Yes, I reject the variant. "Theos" was clearly not written by Paul. And strangely enough, it was never brought up during the Arian controversy of the 4th Century. What's also worth noting is what "godliness" means here, as it is not a cognate to "god." The word is more to do with right worship unto God. Who displayed that - God, or Yeshua? The answer is pretty straightforward.
As for your other verses you mentioned, it would be much simpler for me to link you to a site which goes into considerable detail. However, I would not want to get into any strife by posting a website to what some may see as teaching "unbiblical" doctrine. So... If you're interested, google "trinity delusion." It's the first link there.
Hebrews 1:8
Standard Trinitarian bias here. If we do a literal translation:
"unto however the son the throne of you the god"
Granted, that doesn't make much sense. But what this shows is that the standard Greek definite article, "ho," has been oddly translated as "o" instead of "the." There really is no basis to do that.
Furthermore, if we consider the context of where this verse appears in the OT - Psalm 45 - we'll see that the typical Trinitarian translation sticks out like a sore thumb:
"My heart is inditing a good matter: I speak of the things which I have made touching the king: my tongue is the pen of a ready writer.2 Thou art fairer than the children of men: grace is poured into thy lips: therefore God hath blessed thee for ever.
3 Gird thy sword upon thy thigh, O most mighty, with thy glory and thy majesty.
4 And in thy majesty ride prosperously because of truth and meekness and righteousness; and thy right hand shall teach thee terrible things.
5 Thine arrows are sharp in the heart of the king's enemies; whereby the people fall under thee.
6 Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: the sceptre of thy kingdom is a right sceptre.
7 Thou lovest righteousness, and hatest wickedness: therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows."
This psalm was dedicated to the marriage of the king of Israel (some say Solomon, others say David). Verses 1-5 are speaking of this king, as well as verse 7. Now doesn't verse 6 look out of place? Is this Davidic king being referred to as God/god, or is it merely a future (Godman) Messianic prophecy? I don't believe either is the case. Instead, I put forward that we have a biased translation.
It's interesting to note that the RSV, a Trinitarian translation, has decided to buck the trend here in its translation:
"Your divine throne endures for ever and ever. Your royal scepter is a scepter of equity;"
However, of course the translators of the RSV couldn't be seen denying this as a proof-text, and so they revert back to the standard Trinitarian translation back in Hebrews 1:8:
"But of the Son he says, "Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever, the righteous scepter is the scepter of thy kingdom."
Let's have a look at the Jewish Bible's take on the verse found in Psalm 45, by the Jewish Publication Society:
"Thy throne given of G-d is for ever and ever; a sceptre of equity is the sceptre of thy kingdom."
With that, I believe this verse is talking about the king sitting on the throne of God. And this is very well supported, both for this Davidic king, and for Yeshua:
"Then Solomon sat on the throne of the Lord as king instead of David his father, and prospered; and all Israel obeyed him." (1 Chronicles 29:23)
"To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne." (Revelation 3:21)
Hebrews 1:10
Contrary to popular view, I see this as not God saying a second thing to the Son, but actually a new argument introduced by the writer: "Lord" here is in reference to God, not the Son. Again, let's go back to the source of this verse:
"24 I said, O my God, take me not away in the midst of my days: thy years are throughout all generations.
25 Of old hast thou laid the foundation of the earth: and the heavens are the work of thy hands." (Psalm 102:24-25)
So clearly the writer has in mind God. All of Hebrews 1 is about the fact that God exalted a man above the angels. Read on to Hebrews 1:13:
"But to which of the angels said he at any time, Sit on my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool?"
What is the antecedent for the pronoun "he" here? It's found in verse 10: "Lord." This "he," of course, is the Father, so verse 10 is referring to that same Person. Again, more on this is found on that Trinity Delusion site.
John 14:6-106 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
7 If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him.
8 Philip saith unto him, Lord, show us the Father, and it sufficeth us.
9 Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Show us the Father?
10 Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.
This one is pretty straightforward.
Verse 6: Yeshua distinguishes himself from the Father, who he identified as "the only true God" (John 17:3). For him to be the way, the truth and the life is because God had anointed and appointed him for that purpose.
Verse 7: Yeshua, through his amazing relationship with God, revealed his God and Father to his audience. So if one doesn't know him they certainly won't know his Father.
Verse 8: No need for explanation, right?
Verse 9: Yeshua is the express image of the invisible God.
Verse 10: Yeshua explains his statement made in verse 9 - it's the Father's words and works which are being said and done through him. A helpful analogy here is to think of the wind: You can't see the wind, but you can see the effect it has. Yeshua taught that to see him was to see his Father, because of the words and works were his Father's - not his own.
Matthew 1:23, Isaiah 7:14"23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us."
"14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel."
At this point I'm just going to quote a portion of on the corresponding article found on the Trinity Delusion website:
1.
Isaiah Provided the Decisive Answer
If we look at Isaiah 8:8-10, another occurrence of the name "Immanuel," we can clearly also see here that the name Immanuel was intended to mean "God with us" in plan and purpose.
Then it will sweep on into Judah, it will overflow and pass through, It will reach even to the neck; And the spread of its wings will fill the breadth of your land, O Immanuel. Be broken, O peoples, and be shattered; And give ear, all remote places of the earth. Gird yourselves, yet be shattered; Gird yourselves, yet be shattered. Devise a plan, but it will be thwarted; State a purpose, but it will not stand, For God is with us" (Lit. Immanuel). (Isaiah 8:8-10).
2.
God WITH His People
The Bible tells us that God was "with" his people many, many times and it never meant God was occupying the same space they occupied. And there isn't any reason whatsoever to think Matthew had this in mind either. Yahweh was said to be with his people in the Old Testament and it is a reference to God being with them in plan and purpose (Psalm 46:5-7; Haggai 2:4). In fact, at 2 Chronicles 13:12 we are told God was "with" Israel but no one assumes it means Yahweh was occupying their common space (Also see 2 Chron 15:2; 20:17). David says that although he walks through the valley of the shadow of death he fears no evil, because YHWH is "with him" (Ps 23:4). These references all mean that God is with His people in plan and purpose.
And when we come to the New Testament, and explore what it has to say concerning Jesus, this becomes even more abundantly clear. At John 3:2, Nicodemus remarks that he felt God was "with" Jesus because of the miracles he had done. Indeed, Jesus tells us plainly that he drove out demons not by himself but by "the Spirit of God" (Matthew 12:28), and that it is God the Father "in him" that does the works (John 14:10). Indeed, Peter also tells us plainly that
God preached the good news of peace and did miracles
through Jesus (Luke 8:39 24:19; Acts 2:22; 10:36,38; see Lk 24:20). God was with Israel in the sense that he was with them in plan and purpose in the activity of His Messiah Jesus.
At Luke 7:16 where Jesus rose a young man from the dead, we are plainly told, "They were all filled with awe and praised God. 'A great prophet has appeared among us,' they even said, '
God has come to help his people.'" No one seriously interprets this particular verse to mean Jesus was God and had come to raise this young man from the dead. In the very same way, Matthew tells us that God has come to save his people through his Son who is to be named "YHWH saves" and in this way the child is "God with us" because through this child God was with his people in the plan and purpose of salvation. It is plainly obvious to anyone who embraces the truth instead of clinging to a man-made tradition, that the term "God with us" refers not to the idea that "Jesus is God" but to the idea that God was with Israel in plan and purpose by sending His Son to them. The overwhelming force of Scripture, the immediate context of the passage, and the facts behind the origin of the quotation, demand we comprehend the name "God with us" in the sense of
plan and purpose. Matthew was speaking in terms of God's function, not his geographic location.
The idea here in Matthew is to indicate God was with his people Israel in the plan and purpose of their salvation,
not in the sense of being with them geographically. Let us get at the real truth of the matter here. If we back up just a little bit to verse 1:21 in Matthew, we will see that the angel tells Joseph that the child born to Mary is to be called "Yahweh saves" (Jesus) because he will "save his people from their sins." Now let us stop and think about that for one second. They named the child "YHWH saves." Obviously, the name "YHWH saves," given to the promised child, was to reflect back to the fact that God was going to save his people from their sins through this child, his son,
God's salvation. The name "Immanuel" refers to His plan and purpose for his son. And "God with us" is also meant to convey the same idea that God was with them in the purposeful sense of saving them from their sins through his son Jesus. This is
how Yahweh was "with" Israel. Yahweh God was saving his people from their sins and in this way is "with them." It is a matter of plan and purpose, not a matter of God's location. The name "Immanuel" or "God with us" is intended to refer to
what God was doing rather than
where he was. He was "with his people" in the sense that He sent his Son to save them and was "with" them in that plan and purpose.
