I will say this now though and then be done with it. The actual Greek wording for John 1:1c is:- and (g)od (predicate noun) was (after noun verb) the Word (subject). What's in brackets has specific meaning as to semantics, which will take too long to go into here. John does make it abundantly clear the (d)eity of Jesus, but just with a small (d) rather than a large (D). As to the HS ....

@LifeOfVerses - The (d)eity of Jesus is not in question. He (previously "The Word/Logos") was the "Only Begotten" of God after all and therefore inherently divine, but just with a small (d) and not a large (D). Whether the "I am" is "Ego eimi" or "Eh yeh", and yes first person singular, makes no difference to the semantics. One has to be of the "Trinitarian" - which is what I suspect you are - belief, in order to believe that whenever Jesus says "I am" He's admitting that He is (G)od and I am not of that belief, but most on this site are. I hope God blesses you too, regardless.

Apologies accepted. But again, the Q., is with regard to John 20:28. If you go below and to the left and click on "Tour", you'll be able to see how this site works and how it's desirable to stay on point and also give a fuller accounting. Just giving three sentences doesn't really cut it.

A little disrespectful here! You have clearly missed the point that I was trying to make. You brought up John 8:58 to try and infer that Jesus, by using the words "I am", was and quote:-referring to Himself using the Holy name of God. I then explained what all that truly meant, whether in Hebrew or Greek. For the Jews to then want to stone Him, is beside the point. Also, the verse in question is John 20:28, not John 8:58, or John 8:59 for that matter. If you want to continue on this site, you should try and be more respectful when a long standing member tries to help you.

@LifeOfVerses - Sorry to burst your bubble here but the "I am" in John 8:58, is best translated as "I have been", even though "Ego eimi" is clearly stated in the Greek. The action expressed by this basic verb began in the past, is still in progress, and is properly translated by the perfect indicative - It is not the same as Exodus 3:14 - See App 2F, pg. 1145/6, of:- The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures. Jesus, known from the beginning of the World as "The Word/Logos" of God, was obviously existing long before Abraham even came into existence.

@Wyrsa - I guess sometimes one just can't help some people. Now you are just being annoying. Anything else you say will just be ignored. Goodbye!!

What may have influenced these churches further is of no concern to me. The fact that Gabriel is actually mentioned in the canonical scriptures, without Archangel status should be very telling, just not to you I guess.

@Wyrsa - There are several reasons why the book of Enoch was not considered "Canonical", the main reason being that it is demonstratively false, a fanciful tale at best, written anonymously some 3000 thousand years after the patriarch walked the earth. While I can't speak with any authority with regard to the Eastern Orthodox and Western traditions, I would surmise that they may well have been, initially at least, influenced by same.

Not direct you say?? You should reread what I have said previously. Think "Theophany" .....

There's before Common Era, or Before Christ (BC) and there's after Common Era (CE, or AD). I guess I should have excluded before John the Baptist and Jesus' ministry.

With regard to the "firstborn of creation", see my recent answer on Colossians 1:16, which also covers 1:15, not to mention other related answers.

4) Human.

3) Angel.

2) Archangel (also divine).

1) Divine.

One actually has:-

The typical angels were indeed created, but Michael, being the one and only Archangel was, as I've already stated, actually begotten and not created. There is a difference.

Some, if not all, these verses you quote at the beginning of your further discourse, have been tackled by me either on this site or elsewhere. It's all, well not all - as some verses are of dubious translation - a matter of interpretation.

I don't wish to get into a protracted conversation here, so I will just add the following and then that's probably it from me.

As for OneGodOneLord claiming that the various angels in Revelation are also Christ, I, myself, certainly do not believe that.

In short I believe, fearlessly even, that the Trinity concept is not only just a fallacy, born out of paganism, but that it is quite possibly the BIGGEST HOAX of the whole of the Common Era .....

At the end of your discourse, you quote Matt, 21:19, but I think you meant Matt, 28:19, which actually has the "baptismal formula". This however, on recent learning, was apparently not in the original Hebrew transcript of Matthew, according to one Professor James D Tabor, who insinuates that this formula had to have been added when the Greek was compiled, to insidiously promote the Trinity.

If the so called Holy Spirit (again capitalizations not mine) doesn't have an all important name, as God and his Son most definitely have, then we can't really be talkingpersonhood, now can we, really. Let's be honest and real, we have to be talking Active Force.

Note to the Holy Spirit -

It is true that some early church fathers, such as Irenaeus, Ignatious and Clement had designs on Trinitarianism, but as far as the Apostles were concerned, I don't think so. The gospel writers and the Apostle Paul are NOT found to be explaining this doctrine, a doctrine supposedly so worthy, you would expect to be soundly explicated, but it clearly wasn't.

The Binity of God and the Son, as one co-divinity was however consolidated, which won out against Arianism, which then, quite wrongly IMO, was considered Heresy.

God and Jesus are two distinctly separate spiritual beings, both with true divinity, their oneness being in nature. 325 AD (not BC, my bad) was actually not when the Trinity belief was consolidated, as the matter of the spiritual personage of the so called Holy Spirit (capitalizations not mine) wasn't even debated, that came several decades later.

@Wyrsa - With all due respect, ... if God didn't incarnate as a human, there is no direct connection between God and humanity. Really! The only begotten god, i.e. the actual Son of God, known as the Word/Logos at the time, was the actual incarnated one, who then became the human that was Jesus Christ - the Word/Logos and Michael the Archangel being one and the same - who then made that, albeit indirectly, connection between God and humanity, as God's true and authentic sole mediator.

... and not just mine, does not change the gospel from hope to darkness, but actually changes it from darkness to hope. I, personally, see things so much more clearly now. Sorry, did not mean to go on for so long but there we are ....

...ctd... The belief in Angelomorphic Christology, while never accepted by that church, or even Protestantism - which was the first real break in the so called "Sacred Tradition" - came about with the advent of further break out religions, in the Christian theme, most predominant of whom were the JW's, who not only brought this AC belief to the fore but also, rightly I might add, questioned the long held concept of the "Trinity", that had been the core concept of religious understanding for some 1500 years. The wheel now having turned full circle, to my mind at least ...tbc further ...

The wheel, as you say, was reinvented in the 4th Century, starting with the council of Nicea, in 325 BC. The falsity of religious belief got only worse from there. Then when the Catholic Church emerged out of the Caesaro-papism era in 538 AD to become the sole authority in all things religious, at least as it pertained to Christianity, they proceeded to make alterations in times and in law ... for a time, times, and half a time (1260 years) Dan, 7:25. Napolean, in 1798, brought at least a temporary halt to that abuse of power....tbc...

Although I aligned myself with the latter on this score, that doesn't mean to say that I would align, or have aligned, myself with them on other matters of scripture. One has to be able to think for ones self, at least to a certain extent, which is why I have been unaligned with any church for over 30 years now. While I can't exactly speak for CSE, I can certainly speak for BHSE, which I believe to be very much independent of such hierarchy.

It all reads perfectly fine if one is able to consider that Christ and Michael are one, but of course you won't entertain that idea and that's why you have difficulty in the understanding thereof.

"Eternally begotten is a biblical doctrine that ... etc ... etc ..." It is only a biblical doctrine in trinitarian circles. The verses you have now referenced, may be scriptorial facts but the explanations of same are left wanting, IOW, they are a matter of opinion. John 17:24 talks about worldly creation, which is after the creation of the heavens, initially started by God alone, as per the early verses of Gen, 1. The Word, that later became the fleshly Jesus had to have been begotten sometime between Gen, 1:3 and Gen, 1:26.

@Dottard - Strongs 3439 - Monogenes: Only begotten, unique, one and only. Usage: most notably used to describe Jesus Christ as the "only begotten", son of God, emphasizing (not strictly depicting) his unique divine sonship and the singularity of his relationship with the Father. As for the difference between made and begotten, well one quite frankly really needs to go outside of Christianity, in order to get away from the "Trinitarian" biased explanation of the difference, as that only serves to mislead.

One need look no further than John 1:14 and 18, which speak to Jesus being the "only begotten" of the Father. As to Jesus being "eternally begotten", well, that's asking for more of an opinion - which then depends on one's belief system - rather than a truly scriptorial fact.

@JsWitness - WJ also gave an answer - incorporating much of what he has said here - along with further numerous comments, to the Q., I just recently linked in commenting to you also, here. In fact WJ and I had a back and forth regarding same which may, or may not, be worth your further perusal.

Very well delineated indeed! Upvoted, + 1. While I don't agree with all that the JW movement advocates (studied with them, off and on, for around 18 months, but this was over 30 years ago now), I can totally agree with you, here. You can see my answer to a similar Q. within the following:- hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/97771/… ... See also my comment, above, under the OP's Q.

Also, your penultimate paragraph, as to the start and end of the 490 years is spot on.

While I could never agree with your explanation of the clay, referred to in Daniel's 2nd Chapter, I can certainly go along with this answer. Well done, upvoted + 1.

@RyanPierceWilliams - On reflection, I see that I was a little hasty with my upvote. If I could take it back I would. In my haste, I misread your Q. The favorable acknowledgements to Dottard's comments are all mine. You would do well to reconsider your own comments.

Gabriel is also an Angel of the Lord but Gabriel is not divine.

Have you heard of the term "Theophany", when God speaks but through the Angel of the Lord.

Well, Jesus and therefore the Archangel Michael are divine by virtue of being the "Only Begotten" John 1:14, 1:18, when in the guise of "The Word".

Ok! What concerns you?

We could go to "Chat", although it's 12:38 AM here in Colorado right now and I am about to hit the sack, so until tomorrow I guess??

It's a little early in our relationship to be emailing. In the 4 1/2 years of me being a member on this site only 2 (long standing with high reputation) members have my email. With all due respect, I don't know you from Adam. You don't even have a profile of yourself ....