John 1:1c -:- Is Jesus God or a god?

[JWDisciple]

You wrote :


The Mantey letter is everyday knowledge to bible students. There are numerous copies of it on the net, I just linked to the first one my google search "mantey letter" provided.

It is obvious that you are accumulating your argument from WT&TS publications (which I also have), so Mantey's letter is very relevent = the WT&TS main justification for the "a god" rendering comes from a remark by Mantey on classical Greek (see NWTI page 1158).

If the WT&TS had rendered "was god" as you suggested there would have been no outcry from a scholastic perspective. However, "was a god" does not bring out the sense of the Greek. Hence the scholastic protest.

Franz and the other members of the NWT translation committee were well aware that John 1:1c is qualitive (just as Mantey says). However, they chose to make a dogmatic rendering based on spurious reasoning. It is true that much of their prose, argues the text is qualitive and quotes lots of authorities. However, have a close read of the WT&TS reasoning on why they rendered "a god". Their only justification (almost a by-line) is found in classical not biblical Greek. The rest of their justification is clouded in deceptive prose. For instance they say: "The proposition 'And the word was a god' is a convertible one". That maybe true in English but the Greek does not provide a convertible proposition.

As you seem not to have read the early parts of the thread, I'll repeat something from" page 1.
Harner
From Phillip B. Harner's study in the aticle "Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns: Mark 15:39 and John 1:1." (Journal of Biblical Literature, 1973, v92, p. 75-87)...

Harner stresses that when considering whether a pre-verbal predicate noun is definite, indefinite, or qualitative, it is important to consider how the writer might have expressed his intentions using another, and possibly less ambiguous, syntax as well as what he actually wrote. Thus, with John 1:1c, Harner notes the following possibilities:

A. o theos ēn o logos
B. theos ēn o logos
C. o logos theos ēn
D. o logos ēn theos
E. o logos ēn theios


"Clause A, with an arthrous predicate, would mean that logos and theos are equivalent and interchangeable. There would be no ho theos which is not also ho logos. But this equation of the two would contradict [John 1:1b], in which John writes that o logos V hn proV ton qeon. This clause suggests relationship, and thus some form of "personal" differentiation, between the two.

[Harner, is in agreement with Robertson, Dana-Mantey, and most other scholars that if both theos and logos were articular (both have the definite article), the two terms would be convertible. Since John did not use this syntax, his intended meaning must be something else.]

Clause D, with the verb preceding an anarthrous predicate, would probably mean that the logos was "a god" or a divine being of some kind, belonging to the general category of theos but as a distinct being from ho theos. Clause E would be an attenuated form of D. It would mean that the logos was "divine," without specifying further in what way or to what extent it was divine. It could also imply that the logos, being only theios, was subordinate to theos

Clauses B and C, with an anarthrous predicate preceding the verb, are primarily qualitative in meaning. They indicate that the logos has the nature of theos. There is no basis for regarding the predicate theos as definite...

As John has just spoken in terms of relationship and differentiation between ho logos and ho theos, he would imply in B or C that they share the same nature as belonging to the reality theos. Clauses B and C are identical in meaning but differ slightly in emphasis. C would mean that the logos (rather than something else) had the nature of theos. B means that the logos had the nature of theos (rather than something else). In this clause, the form that John actually uses, the word theos is placed at the beginning for emphasis." (p.84-85)

Harner translates John 1:1c as "The Word had the same nature as God". (p.87)

© source where applicable


Originally posted by JWDisciple
I more than adequately demonstrated that an indefinite rendering is grammatically sound. Such an indefinite use is not uncommon for predicate nominatives , within the Gospel of John as the following examples demonstrate.

4:19 – a prophet
6:70 – a devil
8:44 – a murderer
8:44 – a liar
8:48 – a Samaritan
9:17 – a prophet
10:1 – a thief
10:13 – a hired man
10:33 – a man
12:6 - a thief
18:37 – a king
I'm sure you'd agree that 1 John 4:8 should not be rendered "God is a love" (even the NWT renders "God is love").

It is the structure of John 1:1 that is the issue not an isolated noun without an article..........

( You even went as far as copying and pasting the copyright symbol of the article ..How easy it is to engage someone on this forum , by simply going to articles online and copying and pasting other people's work ..If I could do the same , if would be fantastic , but unfortunately that previledge is only reserved for Trinitarians .. )


All of your arguments for the Trinitarian understanding of John 1:1 are based on half truths and cheap ad hominem attacks against the Watch Tower Society . You consistently ignore the fact that both the grammar as well as the context justifies the NWT translation ..

All the points you made above , are addressed here :

http://jehovah.to/xlation/ma.html

http://www.jehovah.to/exe/discussion/index.htm

Here is an excerpt from the first article / link above , which addresses one of your half truths :

“ Mantey states :

Examples where the noun in the predicate does not have an article, as in the above verse, are: John 4:24, "God is spirit," (not a spirit); I John 4:16, "God is love," (not a love); I John 1:5, "God is light," (not a light); and Matthew 13:39, "the reapers are angels," i.e. they are the type of beings known as angels. In each instance the noun in the predicate was used to describe some quality or characteristics of the subject, whether as to nature or type.

JW response :

Mantey apparently rejects the King James Version's rendering of John 4:23, which states that 'God is a spirit'. Even if that is debatable, are we really to believe that Matthew 13:39 means that the reapers are ‘the type of beings known as angels’? Generations of Bible readers have certainly and correctly understood Jesus to be saying that they are angels!
The situation is more complex that Mantey makes out. What applies to uncountable nouns, such as love and light, does not necessarily apply to nouns denoting persons. In any case, Romans 2:19 does have the expression ‘a light’ for Greek phos without the article. (I checked 13 different English translations. They all had ‘a light’.) Of course no translation has it at 1 John 1:5; it depends on context........

For those of you who are actually interested in doing some research and comparing arguments ..I suggest you first examine the two JW sources I've listed above ..

I am in basic agreement with Harner , that “theos” is qualitative ( and indefinite... )..As the Moffatt and Godspeed translations renders it “ ..and the Word was divine “ …

That which was with "hotheos" ( The One and True God ) ..although divine ( a god ) , is not The God or the One True God ( Jehovah The Father ..The Only True Jehovah there is ..) .


Jesus prayed :

Joh 17:1 These words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee:
Joh 17:2 As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him.
Joh 17:3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee THE ONLY TRUE GOD , and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

Jehovah , who is the heavenly Father , is the Only True God ..Jesus is divine , sure ( He is a god , angel ... ) . That doesn't undermine monotheism at all ( not from a Biblical perspective ) ..

One day , we will all become like God ( according to the bible ) ..the Greek fathers , called this “Theosis” ...We will all become divine ..through grace ( Jehovah doesn't become divine ..He is divine unconditionally , within Himself ..This is why He is the TRUE GOD ).

Trinitarians think that by making Jesus a person in a divine Trinity , they will somehow solve a problem ..a problem , that essentially doesn't exist . They actually create a whole new set of issues . For example , is the Father the Only True God ?

How about the other two persons in God , are they now “false” ? 2/3rds of Jehovah is “false” ?

Any which way you approach it , as long as you cling to the “true” and “false” dichotomy , you are still up the creek without a paddle .

You wrote :

I'm presuming you are confusing Sabellianism (three aspects, one individual) with Trinitarianism (three individuals, one aspect). Trinitarianism is biblically sound.
“Trinitarianism is biblically sound “

For instance: biblically no one can deny (without a lot of fancy footwork) that the Son has the same nature as the Father. See: Heb 1:3; Col 2:9; Phil 2:6; John 14:9; John 12:45 etc.

You presume to much ...

None of the above biblical references supports the notion that Jesus and Jehovah are the same person or being . No one says that God is the Image of God ( that's nonsense and unnecessary ) ...God is God .

Someone else , can possess the image of God and express His character , provided God has chosen that being to do so . That doesn't demand or imply that Jehovah , The One and Only True God is three of anything . He is One and Only One .

You wrote :

“ However, while non-trinitarian / unitarian Christology would agree that Adam and Eve have the same nature, they teach that the Son does not have the same nature as the Father but a nature like the Father. In short: the Father and Son are species of God. “

As far as humanity , we are all human ..As far as divinity , both Jehovah the Father , who is the One True God ( the original ) and those that are in His Presence and behold His Face ( His Glory ) are “divine”( Cherubim , Sepharim .etc) . I have no objection to the notion of Jesus being divine ..( that's biblical ) .

However , Jehovah the One and Only True God , is not Jesus ..anymore than Adam is Eve , or I am you ...We are two separate human beings .

Jehovah is the un-contingent reality ..entirely unconditional . He does not receive His divine nature , His Being , His Power , His Authority , His Knowledge , from any other source ( Jesus does ) . Jehovah is divine , in His own right .

You can ask “ Why does such and such exist ..what justifies or is responsible for it's being “ ..for anything other than Jehovah , such a question is valid and applicable . Not for Jehovah however , who is : Ehyer Esher Ehyer ( I Am that I Am ) . He is being it self . He simply IS ..The Causeless Cause of everything .......... including Jesus .

You wrote :

Your testimony is from the Greek philosophers - straight out of Plato via Philo. I'm happy to stick with the scriptures.

…. Actually the scriptures take a hard-stick to your platonic delusions ..it gives it a good whipping .

You wrote :

As for your protest against the Trinity: Scripture plainly tells us that we must participate in the unity of the Father and Son (1 John 1:3) …

1Jn 1:1 That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life;
1Jn 1:2 (For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us;)
1Jn 1:3 That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ.
1Jn 1:4 And these things write we unto you, that your joy may be full.
1Jn 1:5 This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.
1Jn 1:6 If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth:
1Jn 1:7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.


God sent us the means through which we could receive His glory , His power to become Sons of God ( Bnai Elohim ) . We will all , one day have perfect fellowshipwith our Creator and each other …

You wrote :

...and we must confess Jesus as uniquely the Son of God (1 John 4:9-15) and so on ...

1Jn 4:9 In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him.

No other Son of His , ever had a “genes” , as he did , being born of a human virgin :

Luk 1:35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.




“ Born “



G1080
γεννάω
gennaō
Total KJV Occurrences: 98
begat, 42
Matt 1:1-16 (40), Act_7:8, Act_7:29, 1Jo_5:1
born, 39
Mat_1:16, Mat_2:1, Mat_2:4, Mat_19:12, Mat_26:24, Mar_14:21, Luk_1:35, Joh_1:13, Joh_3:3-8 (8), Joh_8:41, Joh_9:2, Joh_9:19-20 (2), Joh_9:32, Joh_9:34, Joh_16:21, Joh_18:37, Act_2:8, Act_7:20, Act_22:3, Act_22:28, Rom_9:11, Gal_4:23, Gal_4:29, Heb_11:23, 1Jo_2:29, 1Jo_3:9 (2), 1Jo_4:7, 1Jo_5:1, 1Jo_5:4, 1Jo_5:18
begotten, 7
Act_13:33, 1Co_4:15, Phm_1:10, Heb_5:5 (2), 1Jo_5:1, 1Jo_5:18
bare, 1
Luk_23:29
bear, 1
Luk_1:13
brought, 1
Luk_1:57
conceived, 1
Mat_1:20
delivered, 1
Joh_16:20-21 (2)
forth, 1
Luk_1:57
gender, 1
2Ti_2:23
gendereth, 1
Gal_4:23-24 (2)
made, 1
2Pe_2:12
sprang, 1
Heb_11:12 (2)



He was indeed “mono “ , the only one , unique , in that respect .

You wrote :

A.Paul at the end of 2 Corinthians prays "The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, [be] with you all. Amen." If one reads scripture without bias you'd find the Trinity doctrine very natural to the witness of scripture

.



Problem is , you aren't reading the scriptures , without your Trinitarian bias , hence the unnatural and unbiblical doctrine of the trinity .

# 1 This closing verse of the epistle of 2 Corinthians is a doxology, and is typical of how Paul closes his epistles. Galatians, Philippians and both Thessalonian epistles close with “the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ.” The close of Ephesians includes “love with faith from God.” There is no reason to conclude that a closing doxology would not incorporate three wonderful attributes: the love of God, the grace of Christ and the fellowship of the spirit.

# 2. There is no presentation of the Trinity in this verse. Three different things are mentioned, but they are never said to be “one,” or “of one substance,” or “making up one God,” or anything like what would be needed for a Trinitarian formula.

There are many times that three things are mentioned together in the Bible, yet Trinitarians do not make them the Trinity . For example, “Peter, James and John” are often mentioned together, but that fact does not make them a/the Trinity . Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are often mentioned together also, and that fact does not make them a “Trinity” .

# 3. Although this verse is used by some to support the Trinity, a careful reading shows that it actually contradicts it. The three mentioned in the verse are “God,” “Jesus Christ” and the “Holy Spirit” (which we believe should be accurately translated as “holy spirit”). Yet the Trinitarian position is that “God” is composed of the Father, Christ and the Spirit. So the fact that the verse mentions “God” separate from Christ and the holy spirit is strong evidence that they are indeed separate from “God” and that there is no Trinity here .


#4. This verse does not mean that we have fellowship with the “person,” the Holy Spirit, who is part of the Trinity. It refers to the fellowship that Christians have with each other because of the presence of God’s gift, the “holy spirit”, in each of us.

The “fellowship of the spirit” is a phrase that is also used in Philippians 2:1, and the text note on this verse in the NIV Study Bible is fairly accurate. It says: “The fellowship among believers produced by the Spirit, who indwells each of them.” We would replace “Spirit” with “spirit,” (because we believe it refers to God’s gift) and translate “who” as “which” (“spirit” is neuter in the Greek text), but the point is made beautifully. The fellowship of the spirit is the fellowship Christians enjoy with other believers because of the presence of the spirit in each of us .


I will now before closing this up , briefly comment on the other misconceptions I read in the rest of your post .

Jehovah often operates vicariously , through His angels and prophets ..to the point that His agents are often portrayed as functioning , communicating .etc as if they were Jehovah Himself . In the Hebraic culture , the "Shaliach" or emissary , carries the very authority , presence of the principle ..the person who sent him .

Even in the NT we have a very vivid example of this , when the Roman centurion sends his friends to Jesus , to assist him with one of his dieing servants ( Luke 7:6 ) . In Matthew 8 , the centurion himself goes to Jesus and speaks those very famous words , that caused Jesus to admire his great faith ..In contrast , Luke's gospel , has the centurion's friends approaching Jesus and expressing those same words , not the centurion himself .

Whether it was the friends of the centurion or the centurion himself , it really doesn't matter .

In the Hebrew Bible , we find many example like this ..primarily in the case of angels and prophets. For example , Moses speaking in the first person on behalf of Jehovah Himself ( without the typical qualifying “ Thus Saith The Lord “ ) :

Deu 29:2 And Moses called unto all Israel, and said unto them, Ye have seen all that the LORD did before your eyes in the land of Egypt unto Pharaoh, and unto all his servants, and unto all his land;
Deu 29:3 The great temptations which thine eyes have seen, the signs, and those great miracles:
Deu 29:4 Yet the LORD hath not given you an heart to perceive, and eyes to see, and ears to hear, unto this day.
Deu 29:5 And I have led you forty years in the wilderness: your clothes are not waxen old upon you, and thy shoe is not waxen old upon thy foot.
Deu 29:6 Ye have not eaten bread, neither have ye drunk wine or strong drink: that ye might know that I am the LORD your God.


You know Apostoli , if Jesus or an angel of Jehovah , would have spoken these same words , in this manner ..It would be the perfect "proof-text" .. "PROOF" that Jesus or the "Angel Of Jehovah " , is Jehovah ....but , since it's Moses here ..You'll never hear any "maninstream" Christians , arguing for the divinity of Moses . Convenient isn't it ?

Trinitarians will notice an angel speaking in the first person , on behalf of Jehovah and enthusiastically assume and proclaim that the angel is somehow , literally Jehovah. If that were the case ..we would have to conclude that many other Biblical characters are likewise Jehovah .

furthermore ..

Moses and Aaron are described , in their actions as one and the same person..( due to the fact that Aaron is Moses' prophet and Moses is Elohim to Pharaoh .etc Exo 7) ..Judges , prophets , kings of Israel ..angels ..are all agents of Jehovah , to one degree or another , and they are identified as "Elohim" .."Bnai Elohim " ..


As far as "seeing" Jehovah . Moses saw a fleeting manifestation of Jehovah's glory ..He saw Jehovah's “back parts” ....Even Moses himself expressed the fact that He wanted to see the “glory” ..that is the presence or "face" . He didn't ask to see Jehovah's nose or eye brows , his lats and muscular back ..( No flesh and blood can sustain a full manifestation of Jehovah's presence / face ..however we can experience , in the flesh / our bodies , a certain degree of his presence / glory , without perishing ..dieing .

I am currently going through the JW study program , which all prospective members have to take before baptism . I've already expressed that here in the past ..I wanted to see for my self what the Jws were all about ..due to all of the commotion about them , amongst the Trinitarians , the “mainstream orthodox” churches ( The JWs are a "CULT !!! CULT !! EVVVILLLL !! " ) . All of their hateful rhetoric against the JWs...actually sparked my interest in them .

I have noticed , that they are a very mature and kindhearted people ..a lot more mature and kindhearted than I am , that's for sure .......I enjoy their fellowship and most of all , I feel the presence of Jehovah when I'm with them. .

Jwdisciple

[IncRus]

Hello IncRus,

...one thing to note hypostasis is used at Hebrews 1:3 and translated as person. Prosopon is used at 2 Cor 2:10 in respect of the person of Christ.

Whatever you say des NOT make Jesus "God from God" nor "God of himself."

Niceans (Trinitarians) deny that the Son is "God of himself". So we agree on that point.

Hebrews 1:3 says the Son is "the exact representation" (χαρακτὴρ) of the Father's "very being" (ὑποστάσεως) (NWTI). You either accept scripture or you don't!

Yes, Jesus is the “exact representation of the Father’s, as you say, “very being.” So what? The Hebrews author does NOT mean to say that Jesus is God. How could he, when he is only a disciple of Jesus who taught him that he is a MAN (John 8:40) and the Father is the ONLY true God (John 17:3)?

I believe Jesus more who said that he is a MAN (John 8:40) and the Father (John 17:1) is the ONLY true God (John 17:3).

You say you "believe Jesus more" and yet you ignore the myriad of places he declares himself uniquely the Son of the only true God, and that he came from heaven, and was with the Father before the world was, and would return to the Father. Seems there are many teachings of Jesus you are not prepared to accept! Instead you seem to prefer the wisdom of this world.

So what if Jesus is uniquely the Son of the only true God, and he came from heaven? This does NOT make Jesus God because Jesus himself said he is a MAN (John 8:40) and the Father is the ONLY true God (John 17:3).

Remember what Jesus said in Matt. 7:26? Jesus said, "He who HEARS his words and do NOT do them is a FOOLISH man....." I don't want to be a FOOLISH man in the eyes of my Lord and savior, do you?

Why is it then that you prefer the words of earthly philosophers who can only see the flesh and so deny the spirit? (see 1 Cor 1:13-14)

When you say "earthly philosophers," you must be referring to Trinitarians who resort to opinions, interpretations, speculations, analogies, etc. to DISTORT Jesus' teachings and make Jesus God DESPITE Jesus' clear TEACHING that he is a MAN (John 8:40) and the Father is the [bONLY[/b] true God (John 17:3), aren't you?

You ASSUME that because of the word "came" Jesus "existed BEFORE becoming flesh." Your ASSUMPTION is FALSE. John 1:6 states that John was SENT from God. Do you also ASSUME that John "existed BEFORE God sent him?"

Nope! "came" is just one verbal proof, there are many others (see below for a couple more).
Unlike John the baptist, Jesus repeatedly says he came from heaven or words to that effect eg: John 6:38 "For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me."

Jesus did NOT literally “come” from heaven just as one is NOT literally “born again.”

The Bible does NOT teach that Jesus was someone BEFORE he was born.

Jesus certainly taught he had a real existence before becoming flesh, and his words are recorded in the bible. eg: John 6:58; 8:23,42,58; 13:3; 16:28; 17:5 etc

I see that in you, the prophecy of Isaiah is fulfilled, which says:

"Hearing you will hear and shall not understand,
And seeing you will see and not perceive;
For the heart of this people has grown dull.
Their ears are hard of hearing,
And their eyes they have closed,
Lest they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears,
Lest they should understand with their heart and turn,
So that I should heal them" (Matt. 13:14-15).

If ever Jesus existed BEFORE he was born, what was he? The Bible does NOT explicitly say that Jesus existed BEFORE he was born.

Jesus said he is a MAN (John 8:40) and the Father is the ONLY true God (John 17:3). Therefore, Jesus could NOT have existed in any manner, form, or shape EXCEPT in the mind of God.

Neither does the Bible teach that Jesus was the "logos" that BECAME flesh.

John 1:14 says clearly that the Logos dwelt amoung us and we beheld his glory as the only begotten of the Father. If the Logos of John 1:1 is as you say, then A.John at 1:14 if refering to the birth of Jesus is calling him the Logos.

It was the "flesh" or "human being" into which the "logos" or "word" BECAME who dewlt or lived among us. The name of that "flesh" or "human being" was Jesus.

In which case Jesus is the referee of John 1:14 - the Logos who dwelt amoungst men and whom was beheld in his glory as the only begotten of the Father. For John 1:11-12 tells us that the Logos "came unto his own, and his own received him not. But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, [even] to them that believe on his name."

Your statement that “the Logos dwelt amongst men” is FALSE. It is the “human being” named Jesus into which the “logos” or “word” BECAME, who lived among the people.

What the Bible teaches is Jesus was "FOREORDAINED before the foundation of the world" (1 Pet. 1:20). Jesus is the FLESH or human being that the "word" or "logos" of God BECAME (John 1:14).

Note 1 Peter 1:19. Verse 20 is talking about the office of "Christ" being foreordained, which was manifested in Jesus. Compare vs2 where believers are called "Elect according to the foreknowledge of God, through santification of the Spirit...". Did the elect only come into existence once they were sanctified?

Again, your understanding of 1 Peter 1:20 is WRONG! Apostle Paul is NOT “talking about the office of Christ being foreordained.” Note that apostle Paul began verse 20 with the word “He.” Apostle Paul wrote: “HE indeed was FOREORDAINED…” You seem to think that apostle Paul was stupid to address an office “HE,” don’t you?

Plainly, what John wants people to CONFESS is the TRUTH that Jesus "came as a man" - NOT as God who INCARNATED into a MAN as Trinitarians want people to believe.

Trinitarians and Binitarians hold that the Son of God was incarnated, not the whole Godhead!

The belief that the Son of God was INCARNATED is NOT supported by the Bible. Therefore, this belief is heretical!

Plainly A.John says he wrote his gospel so that you would believe Jesus is the Son of God, not that Jesus was merely a man - which proves your opinion in great error. The belief that the Son of God "came from heaven and became as man" (was INCARNATED) IS supported by the Bible - that is where the Church has always found it. So once again you have demonstrated your williness to follow man made philosophies rather than the word of God.

The word of God says “And the word BECAME flesh/human being” (John 1:14 NKJV/TEV). – NOT your belief that “the Son of God “came from heaven and became a man” (incarnated). And apostle John wrote his gospel that you would believe that Jesus is the Son of God – NOT that Jesus is God. This demonstrates that what you believe are man-made doctrines rather than the word of God.

Of course, Jesus is a MAN, albeit NOT an ordinary man. Jesus is NEITHER "God of himself" NOR "God from God." Jesus himself SAID that he is a MAN (John 8:40) and the Father (John 17:1) is the ONLY true God (John 17:3). The Nicean teaching is FALSE and so are others which CONTRADICT the doctrines of Christ.

Which puts you and the INC at the top of the list. As you ignore 60% of Jesus' witness of himself. It was Jesus that says in plain words that if you see him you see his Father (John 12:45; 14:9) and to you he says "because I tell you the truth, you believe me not" (John 8:45)

I believe John 12:45; 14:9 but these do NOT make Jesus God because according to Jesus himself, he is a MAN (John 8:40) and the Father is the ONLY true God (John 17:3). You don’t believe John 8:40 and John 17:3, don't you?

Why would I think that Jesus was an "adopted son of God" as I am? God first declared Jesus as His "son" and I received adoption as son of God THROUGH Jesus. That is, by having been "baptized into HIS body" (1 Cor. 12:13), the "church" (Eph. 1:21-22; Col. 1:18).

Have you forgotten you declared in your post #145 "I believe simply that Jesus is Son of God just as I am a son of God." If so, and you hold you are adopted as a Son, then you must (as in your words, Jesus is Son of God just as I am a son of God) hold that Jesus is also adopted like you.

Again, you contradit yourself. Seems you actually recognise that Jesus is Son of God in a unique sense, very unlike the way you became son of God, but refuse to acknowledge it (?)

Of course, I recognize that Jesus is Son of God in, as you say, "a unique sense" very UNLIKE the way I received adoption as son of God (Gal. 4:4-5). However, BOTH Jesus and I are "children of God, then heirs-heirs of God and joint heirs with Christ..." (Rom. 8:17).

Being [b]joint-heirs with Christ[.b] is further proof that Christ is NOT God!

In John 4:22, Jesus told the Samaritan woman, "You worship what you do NOT know..." Therefore what Jesus came to give us understanding is to KNOW that the Father is the ONLY true God.

The full quote is "You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews."

Given the Jews already worshipped what they already knew, the one true God, it is obvious that to give this knowledge was not Jesus' mission. Imu, his mission was to make manifest the Father as the one true God. As A.John says: "In this the love of God was made manifest among us, that God sent his only Son into the world, so that we might live through him." (1 John 4:9). This is why John 17:3 requires us to take in knowledge (have a relationship) with both the Father and the Son.

By the time God SENT Jesus into the world, the Jews' knowledge of God was no longer confined to the Father as the ONLY true God. To the Jews, the Father was simply "one true God" among MANY other "true Gods." That's why Jesus told the woman, "You worship what you do NOT know..." (John 4:22).

Jesus said "we [Jews] worship what we know". I'd rather believe Jesus than you. In the period of the second temple, the Jews had taken worship of the one true God to the extreme, imposing extremes to ensure purity of worship. The major issue between the Samaritans and the Jews was where proper worship occurs, what the Samaritans failed to accept is that Jerusalem was the God appointed center (via David) for the establishment of the kingdom on earth. But Jesus tells the woman, that "true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth"

What Jesus said is clear and does NOT need any explanation. Jesus said, "you worship WHAT you do NOT know."

As usual you omit scripture - what scripture says is the Samaritans didn't know but the Jews did! Once again plain scripture contradicts your ascertions.

You ASSUME that when Jesus said “we” he was referring to Jews. You are WRONG as usual! Jesus was referring to his followers, his apostles and disciples, those who believe as he did that the Father is the ONLY true God. The Jews had him killed, remember?

Jesus did NOT say "WHERE," did he?

Sure did! He even tells how. It is sad that you don't understand him.

Jesus tells the woman HOW to worship the Father whom the woman did NOT know as the ONLY true God. That’s why Jesus said to the woman, “You worship WHAT you do NOT know.”

Therefore, in John 17:3, it was imperative for Jesus to "MAKE the Father KNOWN" (Luke 10:22) as the ONLY true God - NOT "the one true God," a phrase which IMPLIES that the Father is "one true God" among "many OTHER true Gods."

(?) I've never come across a translation that refers to the Father as the "one true God" all that I have encountered translate "only true God" or "uniquely true God". So I think your argueing against a figment of your own imagination.

You keep referring to the Father as the "one true God" instead of "ONLY true God," haven't you?

I just spent time scanning the 11 pages of this thread. The only person who used the phrase "one true God" is you - starting at your post #152. So either you are deluding yourself, or you have just proved yourself a false witness and an absolute liar.

Really? Don't you remember writing this? "Given the Jews already worshipped what they already knew, the one true God, it is obvious that to give this knowledge was not Jesus' mission. Imu, his mission was to make manifest the Father as the one true God. As A.John says: "In this the love of God was made manifest among us, that God sent his only Son into the world, so that we might live through him." (1 John 4:9). This is why John 17:3 requires us to take in knowledge (have a relationship) with both the Father and the Son." I’m sure you know who your father is (John 8:44) by now!

And the Bible NEVER refers to the Father as "uniquely true God," either.

It is interesting you think it inappropriate, I've only encountered such in a non-trinitarian citation in an arguement against Nicene teaching. Though "Unique" is an interpretative rendering of the Greek word "monas" which primarily means 'alone (without a companion)', "only" seems to be the more common sense of the word.

I don’t think referring to the Father as “uniquely true God” as “inappropriate.” I think it is HERETICAL. The word “unique true God” could be used by Trinitarians to mean some other way (like, unique true God in essence, etc.) to justify their belief in a TRIUNE God.

The Biblical phrase that refers to the Father is “ONLY true God.” That means that the Father ALONE is the ONLY true God. This means that there is NO other God but the Father.

[Vivian]

You are both right!




Can we move on now?

[apostoli]

Hello JWDisciple,

I had to delete some things to fit into post limits. Hope I didn't omit anything important...

( You even went as far as copying and pasting the copyright symbol of the article ..

Nope TWEB automatically inserts "© source where applicable" when you use the CITE tag.

How easy it is to engage someone on this forum , by simply going to articles online and copying and pasting other people's work ..If I could do the same , if would be fantastic , but unfortunately that previledge is only reserved for Trinitarians .. )

If you are inclined to study there is plenty of stuff available on the net - Grammars, Lexicons, Concordances, Bible versions even the early writings of the church - via Google Books access to most things not restricted by copyright law. By choice I do not use the arguments of polemic website's, I don't find them fruitful. When I CITE, it is from independent research. If I do link to a polemic site, it is only as a convienent method of accessing source material eg: the Mantey's letter.

Generally, you should find me very fair in my discussions. I'm not interested in going after the NWT or JWs. That is not my focus. My interest is simply what is scripture teaching us. For controversial stuff I look at the Greek. And when I do that I'm starting from a neutral position. I have to - for the greater part of my life I was a unitarian. It was from reading and researching the scriptures I came to understand what trinitarians saw and I bypassed.

All of your arguments for the Trinitarian understanding of John 1:1 are based on half truths and cheap ad hominem attacks against the Watch Tower Society . You consistently ignore the fact that both the grammar as well as the context justifies the NWT translation...

You should note Harner never mentioned the WT&TS, he was making an independent assessment of the Greek in general. So no hominem attack, just good scholarship on his part. In fact he discusses four opinions for the Greek, one of which was "o logos ēn theos" which would be rendered "a god". However, A.John renders "theos en o logos".

As for "cheap ad hominem attacks": I invested a considerable amount of time rereading the appendix to the NWTI (hard copy), rechecking grammars, consulting concordances and generally checking their arguments (in fact most of my Saturday). And my quotations were not cut and paste but laborously typed out. But you aren't to know that. Please be aware I take my posting here very seriously - I do not attack anyone, merely provide facts and independent analysis. So there is no need for you to chuck defensive tandrums. If you are interested in a mature academic discussion I'll participate. Otherwise go away.

An aside: I've encountered many a Greek teacher on the net who recommend the NWTI (KIT) to students - that is: the left hand side of the page - because of its literalness. I've found the right hand side of the page at times somewhat dubious eg: arpagmon which NWTI renders "snatching" but the NWT "seizure" (essentially the word means "to grasp at").

In my biblical research I regularly use (in a positive sense) WT&TS sourced material. Not everything they have to say is skewed. So you will find me without prejudice regarding the WT&TS. However, when they present a head scratcher, I do research. For controversial matters, I've found it necessary to double check their quotes and prose (then again I have found it necessary to do the same with those writing against them).

All the points you made above , are addressed here :

http://jehovah.to/xlation/ma.html
http://www.jehovah.to/exe/discussion/index.htm

Thanks for the links.

Consider the first comment in the first link "If a person very deeply and sincerely believes that Jesus is God, then it is easy to see why he would find the New World Translation rendering of John 1:1 'shocking'. Of course, a lot of things Jesus taught were also considered shocking by the people who heard him. So, too, the New World Translation may at times be shocking to traditionalists. The role of a Bible translation is not to avoid controversy, but to be accurate. But is John 1:1 mistranslated in the New World Translation? Let us see."

Even when in my many years as a non trinitarian I found the NWT rendering "a god" shocking. My main reason: it isn't taught in the Gospel. For the same reason I disliked the rendering "the Word was God". At some stage I procured a second hand copy of the NEB which renders "what God was the Word was". To me this aligned with the teaching at John 14:9, 20:31 and elsewhere in scriptures. Unfortunately the net didn't exist in those days so my research was hampered, but since I have made a concerted effort to research and discover the Greek.

As far as I have ascertained there is no justification, apart from prejudice, that would allow John 1:1 as saying the Logos was "a god". From a purely grammatical viewpoint one could justify it, but if you look at the evidence scriptures they are contradicted by renditions of comparable scriptures. So we need some form of arbitration. So, the general rule I follow: the rendition must be contextually complete (eg: John 4:9 "a Jew") and in harmony with the text (and book) as a whole. For instance: the rendition of "a god" at John 10:33 while grammatically allowable, it imo does not match the context, the justification given by the Jews.

As a simple matter of logic consider the environment the letter was written in, and it's audience - by tradition it was delivered around the vicinity of Ephesus, a very pagan imperial city, that was also the base for the emporer cult in the east. On the basis of logic alone, A.John would not have called Jesus "a god" because that would make the Logos, to A.John's audience, comparable to the pagan gods. Nor would he have referred to the Logos as "God" as that was a claim of the emperor. However, as the central theme of the letter is that Jesus is the Son of God, it would be natural for A.John to be understood as saying: as a Son is to his Father, so be the Son of God. It is just a matter of serendipity on my part, that I found that modern research into the Greek supported my opinion.

[QUOTE=JWDisciple]Here is an excerpt from the first article / link above , which addresses one of your half truths :

...Mantey apparently rejects the King James Version's rendering of John 4:23, which states that 'God is a spirit'.

As do most modern translators eg: NKJV, NIV, RSV, ASV, ESV, RVR, NASB, HNV, NLT etc which render "God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth." The KJV only set say such a rendering is pantheistic, but have think about it, the rendering "a spirit" makes God just one amoung many spirits which is polytheistic. However, if we consider the context of Jesus' words (see John 4:20-24) in idiom Jesus is saying that God is everywhere, thus the time will come when true worshippers will worship him where ever they are, not in the mountain or in Jerusalem. Render "a spirit" and imo the meaning of Jesus' words are lost. Also have a think on John 4:25. What had Jesus said that inspired her to equate his words with Messiah cometh? Presumable she already knew that God wasn't corporal (was a spirit).

Matthew 13:39, "the reapers are angels," i.e. they are the type of beings known as angels.

Even if [John 4:23] is debatable, are we really to believe that Matthew 13:39 means that the reapers are ‘the type of beings known as angels’? Generations of Bible readers have certainly and correctly understood Jesus to be saying that they are angels!

It should be noted that Matthew 13:39 is another of those places where we encounter a noun without the article. The NWT & most other modern translations render it without any article (which implies definiteness). What Mantey is saying is that the noun isn't just indefinite but qualitive, so the text is not limiting the harvest to "the angels in heaven" but to all that are called angels. Men are also called aggelos at Luke 7:24, James 2:25, Rev 1:20; 2:1,8,12,18;3:1,7,14. As JWs I would have thought the commentator would have liked what Mantey says here, it would support the governing bodies view of themselves.

The situation is more complex that Mantey makes out. What applies to uncountable nouns, such as love and light, does not necessarily apply to nouns denoting persons. In any case, Romans 2:19 does have the expression ‘a light’ for Greek phos without the article. (I checked 13 different English translations. They all had ‘a light’.) Of course no translation has it at 1 John 1:5; it depends on context...

Indeed, and all grammarians agree that the syntax and context does not allow, most on purely grammatical grounds, the rendering of "a god" at John 1:1.

I am in basic agreement with Harner , that “theos” is qualitative ( and indefinite... )..As the Moffatt and Godspeed translations renders it “ ..and the Word was divine “

Moffet is in error because theios is not in the Greek but theos. There are very strict rules to translation, probably why the NWT committee didn't follow him.

That which was with "ho theos" ( The One and True God ) ..although divine ( a god ) , is not The God or the One True God ( Jehovah The Father ..The Only True Jehovah there is ..).

Well that is very much a strained interpretation of what A.John actually said at John 1:1. Where we should agree is that ho theos is identified in the Gospel as Jesus' Father, and his Father is the only true God refered to at John 17:3. And we agree that the Son isn't the Father, they are distinct individuals. However, throughout the Gospel Jesus isn't depicted as "a god" but as a unique manifestation of the Father (eg: John 14:9 cp. 1 Tim 3:15-16)

One day , we will all become like God ( according to the bible ) ..the Greek fathers , called this “Theosis” [also written as theiosis]...

They teach theiosis because A.Peter taught it at 2 Peter 1:4, and he used the word theios.

Trinitarians think that by making Jesus a person in a divine Trinity , they will somehow solve a problem ..a problem , that essentially doesn't exist . They actually create a whole new set of issues . For example , is the Father the Only True God ?

According to the witness of the Church the Father is the Only True God. Therefore, Niceans (Trinitarians) teach that as Jesus is the Son of God he is true God from true God. The reason for this is that Jesus is shown to be true judge over all just as is his Father and Jesus is the source of the true light and eternal life, just as the Father.

How about the other two persons in God , are they now “false” ? 2/3rds of Jehovah is “false” ?

As any JW elder will tell you "only true God" does not say "uniquely God". The WT&TS has taught, and I agree, that "true" refers to the completion of the OT promises, it is because these promises were fulfilled, the Father of Jesus Christ is proven to be ho theos.

I'm presuming you are confusing Sabellianism (three aspects, one individual) with Trinitarianism (three individuals, one aspect). Trinitarianism is biblically sound.

For instance: biblically no one can deny (without a lot of fancy footwork) that the Son has the same nature as the Father. See: Heb 1:3; Col 2:9; Phil 2:6; John 14:9; John 12:45 etc.

None of the above biblical references supports the notion that Jesus and Jehovah are the same person or being.

You are referring to Sabellianism not Trinitarianism. Niceans (Trinitarians) hold that the Father and Son are distinct individuals/persons/hypostases.

The archiac phrase "one being" that Trinitarianism has used means one essential existance (ie: one in being), it does not refer to an ousia (personal being), but a homoousia (common being). Have a think on Gen 2:24. Adam and Eve were distinct people, but their essential existence was meant to be the same. As Jesus says numerous times "I am in the Father" or if you prefer "I am in unity with the Father". What Jesus is saying goes beyond a club like union, but a unity of everything he thinks, feels and does.

No one says that God is the Image of God ( that's nonsense and unnecessary ) ...God is God.

Agreed! That is way Niceans (Trinitarians) teach from scripture (Heb 1:3) that Jesus as Son of God is an exact replica of the Father's hypostasis (the word used at Heb 1:3), and thus God from God.

However, while non-trinitarian / unitarian Christology would agree that Adam and Eve have the same nature, they teach that the Son does not have the same nature as the Father but a nature like the Father. In short: the Father and Son are species of God.

As far as humanity , we are all human ..As far as divinity , both Jehovah the Father , who is the One True God ( the original ) and those that are in His Presence and behold His Face ( His Glory ) are “divine”( Cherubim , Sepharim .etc) . I have no objection to the notion of Jesus being divine ..( that's biblical ).

Actually it isn't biblical! The scriptures never speak of the Father or the Son as theios (divine) but as theos (God). In the case of the Son at least once in a definite sense = John 20:28 (you can resort to explaining this text away anyway you want, but when taken with 20:17 and understood via 17:2,23 it is readily understandable why Thomas declared Jesus "my God" - see 1 Cor 2:13-14).

However , Jehovah the One and Only True God , is not Jesus ..anymore than Adam is Eve , or I am you ...We are two separate human beings.

Niceans stick to what scripture actually says. the Father of the Son is the only true God. They are two distict individuals.

Jehovah is the un-contingent reality ..entirely unconditional . He does not receive His divine nature , His Being , His Power , His Authority , His Knowledge , from any other source ( Jesus does ) . Jehovah is divine , in His own right.

He himself is unable to directly reveal himself or directly provide eternal life to us. So by the witness of scripture, the pagan philosophic ideas of unconditional and uncontingent are speculations of men. As the ancients (Jews and Christian) say the most that a man can say of God is that he is! (which as you note below is the meaning of YHWH). What is proved from scripture is that all things are possible with the Father (Mt 19:26).

You can ask “ Why does such and such exist ..what justifies or is responsible for it's being “ ..for anything other than Jehovah , such a question is valid and applicable . Not for Jehovah however , who is : Ehyer Esher Ehyer ( I Am that I Am ) . He is being it self . He simply IS ..The Causeless Cause of everything...including Jesus.

Which is what Nicea teaches concerning the Father. So far you haven't raised anything that Niceans (Trinitarians) object in terms of the Father, so you taking into the air and not challenging Trinitarianism.

Your testimony is from the Greek philosophers - straight out of Plato via Philo. I'm happy to stick with the scriptures.

Actually the scriptures take a hard-stick to your platonic delusions ..it gives it a good whipping.

The difference between you and the Church, is the Church used the language of philosophers to refute philosophers, whereas you use philosophy to establish your beliefs. For instance Philo speculated the logos was a god, created by God to cause the creation. He also says that apart from God, all other things are not properly called God. Yonge's translation of Philos' complete works is available online, so do a google if you are inclined (I've got a hard copy).

God sent us the means through which we could receive His glory , His power to become Sons of God ( Bnai Elohim ) . We will all , one day have perfect fellowshipwith our Creator and each other

But only if we are in the Son!

No other Son of His , ever had a “genes” , as he did , being born of a human virgin...

The WT&TS taught that the Son of God as Son pre-existed his birth. So you might want to have a chat with a JW elder. Unless their teaching has changed in the last few years, you'll find that apart from considering the Son a creation of the Father but not one of the creatures, there isn't a lot of disagreement between the soiciety and the Church concerning the Father and the Son. The biggest difference, is that the society refuses to do all things in the name of the Son as scriptures directly tell us, as they interpret that all things be done through the name of the Son.

Luk 1:35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

And the Logos became flesh. As A.Paul says "born of a woman". Your point is?

He was indeed “mono “ , the only one , unique , in that respect.

Agreed. In terms of his manhood he was truely unique. Just as he is in terms of his Sonship. But I suspect you miss what scripture is telling you: it is via the flesh derived from a woman that he is son of man. However, his flesh does not cause him to be Son of God. Remember the scripture that tells us "God is spirit", and so the Sonship (consider 1 Cor 2:13-14).

A.Paul at the end of 2 Corinthians prays "The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, [be] with you all. Amen." If one reads scripture without bias you'd find the Trinity doctrine very natural to the witness of scripture

There are many times that three things are mentioned together in the Bible, yet Trinitarians do not make them the Trinity . For example, “Peter, James and John” are often mentioned together, but that fact does not make them a/the Trinity . Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are often mentioned together also, and that fact does not make them a “Trinity”.

However, throughout the NT the Father, Son and Spirit are often referred to as participating in the salvation process. Even if you reject the ontological Trinity, you'd have to be very desperate to deny the economic Trinity, it is too well attested in scripture.

# 3. Although this verse is used by some to support the Trinity, a careful reading shows that it actually contradicts it. The three mentioned in the verse are “God,” “Jesus Christ” and the “Holy Spirit” (which we believe should be accurately translated as “holy spirit”). Yet the Trinitarian position is that “God” is composed of the Father, Christ and the Spirit. So the fact that the verse mentions “God” separate from Christ and the holy spirit is strong evidence that they are indeed separate from “God” and that there is no Trinity here .

Trinitarianism says the Godhead persists with the Father, Son and Spirit. And the Father is the source and cause of the Son and the Spirit. You constantly confuse Trinitarians and Sabellianism, so again you are talking to the wind.

#4. This verse does not mean that we have fellowship with the “person,” the Holy Spirit, who is part of the Trinity. It refers to the fellowship that Christians have with each other because of the presence of God’s gift, the “holy spirit”, in each of us.

The “fellowship of the spirit” is a phrase that is also used in Philippians 2:1, and the text note on this verse in the NIV Study Bible is fairly accurate. It says: “The fellowship among believers produced by the Spirit, who indwells each of them.” We would replace “Spirit” with “spirit,” (because we believe it refers to God’s gift) and translate “who” as “which” (“spirit” is neuter in the Greek text), but the point is made beautifully. The fellowship of the spirit is the fellowship Christians enjoy with other believers because of the presence of the spirit in each of us.

Have a read of Romans 8:9-11 where we encounter three Spirits, the Spirit, the Spirit of God and the Spirit of Christ. Rom 8:26 says the Spirit makes intercession for us.

Jehovah often operates vicariously , through His angels and prophets ..to the point that His agents are often portrayed as functioning , communicating .etc as if they were Jehovah Himself . In the Hebraic culture , the "Shaliach" or emissary , carries the very authority , presence of the principle ..the person who sent him.

Indeed! But none of these emissaries are ever said to have been given absolute power and authority. Or for that matter to be the source of the true light and eternal life.

You know Apostoli , if Jesus or an angel of Jehovah , would have spoken these same words , in this manner ..It would be the perfect "proof-text" .. "PROOF" that Jesus or the "Angel Of Jehovah " , is Jehovah ....but , since it's Moses here ..You'll never hear any "maninstream" Christians , arguing for the divinity of Moses . Convenient isn't it ?

The big difference is that YHWH says to Moses "you shall be to [Aaron] instead of God" (Ex 4:16) and "See, I have made you a god to Pharaoh" (Ex 7:1). But in the eyes of Israel God appeared upon the mountain and they became fearful and asked Moses to represent them. Also, note that when Moses wanted to distribute his power amongst the elders, the spirit departed from him and was redistributed. In contrast Jesus is said to have been granted absolute authority by his Father. Thus it is he that directly empowers the disciples, it is in his name that demons are cast out, and it is belief in his name that eternal life is attained (Jn 20:31), and to his disciples he gave the Spirit (Jn 20:22). The NT says all things now are suppose to be in the name of the Son of God, and it is to him that we should ask of anything.

I have noticed , that they [Jehovah's witnesses] are a very mature and kindhearted people ..a lot more mature and kindhearted than I am , that's for sure .......I enjoy their fellowship and most of all , I feel the presence of Jehovah when I'm with them.

To this day I have some very close friends in the society. And I am very welcome in all their places. For about many, many years I studied and worshiped with them, and they always wondered why I never sought baptism. Very simply their overall teaching didn't ring true when I independently read the scriptures. But as my wife had been baptised, for family unity I remained with them. Ultimately, having Bethel nearby I became too intimately involved, and being in a district where suburbs were popping up almost weekly, the KH experienced great stress, thus I saw more pimples than salve. In a little congregation they are great! Its like a very close knit family. But the reality is, of the hundred or so families I knew, very few remain attending the KH, and virtually all the children went into the world. My four sons are very resentful about their experience of being "brought up in the truth". especially after their mother (who was fanatical) deserted her beliefs and went into the world.

I don't reveal such things to disuade you from your course. That I can't do. Just be prepared for the bumps you will encounter. As several DOs advised - such are the infirmities of men.."

Peace

[IncRus]

You are both right!




Can we move on now?

Please explain to me HOW apostoli and I are BOTH right. As far as I am concerned, either one of us is right or we are both wrong, but we can NEVER be both right for as long as we differ on the identity of the ONLY true God and on the true nature of Christ.

[Vivian]

Please explain to me HOW apostoli and I are BOTH right. As far as I am concerned, either one of us is right or we are both wrong, but we can NEVER be both right for as long as we differ on the identity of the ONLY true God and on the true nature of Christ.

Hello friend -

It depends on one's spiritual perspective, or state of consciousness - for God and his creation fill and transcend all possible planes, realms, dimensions, angles, perspectives, infilling, or vision.

It can be equated to human perspective. You know, we only can know what we know, or are able to see.

When man could only see the earth and watch the moon and sun 'move' through our heavens, what was the typical thought? That the earth was at the center of all things, and all things moved around or in relation to the earth. Which is a useful perspective when all one wants to do is traverse across the earth - the movement of the stars and moon and sun can guide and direct us.

But when man took a closer look into the heavens, some began to speculate that more was occurring - even the blasphemous thought that the earth was not flat and center of all that was, but that is was round, and it too was moving around or in relation to something else.

And soon as everyone began to look into the heavens, with an open and deeper perspective, this soon became even more evident. Such thought was proven to be true as the earth and her heavens became experienced - as we traveled around the earth fully and as we traveled into the heavens themselves and experienced the reality, of our solar system at least, first hand.

A specific example of the principle that I am talking about is the use of 'day' in Genesis 1. Traditionally, that was thought to be referring to an earth day, for that is all humanity en mass knew. But as our experiencing of the physical world expanded, we have come to see that our sun has a day, for it is itself moving in relation to another heavenly object. And so 'day' takes on a whole new meaning for us - referring to our earthly day, our sun's day, and our sun's sun's day, etc etc - pointing to an even higher spiritual meaning that cannot be perceived purely in the physical, although the physical is a reflection of the spiritual principle of 'day'.

OK, enough mind expansion. I have probably bored most readers.

To apply this same principle - from an earthly perspective, Jesus was a man. Not just a typically man, but a prophet, a seer, a healer - all the things that we witnessed with the mundane. From this level or dimension or plane of creation. Jesus was a man.

But when Jesus claimed the Father and I are One, He was saying that he was not like the typical man. None of us can say the Father and I are One! What he was saying is that although I am earth, of the earth, man, just like you - or have the same perspective as anything else on earth, I am able to travel in my mind/consciousness soul to the Spiritual Sun.

He was saying that spiritually, he had the same limited perspective as us - his feet were grounded on earth, AND at the same time he was the sun or had the perspective of the sun - his feet were grounded on the sun.

So if we apply earthly images to this concept, Jesus had the 'eyes' of man, and the 'eyes' of a cosmic telescope that could see things from the perspective of the stars, even the source of all stars, all life, simultaneously.

And that part of him that was man - or of the eyes of the earth, was not God, but just man. But that part of him that had the eyes of God was God, for it was One with God.

So it depends on our perspective - on what is useful to us wherever we are in our journey, as to whether Jesus was man or God.

And I will be honest - there are things that Jesus was and is on other planes that I can in no way describe in human language or understand! So even just saying what I did above is from a limited perspective, from the perspective that is useful to me in my journey right now.

A problem that we see here and see around the world is that man assumes that God, or any reflection or image or messenger etc of God can and has to be defined in human terms. So that either 'Jesus is man' or 'Jesus is God' has to be the one and only description of Jesus. And it is further erroneously assume by many that if we describe Jesus incorrectly we aren't believing in him.

This is a lie perpetuated by the father of lies.

How and what we describe Jesus, and the one true God for that matter, can never ever ever be what Jesus and God truly are. And so the question becomes is our description useful in our present journey or not. And so really all you two are arguing is not what Jesus and/or God really are, but how Paul and the other author's of scripture attempted to describe them, to give them an image or description that would be useful in our journey.

In reality, neither description - man or God - is correct. But both can be useful.

Take a look here for a further elucidation on this, if you are interested...

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...7&postcount=58

Shalom.

Viv

[IncRus]

Hello friend -

It depends on one's spiritual perspective, or state of consciousness - for God and his creation fill and transcend all possible planes, realms, dimensions, angles, perspectives, infilling, or vision.

It can be equated to human perspective. You know, we only can know what we know, or are able to see.

When man could only see the earth and watch the moon and sun 'move' through our heavens, what was the typical thought? That the earth was at the center of all things, and all things moved around or in relation to the earth. Which is a useful perspective when all one wants to do is traverse across the earth - the movement of the stars and moon and sun can guide and direct us.

But when man took a closer look into the heavens, some began to speculate that more was occurring - even the blasphemous thought that the earth was not flat and center of all that was, but that is was round, and it too was moving around or in relation to something else.

And soon as everyone began to look into the heavens, with an open and deeper perspective, this soon became even more evident. Such thought was proven to be true as the earth and her heavens became experienced - as we traveled around the earth fully and as we traveled into the heavens themselves and experienced the reality, of our solar system at least, first hand.

A specific example of the principle that I am talking about is the use of 'day' in Genesis 1. Traditionally, that was thought to be referring to an earth day, for that is all humanity en mass knew. But as our experiencing of the physical world expanded, we have come to see that our sun has a day, for it is itself moving in relation to another heavenly object. And so 'day' takes on a whole new meaning for us - referring to our earthly day, our sun's day, and our sun's sun's day, etc etc - pointing to an even higher spiritual meaning that cannot be perceived purely in the physical, although the physical is a reflection of the spiritual principle of 'day'.

OK, enough mind expansion. I have probably bored most readers.

To apply this same principle - from an earthly perspective, Jesus was a man. Not just a typically man, but a prophet, a seer, a healer - all the things that we witnessed with the mundane. From this level or dimension or plane of creation. Jesus was a man.

But when Jesus claimed the Father and I are One, He was saying that he was not like the typical man. None of us can say the Father and I are One! What he was saying is that although I am earth, of the earth, man, just like you - or have the same perspective as anything else on earth, I am able to travel in my mind/consciousness soul to the Spiritual Sun.

He was saying that spiritually, he had the same limited perspective as us - his feet were grounded on earth, AND at the same time he was the sun or had the perspective of the sun - his feet were grounded on the sun.

So if we apply earthly images to this concept, Jesus had the 'eyes' of man, and the 'eyes' of a cosmic telescope that could see things from the perspective of the stars, even the source of all stars, all life, simultaneously.

And that part of him that was man - or of the eyes of the earth, was not God, but just man. But that part of him that had the eyes of God was God, for it was One with God.

So it depends on our perspective - on what is useful to us wherever we are in our journey, as to whether Jesus was man or God.

And I will be honest - there are things that Jesus was and is on other planes that I can in no way describe in human language or understand! So even just saying what I did above is from a limited perspective, from the perspective that is useful to me in my journey right now.

A problem that we see here and see around the world is that man assumes that God, or any reflection or image or messenger etc of God can and has to be defined in human terms. So that either 'Jesus is man' or 'Jesus is God' has to be the one and only description of Jesus. And it is further erroneously assume by many that if we describe Jesus incorrectly we aren't believing in him.

This is a lie perpetuated by the father of lies.

How and what we describe Jesus, and the one true God for that matter, can never ever ever be what Jesus and God truly are. And so the question becomes is our description useful in our present journey or not. And so really all you two are arguing is not what Jesus and/or God really are, but how Paul and the other author's of scripture attempted to describe them, to give them an image or description that would be useful in our journey.

In reality, neither description - man or God - is correct. But both can be useful.

Take a look here for a further elucidation on this, if you are interested...

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...7&postcount=58

Shalom.

Viv

You are wasting your "expertise" on me. I am NOT interested at all on NON-BIBLICAL dissertations. Thank you and goodbye!

[IncRus]

According to the witness of the Church the Father is the Only True God. Therefore, Niceans (Trinitarians) teach that as Jesus is the Son of God he is true God from true God. Niceans (Trinitarians) hold that the Father and Son are distinct individuals/persons/hypostases.

This Nicean Trinitarian belief that Jesus is "true God from true God" DESTROYS the truth which Jesus declared in John 17:3 - that the Father is the ONLY true God.

If Jesus is "true God FROM true God," and Jesus is a "distinct individual.person/hypostases" from HIS Father, how many "true Gods" are there? You wouldn't dare answer, "ONE true God," would you?

The reason for this is that Jesus is shown to be true judge over all just as is his Father and Jesus is the source of the true light and eternal life, just as the Father.

The Nicean Trinitarian reason for making Jesus "true God from true God" thus making Jesus God, is FALSE. If this were true, the Bible would have stated it and Jesus would NOT have declared HIS Father as the ONLY true God.

You aren't telling me that the Nicean Trinitarians knew better than Jesus about his being "true God from true God," are you?

That is way Niceans (Trinitarians) teach from scripture (Heb 1:3) that Jesus as Son of God is an exact replica of the Father's hypostasis (the word used at Heb 1:3), and thus God from God.

If Jesus knew that he is "God from God," do the Nicean Trinitarians know Jesus' reason for saying to HIS Father, "that they may know YOU, the ONLY true God...?" Can we find that reason in the Bible or is it only in the minds of Nicean Trinitarians?

Niceans stick to what scripture actually says. the Father of the Son is the only true God. They are two distict individuals.

Are you sure Niceans TRULY "stick to what the scripture ACTUALLY says - that the Father of the Son is the ONLY true God" Are you sure Niceans TRULY believe that the Father and Jesus are TWO distinct individuals? Are you sure that Niceans TRULY believe that Jesus is "true God from true God?"

Or are these simply your own opinion?

Based on your Nicean Trinitarian belief, how many "true Gods" do Nicean Trinitarians believe in and pray to?

But I suspect you miss what scripture is telling you: it is via the flesh derived from a woman that he is son of man. However, his flesh does not cause him to be Son of God.

This is NOT what the scripture is telling us. Your belief that the flesh or Jesus himself in person does NOT cause Jesus to be the Son of God is FALSE.

In Matt. 3:17, a voice from heaven was heard, when Jesus (the flesh) came out of the water, saying, "This is my beloved SON, in whom I am well pleased." Again, in Matt. 17:5, a voice from heaven was heard, saying, "This is my beloved SON in whom I am well pleased. LISTEN to him."

It is evident from what this voice from heaven says that Jesus HIMSELF is the Son of God - NOT some imagined separate "Son of God" ENCASED in the flesh of Jesus.

It is sad that you were drawn away from the truth when you changed your belief about the identity of God. What is worse is your zeal in spreading this FALSEHOOD around!

[apostoli]

Hello IncrRus,

According to the witness of the Church the Father is the Only True God. Therefore, Niceans (Trinitarians) teach that as Jesus is the Son of God he is true God from true God. Niceans (Trinitarians) hold that the Father and Son are distinct individuals/persons/hypostases.

This Nicean Trinitarian belief that Jesus is "true God from true God" DESTROYS the truth which Jesus declared in John 17:3 - that the Father is the ONLY true God.

Actually it reinforces it. As you are only focused on earthly things, it is understandable why you can't hear Jesus' testimony of himself.

If Jesus is "true God FROM true God," and Jesus is a "distinct individual.person/hypostases" from HIS Father, how many "true Gods" are there? You wouldn't dare answer, "ONE true God," would you?

One. And Jesus is uniquely his Son. As you are only focused on earthly things, it is understandable why you follow Korah. (Jude 11, Numbers 16; 26:9-10)

The reason for this is that Jesus is shown to be true judge over all just as is his Father and Jesus is the source of the true light and eternal life, just as the Father.

The Nicean Trinitarian reason for making Jesus "true God from true God" thus making Jesus God, is FALSE. If this were true, the Bible would have stated it and Jesus would NOT have declared HIS Father as the ONLY true God.

John 1:1-4,9,14; 17:1-3.

You aren't telling me that the Nicean Trinitarians knew better than Jesus about his being "true God from true God," are you?

Jesus himself said "he that seeth me, sees him that sent me" John 12:45. As you are only focused on earthly things, it is understandable why you can't hear Jesus' testimony of himself.

That is way Niceans (Trinitarians) teach from scripture (Heb 1:3) that Jesus as Son of God is an exact replica of the Father's hypostasis (the word used at Heb 1:3), and thus God from God.

If Jesus knew that he is "God from God," do the Nicean Trinitarians know Jesus' reason for saying to HIS Father, "that they may know YOU, the ONLY true God...?" Can we find that reason in the Bible or is it only in the minds of Nicean Trinitarians?

Firstly, both JWs and Trinitarians understand John 17:3 in a similar way. The bible attests to that understanding. I provided it to you and you rejected it. The first person I have ever encountered to do so.

Secondly, your common defense is that such and such exact words do not occur in scripture. Your mentality is the same as the Jews to whom Jesus preached and who rejected his words.
If you read the scriptures you might notice that not once did Jesus directly declare himself to be the Christ. That is: he never said "I am the Christ". And yet you say that you believe him to be the Christ. Why is that so? However, he did say his Father is the only true God.

If you read the scriptures in full you'd know that John 17:3 says "And this is life eternal, that they might know you the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent."

Also see John 17:10 "All I have is yours, and all you [the Father] have is mine [the Son]." (NIV)

Niceans stick to what scripture actually says. the Father of the Son is the only true God. They are two distict individuals.

Are you sure Niceans TRULY "stick to what the scripture ACTUALLY says - that the Father of the Son is the ONLY true God" Are you sure Niceans TRULY believe that the Father and Jesus are TWO distinct individuals? Are you sure that Niceans TRULY believe that Jesus is "true God from true God?"

Sure am. Its fully documented.

Or are these simply your own opinion?

Even the current Pope of the Roman Catholic Church has said so in a public document discussing the filioque! Calling the Father the first principle (origin) of the Son and the Spirit.

Based on your Nicean Trinitarian belief, how many "true Gods" do Nicean Trinitarians believe in and pray to?

One. Jesus says I am in the Father and he in me. As your mind is locked onto earthly imigary, it is understandable why you reject his words.

But I suspect you miss what scripture is telling you: it is via the flesh derived from a woman that he is son of man. However, his flesh does not cause him to be Son of God.

This is NOT what the scripture is telling us. Your belief that the flesh or Jesus himself in person does NOT cause Jesus to be the Son of God is FALSE.

Nope it is true. Just as you don't realise that to born of God is literally true of believers in Jesus, because you only focus on the flesh. Like the Jews you can't hear the words of scripture, or of Jesus.

In Matt. 3:17, a voice from heaven was heard, when Jesus (the flesh) came out of the water, saying, "This is my beloved SON, in whom I am well pleased." Again, in Matt. 17:5, a voice from heaven was heard, saying, "This is my beloved SON in whom I am well pleased. LISTEN to him." It is evident from what this voice from heaven says that Jesus HIMSELF is the Son of God - NOT some imagined separate "Son of God" ENCASED in the flesh of Jesus.

Indeed but was the Father talking of the flesh or the spirit? Have a read of Romans 8. As A.Paul says "those who are in the flesh cannot please God." But given your fleshly focus on all things, I doubt that you can understand these words.

It is sad that you were drawn away from the truth when you changed your belief about the identity of God. What is worse is your zeal in spreading this FALSEHOOD around!

My zeal is simply in resisting your father (Jn 8:44). As all here have witnessed, unlike you, I have no need to distort the scriptures or "inadvertanly" add and/or ommit to the scriptures to affirm an understanding. As Jesus attests of you "He who does not love me does not keep my words" John 14:24.

Nicenes stick to what the scriptures teach. As Jesus attested "He who has seen Me has seen the Father" John 14:9

If you are an example of the the product of Iglesia Ni Christos, then it is plain they are not of God. Imo, the INC is merely a secular organisation that attracts people by cashing in on a post-colonial mentality, and advocating a form of Islam, by dressing it up with a couple of christian scriptures. As a socialist organisation I have no objection to the INC. From what I've read their social programs in the Phillipians are beneficial to the people. However, because of their and your earthly focus, you and they are a long, long way from Christ.

In contrast to you, Jehovah's witnesses affirm Jesus is the pre-existent Son of God. The Logos made flesh. So they are closer to the truth. The major theological difference between them and Niceans is whether the Son was created or not. If he is a creation ex-nihilo then he can't be God from God. Thus their progression of thought. However, Nicenes (Trinitarians) believe as the Son is begotten of God (but not begotten as fleshly things are begot) as an exact relica of the Father then he is God from God, and scripture affirms that it is by him that all that was created came to be (Heb 1:2-3; John 1:1-3, Col 1:16) and to whom he came (his own possessions - John 1:11).

Peace

[IncRus]

If Jesus is "true God FROM true God," and Jesus is a "distinct individual.person/hypostases" from HIS Father, how many "true Gods" are there? You wouldn't dare answer, "ONE true God," would you?

One. And Jesus is uniquely his Son.

Yes, Jesus is "uniquely His Son." But tell me apostoli, is the Father of the Jesus, "true God"? Is Jesus, the "unique" Son of the Father, ALSO "true God"? If you answer YES to both questions, I repeat my question, how many "true Gods" are there? Are you HONESTLY sure that "ONE" is the correct answer to this question?

If you read the scriptures you might notice that not once did Jesus directly declare himself to be the Christ. That is: he never said "I am the Christ". And yet you say that you believe him to be the Christ. Why is that so? However, he did say his Father is the only true God.

I believe Jesus to be the Christ based on his conversation with Simon Peter which is recorded in Matt. 16:15-17. Jesus asked Simon Peter, "But what do you say that I AM?" And Simon Peter answered and said, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." Jesus answered and said to him, "Blessed are you Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you but my Father who is in heaven."

If you don't believe this because you are looking for a specific verse where Jesus explicitly said "I am the Christ," that's up to you. As the saying goes, I can only lead a horse to the river but I cannot force it to drink.

Based on your Nicean Trinitarian belief, how many "true Gods" do Nicean Trinitarians believe in and pray to?

One. Jesus says I am in the Father and he in me.

Yes, Jesus truly says, "I am in the Father and he in me," but tell me apostoli, is the Father and the Son "one and the same?" Is the Father the Son? Are the Father and the Son NOT separate and distinct?

Of course, earlier you said that the Father and Jesus are TWO separate and distinct individuals/persons/hypostases, didn't you? And you said earlier that the Father is NOT the son and the son is NOT the Father, didn't you?

Then tell me apostoli, HOW can the Father who is "true God" AND the Son who is ALSO "true God" be COUNTED as "ONE true God?" You can see how religious fanaticism can make a systems engineer LOSE his logic and ability to perform simple arithmetical operations, can't you?

In Matt. 3:17, a voice from heaven was heard, when Jesus (the flesh) came out of the water, saying, "This is my beloved SON, in whom I am well pleased." Again, in Matt. 17:5, a voice from heaven was heard, saying, "This is my beloved SON in whom I am well pleased. LISTEN to him." It is evident from what this voice from heaven says that Jesus HIMSELF is the Son of God - NOT some imagined separate "Son of God" ENCASED in the flesh of Jesus.

Indeed but was the Father talking of the flesh or the spirit? Have a read of Romans 8. As A.Paul says "those who are in the flesh cannot please God."

Was it a "spirit" that came out of the water in Matt. 3:17? Was it a "spirit" that was standing on the mountain with Peter, James and John in Matt. 17:1? Jesus said that a "spirit has NO flesh and bones as he has" (Luke 24:39). Therefore, a "spirit" cannot be seen.

You certainly know how to read, don't you? Read these verses AGAIN until it sinks in that it was Jesus, the MAN that God was referring to in these verses. You don't think that God would have been referring to an unseen spirit, do you?

You MISUNDERSTAND what "flesh" apostle Paul was talking about. When Paul said, "those who are in the flesh cannot please God" (Rom. 8:8), he was referring to those who "live according to the flesh and set their minds on the things of the flesh" (Rom. 8:5).

Now the works of the flesh are evident, which are: adultery, fornication, uncleanness, licentiousness, IDOLATRY (having FALSE Gods), sorcery, hatred, contentions, jealousies, outbursts of wrath, selfish ambitions, dissensions, HERESIES (believing FALSE doctrines) , envy, murders, drunkenness, revelries and the like; of which I tell you beforehand just as I also told you in time past, that those who practice such things will NOT inherit the kingdom of God" (Gal. 5:19-2).

It is sad that you were drawn away from the truth when you changed your belief about the identity of God. What is worse is your zeal in spreading this FALSEHOOD around!

Nicenes stick to what the scriptures teach.

I will believe you IF Niceans can TRULY answer my question: If the Father and the Son are TRULY separate and distinct individuals/persons/hypostases, and Niceans believe that the Father is "ONE true God" just as the Son is "ONE true God" as well, how many "true Gods" do Niceans have? Do Niceans ALSO believe that the Holy Spirit is "ONE true God" as well, IN ADDITION to the Father and the Son? How many "ONE true Gods" do Niceans believe in over all?

Your answer to these questions will tell TWEB readers whether you are being truthful or not!

In contrast to you, Jehovah's witnesses affirm Jesus is the pre-existent Son of God. The Logos made flesh. So they are closer to the truth.

The Jehovah's Witnesses are just as WRONG as you are! Where do you get the idea that Jesus is the "pre-existent" the Son of God who WAS the "logos" that BECAME flesh? John 1:1 does NOT say that! Neither does ANY other verse say that!

The major theological difference between them and Niceans is whether the Son was created or not. If he is a creation ex-nihilo then he can't be God from God. Thus their progression of thought.

The Jehovah's Witnesses believe that Jesus pre-existed as Michael the archangel. Then it could NOT have been Jesus, the Son of God who was MADE flesh. IOn effect, John 1:1 of the NWT is referring to Michael the archangel as the "word that was a god."

But JWs, like die-hard trinitarians, REFUSE to admit their folly!

However, Nicenes (Trinitarians) believe as the Son is begotten of God (but not begotten as fleshly things are begot) as an exact relica of the Father then he is God from God, and scripture affirms that it is by him that all that was created came to be (Heb 1:2-3; John 1:1-3, Col 1:16) and to whom he came (his own possessions - John 1:11).

While Jesus, the Son of God was begotten (sired) by God "not as fleshly things are begot," Jesus, nevertheless, was MADE or CREATED by God.

Thus, Jesus CANNOT be "God from God" because ONLY God is the CREATOR (Neh. 9:6). NOBODY "begets" (Psalm 90:2) God while Jesus was "begotten" by God.

Just as Jesus was "not begotten as fleshly things are begot," it ALSO does NOT follow that what was "begot" by God is ALSO God, as "fleshly trinitarians" THINK.

What carries MORE authority is what God said THROUGH His son, Jesus (Heb. 1:2). that he is a MAN (John 8:40) and the Father is the ONLY true God (John 17:3).

And God COMMANDS us to LISTEN to His son, Jesus (Matt. 17:5) and BELIEVE him in order to be SAVED (John 3:16-18)..

[apostoli]

Yes, Jesus is "uniquely His Son." But tell me apostoli, is the Father of the Jesus, "true God"? Is Jesus, the "unique" Son of the Father, ALSO "true God"? If you answer YES to both questions, I repeat my question, how many "true Gods" are there? Are you HONESTLY sure that "ONE" is the correct answer to this question?


I believe Jesus to be the Christ based on his conversation with Simon Peter which is recorded in Matt. 16:15-17. Jesus asked Simon Peter, "But what do you say that I AM?" And Simon Peter answered and said, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." Jesus answered and said to him, "Blessed are you Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you but my Father who is in heaven."

If you don't believe this because you are looking for a specific verse where Jesus explicitly said "I am the Christ," that's up to you. As the saying goes, I can only lead a horse to the river but I cannot force it to drink.


Yes, Jesus truly says, "I am in the Father and he in me," but tell me apostoli, is the Father and the Son "one and the same?" Is the Father the Son? Are the Father and the Son NOT separate and distinct?

Of course, earlier you said that the Father and Jesus are TWO separate and distinct individuals/persons/hypostases, didn't you? And you said earlier that the Father is NOT the son and the son is NOT the Father, didn't you?

Then tell me apostoli, HOW can the Father who is "true God" AND the Son who is ALSO "true God" be COUNTED as "ONE true God?" You can see how religious fanaticism can make a systems engineer LOSE his logic and ability to perform simple arithmetical operations, can't you?


Was it a "spirit" that came out of the water in Matt. 3:17? Was it a "spirit" that was standing on the mountain with Peter, James and John in Matt. 17:1? Jesus said that a "spirit has NO flesh and bones as he has" (Luke 24:39). Therefore, a "spirit" cannot be seen.

You certainly know how to read, don't you? Read these verses AGAIN until it sinks in that it was Jesus, the MAN that God was referring to in these verses. You don't think that God would have been referring to an unseen spirit, do you?

You MISUNDERSTAND what "flesh" apostle Paul was talking about. When Paul said, "those who are in the flesh cannot please God" (Rom. 8:8), he was referring to those who "live according to the flesh and set their minds on the things of the flesh" (Rom. 8:5).

Now the works of the flesh are evident, which are: adultery, fornication, uncleanness, licentiousness, IDOLATRY (having FALSE Gods), sorcery, hatred, contentions, jealousies, outbursts of wrath, selfish ambitions, dissensions, HERESIES (believing FALSE doctrines) , envy, murders, drunkenness, revelries and the like; of which I tell you beforehand just as I also told you in time past, that those who practice such things will NOT inherit the kingdom of God" (Gal. 5:19-2).


I will believe you IF Niceans can TRULY answer my question: If the Father and the Son are TRULY separate and distinct individuals/persons/hypostases, and Niceans believe that the Father is "ONE true God" just as the Son is "ONE true God" as well, how many "true Gods" do Niceans have? Do Niceans ALSO believe that the Holy Spirit is "ONE true God" as well, IN ADDITION to the Father and the Son? How many "ONE true Gods" do Niceans believe in over all?

Your answer to these questions will tell TWEB readers whether you are being truthful or not!


The Jehovah's Witnesses are just as WRONG as you are! Where do you get the idea that Jesus is the "pre-existent" the Son of God who WAS the "logos" that BECAME flesh? John 1:1 does NOT say that! Neither does ANY other verse say that!


The Jehovah's Witnesses believe that Jesus pre-existed as Michael the archangel. Then it could NOT have been Jesus, the Son of God who was MADE flesh. IOn effect, John 1:1 of the NWT is referring to Michael the archangel as the "word that was a god."

But JWs, like die-hard trinitarians, REFUSE to admit their folly!

While Jesus, the Son of God was begotten (sired) by God "not as fleshly things are begot," Jesus, nevertheless, was MADE or CREATED by God.

Thus, Jesus CANNOT be "God from God" because ONLY God is the CREATOR (Neh. 9:6). NOBODY "begets" (Psalm 90:2) God while Jesus was "begotten" by God.

Just as Jesus was "not begotten as fleshly things are begot," it ALSO does NOT follow that what was "begot" by God is ALSO God, as "fleshly trinitarians" THINK.

What carries MORE authority is what God said THROUGH His son, Jesus (Heb. 1:2). that he is a MAN (John 8:40) and the Father is the ONLY true God (John 17:3).

And God COMMANDS us to LISTEN to His son, Jesus (Matt. 17:5) and BELIEVE him in order to be SAVED (John 3:16-18)..

"And the Father Himself, who sent Me [Jesus], has testified of Me. You have neither heard His voice at any time, nor seen His form. But you do not have His word abiding in you, because whom He sent, Him you do not believe. You search the Scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life; and these are they which testify of Me." John 5:37-39

[IncRus]

Hello JWDisciple,

My interest is simply what is scripture teaching us. Please be aware I take my posting here very seriously - I do not attack anyone, merely provide facts and independent analysis. If you are interested in a mature academic discussion I'll participate.

That's refreshing to hear! However, basing from our discussions, what you are saying is NOT entirely true! Is it a FACT that Nicean trinitarians TRULY believe that the Father is the ONLY true God? Is it a FACT that Niceans have "only ONE true God?" And as far as I am concerned, you haven't shown any interest in "mature academic discussion" by your reneging on previous statements.

Even when in my many years as a non trinitarian I found the NWT rendering "a god" shocking. My main reason: it isn't taught in the Gospel. For the same reason I disliked the rendering "the Word was God".

What do you mean when you say that the rendering "a god" and "the Word was God" are NOT taught in the Gospel? We find the rendering "a god" in the NWT which is a Bible. We also find the rendering "the Word was God" in numerous versions of the Bible. And you say these are NOT taught in the gospels? You simply mean to say that these renderings do NOT agree with what you like, don't you?

At some stage I procured a second hand copy of the NEB which renders "what God was the Word was". To me this aligned with the teaching at John 14:9, 20:31 and elsewhere in scriptures.

The phrase "what God was the word was" of the NEB gives the impression that what God was in the beginning is no longer what God is today, just as what the word was in the beginning is no longer what the word is today.

Apostle John wrote, "And the word BECAME flesh (human being)" (John 1:14). Thus, the word that WAS God is no longer the "word" because it has been MADE into flesh or human being. Hence, what the word WAS is no longer what it IS today.

Therefore, you WRONGLY align John 1:1 with John 14:9 and John 20:31. There is NOTHING in John 1:1 which refers to Jesus or the Son of God as the "word that was God." That's only in your IMAGINATION - in your attempt to make John 1:1 fit your FALSE doctrine that Jesus is God.

As far as I have ascertained there is no justification, apart from prejudice, that would allow John 1:1 as saying the Logos was "a god".

I agree. There is NO justification at all for the NWT's rendering of John 1:1 as "the word was a god."

As a simple matter of logic consider the environment the letter was written in, and it's audience - by tradition it was delivered around the vicinity of Ephesus, a very pagan imperial city, that was also the base for the emporer cult in the east. On the basis of logic alone, A.John would not have called Jesus "a god" because that would make the Logos, to A.John's audience, comparable to the pagan gods. Nor would he have referred to the Logos as "God" as that was a claim of the emperor.

Your logic is flawed because you are ASSUMING that apostle John was more concerned with what the pagans thought or what the emperor called himself rather than the TRUTH.

Did apostle John mean to write "the word was a god" or "the word was God?" As both of these phrases appear in the Bible, which of these phrases is true?

As we read John 1:1, we know that the "word that was with God in the beginning" is IMPERSONAL - that is, the "word" does NOT refer to a "person" or an individual. There is NOTHING in John 1:1 which says otherwise.

Apostle John was a Jew and knew that a "god" refers to a "judge or a mighty man (Psalm 86:2).
Apostle John also knew that "in the beginning," God ALONE created the heavens and the earth and everything in them (Neh. 9:6; Isa. 44:24).

Therefore, apostle John could NOT have been thinking that the "word that was in the beginning with God" was "a god" because apostle John knew that a "judge or mighty man" or a "spirit creature" could NOT have been with God "in the beginning" BEFORE God created light, which was the first creation of God.

In view of the above, it is only logical to suppose that the phrase, "the word WAS God" is the accurate translation of the original. Apostle John used the word "WAS" to indicate that the "word" did NOT remain God which is what he wrote in John 1:14. The "word" BECAME a human being.

It is ABSURD to think that apostle John would have meant the "word" to be LITERALLY God in the beginning then BECAME a human being because apostle John was a Jew and knew that God does NOT change (Mal. 3:6) and is NOT a MAN (Num. 23:19). Moreover, apostle John knew what the prophets wrote about having NO OTHER God beside God (Isaiah 44:6; 45:6; 46:9).

By the time apostle Paul wrote his book, he had known Jesus and heard Jesus say that he is a MAN (John 8:40) and the Father is the ONLY true God (John 17:3). What kind of apostle would John be if he THOUGHT that Jesus is ALSO God IN ADDITION to the Father?

The Bible teaches that "Holy men SPOKE as they were moved by the Holy Spirit" (2 Peter 1:21).
Therefore, I CANNOT make myself to accept the HERETICAL idea that apostle John meant to convey that the Son of God (Jesus) WAS the "word that WAS God" that BECAME a MAN whom his mother called Jesus. This was NOT what Jesus TAUGHT and the Holy Spirit would NOT move apostle John to CONTRADICT his Lord and Savior.

However, as the central theme of the letter is that Jesus is the Son of God, it would be natural for A.John to be understood as saying: as a Son is to his Father, so be the Son of God. It is just a matter of serendipity on my part, that I found that modern research into the Greek supported my opinion.

Modern research in the Greek might support your OPINION but the Bible does NOT! Apostle John could NOT have meant to tell us that as his Father is the only true God, so is the Son of God ALSO the only true God. This is CONTRARY to what Jesus said about himself and God. As I said earlier, apostle Paul spoke as he was moved by the Holy Spirit. Therefore, apostle John coulkd NOT have been moved to CONTRADICT his Lord and Savior.

And we agree that the Son isn't the Father, they are distinct individuals. According to the witness of the Church the Father is the Only True God. Therefore, Niceans (Trinitarians) teach that as Jesus is the Son of God he is true God from true God. The reason for this is that Jesus is shown to be true judge over all just as is his Father and Jesus is the source of the true light and eternal life, just as the Father.

Tell me HOW Jesus, the Son of God is "true God from true God" IF Nicean trinitarians TRULY believe that the Father of the Son is the ONLY true God? You aren't telling me that Nicean trinitarians do NOT know what the word ONLY means, are you?

While it might be true that the Bible shows Jesus to be "true judge over all just as he and His Father is the source of the true light and eternal life," the Bible does NOT teach that Jesus, as Son of God is "true God from true God." Neither does the Bible teach that this is the reason why Jesus as the Son of God is "true God from true God." Therefore, what Niceans (Trinitarians) teach is FALSE.

Niceans (Trinitarians) hold that the Father and Son are distinct individuals/persons/hypostases. That is way Niceans (Trinitarians) teach from scripture (Heb 1:3) that Jesus as Son of God is an exact replica of the Father's hypostasis (the word used at Heb 1:3), and thus God from God.

What Niceans (Trinitarians) teach is based on their own conclusion - NOT on what the Bible teaches. The Bible does NOT teach that Jesus is "God from God." This is a man-made doctrine of Niceans (Trinitarians) based on their own CONCLUSION that since "Jesus as the Son of God is the exact replica of the Father's hypostasis" then he must be "God from God."

Niceans stick to what scripture actually says. the Father of the Son is the only true God. They are two distict individuals.

It's NOT true that Niceans stick to what scripture actually says, that the Father of the Son is the ONLY true God. If Niceans TRUTHFULLY did, they would NOT teach that Jesus as Son of God is "true God from true God" based on their OWN speculation and conclusion.

Clearly, their doctrine that Jesus as Son of God is "true God from true God" CONTRADICTS even their own pronouncement that they stick to what the scripture actually says, that the Father of the Son is the ONLY true God.

Agreed. In terms of his manhood he was truely unique. Just as he is in terms of his Sonship. However, his flesh does not cause him to be Son of God.

This is a FALSE teaching. The Bible does NOT teach what "causes Jesus to be the Son of God." When Jesus asked Peter, "But what do you say that I AM? Peter answered Jesus and said, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God" (Matt. 16:15-16). Was Peter talking to a "spirit" or was he talking to the "flesh"? Jesus said, "a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see I have" (Luke 24:39). Jesus HIMSELF, in person, is the Son of God.

[apostoli]

Hello IncRus,

A fuller response to your post #175

If Jesus is "true God FROM true God," and Jesus is a "distinct individual.person/hypostases" from HIS Father, how many "true Gods" are there? You wouldn't dare answer, "ONE true God," would you?

One. And Jesus is uniquely his Son.

Yes, Jesus is "uniquely His Son." But tell me apostoli, is the Father of the Jesus, "true God"? Is Jesus, the "unique" Son of the Father, ALSO "true God"? If you answer YES to both questions, I repeat my question, how many "true Gods" are there? Are you HONESTLY sure that "ONE" is the correct answer to this question?

The Father of Jesus, is the only true God, and the Son of the Father is true God from true God. As the Father is in the Son, and the Son in the Father there is only one true God. As you focus exclusively on physicality I don't expect you to understand this. Samewise you may not understand this illustration: individually each of us are the temple of God, and yet the Church with its many members form the temple of God and yet there is only one temple of God.

If you read the scriptures you might notice that not once did Jesus directly declare himself to be the Christ. That is: he never said "I am the Christ". And yet you say that you believe him to be the Christ. Why is that so? However, he did say his Father is the only true God.

I believe Jesus to be the Christ based on his conversation with Simon Peter...

If you don't believe this because you are looking for a specific verse where Jesus explicitly said "I am the Christ," that's up to you. As the saying goes, I can only lead a horse to the river but I cannot force it to drink.

Nice try at deflection. As my posts testify I have no trouble accepting Jesus' witness of himself and so I'm not reliant on A.Peter's revelation.

Once again you have demonstrated how little you pay attention to the scriptures. See John 4:25-26 "The woman said to Him, I know that Messiah is coming (who is called Christ)...Jesus said to her, I who speak to you am [He]."

You regularly defend your opinion by saying this or that exact words are not in scripture. What you are blind to, is the exact words may not be in scripture, but the teaching is!

Based on your Nicean Trinitarian belief, how many "true Gods" do Nicean Trinitarians believe in and pray to?

One. Jesus says I am in the Father and he in me.

Yes, Jesus truly says, "I am in the Father and he in me," but tell me apostoli, is the Father and the Son "one and the same?"

The Father and Son are distinct and real individuals. However, they are united in office.

Is the Father the Son?

Nope!

Are the Father and the Son NOT separate and distinct?

The Father and the Son are distinct individuals, but unified in office.

Of course, earlier you said that the Father and Jesus are TWO separate and distinct individuals/persons/hypostases, didn't you?

Sure did!

And you said earlier that the Father is NOT the son and the son is NOT the Father, didn't you?

Sure did!

Then tell me apostoli, HOW can the Father who is "true God" AND the Son who is ALSO "true God" be COUNTED as "ONE true God?"

The Nicene creed says the Son is true God from true God. In office, the Father, Son and Spirit are our one true God - that by which eternal life is bestowed. By analogy at Rev 22 we learn of the one throne, the throne of God and the Lamb, from which proceeds the water of life.

You can see how religious fanaticism can make a systems engineer LOSE his logic and ability to perform simple arithmetical operations, can't you?

Unlike system engineers, application architects (me) have to pay attention to detail, and seek out the most logical pathway. As for arithmetic: 1^1^1=1.

The typically Islamic maths logic you offer as a rebuke is infantile. A common family unit consists of a husband, a wife and a child, but you wouldn't deduce 1+1+1 = three families. Or would you?

Jesus said that a "spirit has NO flesh and bones as he has" (Luke 24:39). Therefore, a "spirit" cannot be seen.

You certainly know how to read, don't you? Read these verses AGAIN until it sinks in that it was Jesus, the MAN that God was referring to in these verses. You don't think that God would have been referring to an unseen spirit, do you?

Sure was the man Jesus. But obviously you don't understand the several uses of the word spirit in scripture. I was not speaking of the etheral, but of the Spirit within Jesus, what A.Paul refers to as the Spirit of Christ.

In Matt. 3:17, a voice from heaven was heard, when Jesus (the flesh) came out of the water, saying, "This is my beloved SON, in whom I am well pleased." Again, in Matt. 17:5, a voice from heaven was heard, saying, "This is my beloved SON in whom I am well pleased. LISTEN to him." It is evident from what this voice from heaven says that Jesus HIMSELF is the Son of God - NOT some imagined separate "Son of God" ENCASED in the flesh of Jesus.

Indeed but was the Father talking of the flesh or the spirit? Have a read of Romans 8. As A.Paul says "those who are in the flesh cannot please God."

You MISUNDERSTAND what "flesh" apostle Paul was talking about. When Paul said, "those who are in the flesh cannot please God" (Rom. 8:8), he was referring to those who "live according to the flesh and set their minds on the things of the flesh" (Rom. 8:5).

Indeed! And as scripture tells us the Logos became flesh, but did not live according to the flesh. You continually justify your opinion by references to Jesus' flesh existence (Jesus is just a man), consequently you have become blind to the text that follows Rom 8:8 "But you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit" (Rom 8:9)

Nicenes stick to what the scriptures teach.

I will believe you IF Niceans can TRULY answer my question: If the Father and the Son are TRULY separate and distinct individuals/persons/hypostases, and Niceans believe that the Father is "ONE true God" just as the Son is "ONE true God" as well, how many "true Gods" do Niceans have?

One.

Do Niceans ALSO believe that the Holy Spirit is "ONE true God" as well, IN ADDITION to the Father and the Son?

Not in addition.

How many "ONE true Gods" do Niceans believe in over all?

One

Your answer to these questions will tell TWEB readers whether you are being truthful or not!

They already know I am truthful. It is you they constantly see adding to and omiting scripture to justify your opinion.

In contrast to you, Jehovah's witnesses affirm Jesus is the pre-existent Son of God. The Logos made flesh. So they are closer to the truth.

The Jehovah's Witnesses are just as WRONG as you are! Where do you get the idea that Jesus is the "pre-existent" the Son of God who WAS the "logos" that BECAME flesh?

From Jesus' testimony of himself. He says he would return from where he had come, and that he came from heaven and before Abraham existed he is.

John 1:1 does NOT say that!

Indeed! John 1:1 says the Logos was face to face (gr. pros) with ho theos, and the LOgos had all the characteristics of God. Vs3 affirms saying all things were created by the Logos. vs4 that in him was life, and the life was the light of men. vs9 he is the true light. vs10,11 that came into the world to his own possessions. vs12 so that as many as received him would become children of God.

Neither does ANY other verse say that!

Lots of verses indicate the Son had a real existence before becoming man. I've already given you Jesus' witness of himself. But if you won't believe him contemplate Hebrews 2:16-17. How is it that the author of Hebrews says the Son chose to become flesh?

The Jehovah's Witnesses believe that Jesus pre-existed as Michael the archangel. Then it could NOT have been Jesus, the Son of God who was MADE flesh. IOn effect, John 1:1 of the NWT is referring to Michael the archangel as the "word that was a god." But JWs, like die-hard trinitarians, REFUSE to admit their folly!

You obviously don't know about the significance of names in the scriptures. Jesus as you well know means "God with us", Michael "who is like God?". The name signifies the function of the individual at a given point in time. If the function changes, the name changes. There are lots of examples in the OT. Your ignorance of such demonstrates the folly of the illogic upon which you base your opinion.

However, Nicenes (Trinitarians) believe as the Son is begotten of God (but not begotten as fleshly things are begot) as an exact relica of the Father then he is God from God, and scripture affirms that it is by him that all that was created came to be (Heb 1:2-3; John 1:1-3, Col 1:16) and to whom he came (his own possessions - John 1:11).

While Jesus, the Son of God was begotten (sired) by God "not as fleshly things are begot," Jesus, nevertheless, was MADE or CREATED by God.

There is no scripture that suggests that the Son was made or created. To the contrary, A.John in 1 John refers to he who is born of God. But as you can only relate to earthy things, I doubt that you can understand A.John's words.

Thus, Jesus CANNOT be "God from God" because ONLY God is the CREATOR (Neh. 9:6). NOBODY "begets" (Psalm 90:2) God while Jesus was "begotten" by God.

Ps 90:2 doesn't prove your point, in fact given Col 1:16; Heb 1:2; John 1:2 & 1 Cor 8:6, it supports the Son as being God, or at the very least the Sophia and power of God (Proverbs 8:22; Jer 10:12; 1 Cor 1:24). But I agree the Father is unbegotten, and that Jesus was begotten. Such status are only differentials of personal existence (hypostasis). Similarly, Adam has the status of being formed from the earth, and Eve from the rib of Adam, and their offspring being produced via a chemical reaction, yet Adam, Eve and offspring are each man, not three varieties of man.

Just as Jesus was "not begotten as fleshly things are begot," it ALSO does NOT follow that what was "begot" by God is ALSO God, as "fleshly trinitarians" THINK.

Why not? Aren't all things possible with God?

But as you subject yourself to the wisdom of this world and their idols, instead of the wisdom of God, you erect an idol in your mind, clothe it with attributes and and call it God, without ever conceiving him as an individual whose essential nature is love (1 John 4:8). Jesus taught that he preached the truth that would set us free, and that freedom comes from a relationship with both him and the Father (John 17:3).

What carries MORE authority is what God said THROUGH His son, Jesus (Heb. 1:2).

Indeed! And Hebrews 1:2 tells us that the Son is he "by whom he made the worlds". And vs 3 tells us that the Son is an exact replica of the Father's hypostasis (the actual word used in Hebrews). if you think this carries more authority than anything you or I say, then why is it you have a need to omit those plain words of scripture that negate your opinion?

that he is a MAN (John 8:40) and the Father is the ONLY true God (John 17:3).

Indeed Jesus was/is a man, and his Father is the only true God. But scripture repeatedly tells us, Jesus repeatedly tells us, that before he became man, he was in heaven with the Father. You base your whole opinion on a single scripture that you need (and do) take out of context. And so omit all other scripture that directly contradict your opinion.

And God COMMANDS us to LISTEN to His son, Jesus (Matt. 17:5) and BELIEVE him in order to be SAVED (John 3:16-18).

Indeed! Then why is it that you reject the Son's own witness of himself?

John 6:38 "For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me."

John 16:28 "I came forth from the Father, and am come into the world: again, I leave the world, and go to the Father."

John 17:5 "And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was."

Peace

[apostoli]

Hello IncRus,

Responding to your post #177

My interest is simply what is scripture teaching us. Please be aware I take my posting here very seriously - I do not attack anyone, merely provide facts and independent analysis. If you are interested in a mature academic discussion I'll participate.

That's refreshing to hear! However, basing from our discussions, what you are saying is NOT entirely true! Is it a FACT that Nicean trinitarians TRULY believe that the Father is the ONLY true God? Is it a FACT that Niceans have "only ONE true God?" And as far as I am concerned, you haven't shown any interest in "mature academic discussion" by your reneging on previous statements.

I have not reneged any statement at anytime or anywhere in our discussion. If you think I have reneged show us exactly where.

I have consistently said the Father and Son are distinct individuals. That the Son is true God from true God. That the Father of the Son is the only true God. And that there is only one true God because the Father is in the Son and the Son is in the Father.

You keep asking the same questions, and I keep answering them in a similar way. Ask as many times as you like. I'll give you the same answer.

Even when in my many years as a non trinitarian I found the NWT rendering "a god" shocking. My main reason: it isn't taught in the Gospel. For the same reason I disliked the rendering "the Word was God".

What do you mean when you say that the rendering "a god" and "the Word was God" are NOT taught in the Gospel? We find the rendering "a god" in the NWT which is a Bible. We also find the rendering "the Word was God" in numerous versions of the Bible. And you say these are NOT taught in the gospels? You simply mean to say that these renderings do NOT agree with what you like, don't you?

The words are there in English versions. However, the ideas that these English phrases convey are not taught in the Gospel. However, the words that the original Greek conveys are taught in the Gospel, as I clearly explained (below) to JWDisciple.

At some stage I procured a second hand copy of the NEB which renders "what God was the Word was". To me this aligned with the teaching at John 14:9, 20:31 and elsewhere in scriptures.

The phrase "what God was the word was" of the NEB gives the impression that what God was in the beginning is no longer what God is today, just as what the word was in the beginning is no longer what the word is today.

?. In English "was" is past tense or past-present continuous, never past-future. So the NEB is simply teaching "what God is and contunues to be, so the Word"

Apostle John wrote, "And the word BECAME flesh (human being)" (John 1:14). Thus, the word that WAS God is no longer the "word" because it has been MADE into flesh or human being. Hence, what the word WAS is no longer what it IS today.

Therefore, you WRONGLY align John 1:1 with John 14:9 and John 20:31. There is NOTHING in John 1:1 which refers to Jesus or the Son of God as the "word that was God." That's only in your IMAGINATION - in your attempt to make John 1:1 fit your FALSE doctrine that Jesus is God.

Except John 1:1 does not lend itself to such an interpretation. Hence A.John at 1:14 says the Logos became flesh and dwelt amoungst us. Thus the Logos remained what he was, but added flesh to himself. A.Paul says more or less the same thing...

At Phillipians 2:6 A.Paul uses the word hyparchō when refering to Jesus' existence before becoming flesh. hyparchō basically means to be and continue to be. In A.Paul's context in the morphe of God.

As a simple matter of logic consider the environment the letter was written in, and it's audience - by tradition it was delivered around the vicinity of Ephesus, a very pagan imperial city, that was also the base for the emporer cult in the east. On the basis of logic alone, A.John would not have called Jesus "a god" because that would make the Logos, to A.John's audience, comparable to the pagan gods. Nor would he have referred to the Logos as "God" as that was a claim of the emperor.

Your logic is flawed because you are ASSUMING that apostle John was more concerned with what the pagans thought or what the emperor called himself rather than the TRUTH.

Indeed. However, A.John would not have wanted to stumble his listeners. If A.John had meant that the Son was "God" or "a god" at John 1:1c then we would expect to have him to expand on such in the Gospel but he doesn't Instead his theme concerns Jesus as the Son of God, and he says at John 20:31 what his Gospel is about and why he wrote it.

Did apostle John mean to write "the word was a god" or "the word was God?" As both of these phrases appear in the Bible, which of these phrases is true?

He wrote "theos en ho logos". Most Greek grammarians say that the phrase is qualitive, neither definite nor exclusively indefinite. So both translations "was a god" and "was God" while grammatically allowable are inexact.

As we read John 1:1, we know that the "word that was with God in the beginning" is IMPERSONAL - that is, the "word" does NOT refer to a "person" or an individual. There is NOTHING in John 1:1 which says otherwise.

Impersonal is not definite. I've read in the very first editions of the KJV "it" was rendered at vs3 instead of "he". The Greek can be translated either way. Though the Greek "autos" most often refers to an individual. Verses 4 to 12 definitely refer to an individual. Thayer in his lexicon says "autos" is commonly used throughout the OT & NT and "signifys nothing more than again, applied to what has either been previously mentioned..." So strictly speaking "the Logos" should be read whenever we encounter the pronoun in John 1:3 to 12.

Apostle John was a Jew and knew that a "god" refers to a "judge or a mighty man (Psalm 86:2).
Apostle John also knew that "in the beginning," God ALONE created the heavens and the earth and everything in them (Neh. 9:6; Isa. 44:24).

Therefore, apostle John could NOT have been thinking that the "word that was in the beginning with God" was "a god" because apostle John knew that a "judge or mighty man" or a "spirit creature" could NOT have been with God "in the beginning" BEFORE God created light, which was the first creation of God.

In view of the above, it is only logical to suppose that the phrase, "the word WAS God" is the accurate translation of the original. Apostle John used the word "WAS" to indicate that the "word" did NOT remain God which is what he wrote in John 1:14. The "word" BECAME a human being.

There are several words in Greek that are translated "was". However, A.John used the word "en" which doesn't lend itself to your speculation. For instance John 1:4 "In him was life; and the life was the light of men." If we apply your speculation to John 1:4 then he ceases to be life and light etc.

It is ABSURD to think that apostle John would have meant the "word" to be LITERALLY God in the beginning then BECAME a human being because apostle John was a Jew and knew that God does NOT change (Mal. 3:6) and is NOT a MAN (Num. 23:19). Moreover, apostle John knew what the prophets wrote about having NO OTHER God beside God (Isaiah 44:6; 45:6; 46:9).

Actually, it says no other God besides YHWH. Probably why he said the Son had all the chracteristics that make God what he is, and to enforce the distinction between individuals by reinterating that the Logos was with God in the beginning.

By the time apostle Paul wrote his book, he had known Jesus and heard Jesus say that he is a MAN (John 8:40)

There is no evidence that A.Paul ever saw or heard Jesus preaching but he was obviously aware of his disciples after pentecost. A.Paul persecuted the disciples because he thought Jesus just a man. Then on the road to Demascus he says he was transported to the third heaven, saw Jesus, realised his error and repented what he had done etc.

The Bible teaches that "Holy men SPOKE as they were moved by the Holy Spirit" (2 Peter 1:21).
Therefore, I CANNOT make myself to accept the HERETICAL idea that apostle John meant to convey that the Son of God (Jesus) od" that BECAME a MAN whom his mother called Jesus. This was NOT what Jesus TAUGHT and the Holy Spirit would NOT move apostle John to CONTRADICT his Lord and Savior.

That is probably why A.John and A.Paul using different words say the same thing John 1:1, Heb 1:2, Phil 2:6 = the Son is identical in characteristics to the Father.

However, as the central theme of the letter is that Jesus is the Son of God, it would be natural for A.John to be understood as saying: as a Son is to his Father, so be the Son of God. It is just a matter of serendipity on my part, that I found that modern research into the Greek supported my opinion.

Modern research in the Greek might support your OPINION but the Bible does NOT!

Actually the Gospel of John repeatedly reinforces my opinion of what John 1:1c is telling us.

There are three opinions in understanding John 1:1c. None of which support your opinion (especially your illiterate speculations above).

Apostle John could NOT have meant to tell us that as his Father is the only true God, so is the Son of God ALSO the only true God. This is CONTRARY to what Jesus said about himself and God. As I said earlier, apostle Paul spoke as he was moved by the Holy Spirit. Therefore, apostle John could NOT have been moved to CONTRADICT his Lord and Savior.

I agree! However, there is nothing that precludes him quoting Jesus words that if you see the Son you see the Father. My understanding of John 1:1c explains how this is possible.

And we agree that the Son isn't the Father, they are distinct individuals. According to the witness of the Church the Father is the Only True God. Therefore, Niceans (Trinitarians) teach that as Jesus is the Son of God he is true God from true God. The reason for this is that Jesus is shown to be true judge over all just as is his Father and Jesus is the source of the true light and eternal life, just as the Father.

Tell me HOW Jesus, the Son of God is "true God from true God" IF Nicean trinitarians TRULY believe that the Father of the Son is the ONLY true God? You aren't telling me that Nicean trinitarians do NOT know what the word ONLY means, are you?

The Father is the only true God, he of himself. The Son is true God from true God. According to Jesus, if you see the Son you see the Father = John 14:9; 12:45. He also says: Believest me not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me?"

While it might be true that the Bible shows Jesus to be "true judge over all just as he and His Father is the source of the true light and eternal life," the Bible does NOT teach that Jesus, as Son of God is "true God from true God." Neither does the Bible teach that this is the reason why Jesus as the Son of God is "true God from true God." Therefore, what Niceans (Trinitarians) teach is FALSE.

the exact words aren't there but the teaching is. Of course you can reject Jesus witness of himself (as you continue to do) "And he that sees me sees him that sent me" (John 12:45).

Niceans (Trinitarians) hold that the Father and Son are distinct individuals/persons/hypostases. That is way Niceans (Trinitarians) teach from scripture (Heb 1:3) that Jesus as Son of God is an exact replica of the Father's hypostasis (the word used at Heb 1:3), and thus God from God.

What Niceans (Trinitarians) teach is based on their own conclusion - NOT on what the Bible teaches. The Bible does NOT teach that Jesus is "God from God." This is a man-made doctrine of Niceans (Trinitarians) based on their own CONCLUSION that since "Jesus as the Son of God is the exact replica of the Father's hypostasis" then he must be "God from God."

A.John and A.Paul inspired by the Spirit witness that the Logos/Son/Jesus is the creator of all things (John 1:3; Col 1:16; Heb 1:2; 1 Cor 8:6).

Niceans stick to what scripture actually says. the Father of the Son is the only true God. They are two distict individuals.

It's NOT true that Niceans stick to what scripture actually says, that the Father of the Son is the ONLY true God. If Niceans TRUTHFULLY did, they would NOT teach that Jesus as Son of God is "true God from true God" based on their OWN speculation and conclusion.

The scriptures attribute to Jesus everything the OT attributes to YHWH. Conclusion, in some way Jesus is God, but not God of himself, as he affirms his Father is the only true God.

Clearly, their doctrine that Jesus as Son of God is "true God from true God" CONTRADICTS even their own pronouncement that they stick to what the scripture actually says, that the Father of the Son is the ONLY true God.

No contradiction. Merely affirmation. A.Paul says at 1 Cor 8:6 that all things are of the Father but by the Son, and at Col 1:16 he says "by him were all things created, that are in heaven and that are in earth, visible and invisible...." The OT tells us that God created the heavens and the earth. Gen 1:26 tells us "Then God said, 'Let us make man in our image, after our likeness..."

In terms of his manhood he was truely unique. Just as he is in terms of his Sonship. However, his flesh does not cause him to be Son of God.

This is a FALSE teaching. The Bible does NOT teach what "causes Jesus to be the Son of God." When Jesus asked Peter, "But what do you say that I AM? Peter answered Jesus and said, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God" (Matt. 16:15-16). Was Peter talking to a "spirit" or was he talking to the "flesh"? Jesus said, "a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see I have" (Luke 24:39). Jesus HIMSELF, in person, is the Son of God

Actually the scriptures do tell us what causes Jesus to be the Son of God. its just you are too blinded to understand them.

As for A.Peter and Jesus' conversation the disciples saw Jesus but didn't understand him. See John 14:9, the disciples ask Jesus to show them the Father and Jesus replies if you have seen the Son you have seen the Father. How is that possible?

As A.Paul says at Roman 8:9 "But you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit". As you are fixated on fleshly things I presume you have no idea what he is talking about.

Peace

[apostoli]

Hello IncRus,

Response to your post #167

Hebrews 1:3 says the Son is "the exact representation" (χαρακτὴρ) of the Father's "very being" (ὑποστάσεως) (NWTI). You either accept scripture or you don't!

Yes, Jesus is the “exact representation of the Father’s, as you say, “very being.” So what? The Hebrews author does NOT mean to say that Jesus is God. How could he, when he is only a disciple of Jesus..."

Heb 1:2,3 "his Son...through whom also He made the worlds...[who] upholds all things by the word of His power."

Also Jesus revealed himself to A.Paul and he says "For though I would desire to glory, I shall not be a fool; for I will say the truth..." 2 Cor 12:6

So what if Jesus is uniquely the Son of the only true God, and he came from heaven?...

John 3:16 "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."

John 20:31 "But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name."

You ASSUME that because of the word "came" Jesus "existed BEFORE becoming flesh." Your ASSUMPTION is FALSE. John 1:6 states that John was SENT from God. Do you also ASSUME that John "existed BEFORE God sent him?"

Nope! "came" is just one verbal proof, there are many others (see below for a couple more).

Unlike John the baptist, Jesus says he came from heaven. John 6:38 "For I came down from heaven"

Jesus did NOT literally “come” from heaven just as one is NOT literally “born again.”

Believers are literally born again. But sadly, "the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him" 1 Cor 1:14.

The Bible does NOT teach that Jesus was someone BEFORE he was born.

Jesus certainly taught he had a real existence before becoming flesh, and his words are recorded in the bible. eg: John 6:58; 8:23,42,58; 13:3; 16:28; 17:5 etc

I see that in you, the prophecy of Isaiah is fulfilled, which says: "Hearing you will hear and shall not understand, And seeing you will see and not perceive...

If so how is it that Jesus says to you "Why do you not understand my speech? Even because you cannot hear my word" (John 8:43) He was certainly being clear enough.

If ever Jesus existed BEFORE he was born, what was he?

The wisdom and power of God. The Logos. The son of God.

The Bible does NOT explicitly say that Jesus existed BEFORE he was born.

Jesus says explicity that he had existence before the world was (John 17:5).

Jesus said he is a MAN (John 8:40)

Jesus says he came down from heaven (John 6:38). Why do you murmur with the Jews? Saying but he is just a man, whose mother we know. (John 6:42)

Neither does the Bible teach that Jesus was the "logos" that BECAME flesh.

Sure does and even you seem to acknowledge that the Logos at John 1:14 refers to Jesus.

Your statement that “the Logos dwelt amongst men” is FALSE.

It isn't my statement. Word for word A.John says "And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us". "Us" refers to us men. As I remarked earlier "John 1:14 says clearly that the Logos dwelt amoung us"

What the Bible teaches is Jesus was "FOREORDAINED before the foundation of the world" (1 Pet. 1:20). Jesus is the FLESH or human being that the "word" or "logos" of God BECAME (John 1:14).

Note 1 Peter 1:19. Verse 20 is talking about the office of "Christ" being foreordained, which was manifested in Jesus. Compare vs2 where believers are called "Elect according to the foreknowledge of God, through santification of the Spirit...". Did the elect only come into existence once they were sanctified?

Again, your understanding of 1 Peter 1:20 is WRONG! Apostle Paul is NOT “talking about the office of Christ being foreordained.” Note that apostle Paul began verse 20 with the word “He.” Apostle Paul wrote: “HE indeed was FOREORDAINED…” You seem to think that apostle Paul was stupid to address an office “HE,” don’t you?

It seems you are gravely mistaken. Firstly A.Peter wrote 1 Peter not A.Paul.

Next the "He" of 1 Peter 1:20 is nominated in vs19, which refers only to the Christ. By association Jesus is the Christ. Jesus held the position of Christ, Christ was one of his accolades. Thus the foreordination is in regard to Jesus as Christ. The text goes on to say that Jesus as Christ "was manifest in these last times for you."

The word of God says “And the word BECAME flesh/human being” (John 1:14 NKJV/TEV). – NOT your belief that “the Son of God “came from heaven and became a man” (incarnated).

A.John didn't use the words "human being", but the Logos became flesh and dwelt amoungst us. Though I trust we agree he is talking of Jesus becoming man. He also says, that these things (his Gospel) are written so that you believe Jesus is the Son of God. It is A.John that associates the Logos and the Son of God as the same individual not me (see John 1:10-12).

And apostle John wrote his gospel that you would believe that Jesus is the Son of God – NOT that Jesus is God.

No one said he did.

This demonstrates that what you believe are man-made doctrines rather than the word of God.

All the above demonstrate that you'd rather listen to men than the word of God, and Jesus' very clear witness concerning himself. He says without metaphor he came from heaven. That he came from the Father and would return to his Father and so on.

Of course, Jesus is a MAN, albeit NOT an ordinary man. Jesus is NEITHER "God of himself" NOR "God from God." Jesus himself SAID that he is a MAN (John 8:40) and the Father (John 17:1) is the ONLY true God (John 17:3). The Nicean teaching is FALSE and so are others which CONTRADICT the doctrines of Christ.

Which puts you and the INC at the top of the list. As you ignore 60% of Jesus' witness of himself. It was Jesus that says in plain words that if you see him you see his Father (John 12:45; 14:9) and to you he says "because I tell you the truth, you believe me not" (John 8:45)

I believe John 12:45; 14:9 but these do NOT make Jesus God... You don’t believe John 8:40 and John 17:3, do you?

Sure do! The Logos became flesh. His Father is the only true God. And A.John tells us, he wrote what he wrote so that you would believe Jesus is the Son of God.

Why would I think that Jesus was an "adopted son of God" as I am? God first declared Jesus as His "son" and I received adoption as son of God THROUGH Jesus. That is, by having been "baptized into HIS body" (1 Cor. 12:13), the "church" (Eph. 1:21-22; Col. 1:18).

Have you forgotten you declared in your post #145 "I believe simply that Jesus is Son of God just as I am a son of God." If so, and you hold you are adopted as a Son, then you must (as in your words, Jesus is Son of God just as I am a son of God) hold that Jesus is also adopted like you.

Again, you contradit yourself. Seems you actually recognise that Jesus is Son of God in a unique sense, very unlike the way you became son of God, but refuse to acknowledge it (?)

Of course, I recognize that Jesus is Son of God in, as you say, "a unique sense" very UNLIKE the way I received adoption as son of God (Gal. 4:4-5). However, BOTH Jesus and I are "children of God, then heirs-heirs of God and joint heirs with Christ..." (Rom. 8:17).

Except scripture never describe Jesus as a child of God, let alone a child of God as we are children of God. In fact we only receive our grant through Jesus.

Of course as Son of God, he is a child of God, but not as we become children of God.

Being [b]joint-heirs with Christ[.b] is further proof that Christ is NOT God!

Nope. It affirms it! The legalism of the OT, requires that only a relative could receive inheritence. We are not relatives, but as the bride of Christ adopted into the family.

Jesus said "we [Jews] worship what we know". I'd rather believe Jesus than you. In the period of the second temple, the Jews had taken worship of the one true God to the extreme, imposing extremes to ensure purity of worship. The major issue between the Samaritans and the Jews was where proper worship occurs, what the Samaritans failed to accept is that Jerusalem was the God appointed center (via David) for the establishment of the kingdom on earth. But Jesus tells the woman, that "true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth"

What Jesus said is clear and does NOT need any explanation. Jesus said, "you worship WHAT you do NOT know."

As usual you omit scripture - what scripture says is the Samaritans didn't know but the Jews did! Once again plain scripture contradicts your ascertions.

You ASSUME that when Jesus said “we” he was referring to Jews. You are WRONG as usual! Jesus was referring to his followers, his apostles and disciples, those who believe as he did that the Father is the ONLY true God. The Jews had him killed, remember?

I assume nothing, it is plainly written. As usual you omit scripture and fabricate opinion by ignoring what is plainly written. In the discourse Jesus plainly says at Jhn 4:22 "Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews." in case you were not aware, Jesus and the disciples are Jews. Not all Jews plotted to kill Jesus, many believed on him.

Jesus did NOT say "WHERE," did he?

Sure did! He even tells how. It is sad that you don't understand him.

Jesus tells the woman HOW to worship the Father whom the woman did NOT know as the ONLY true God. That’s why Jesus said to the woman, “You worship WHAT you do NOT know.”

She certainly worshipped the same God as the Jews, that is why she had the expectation of the Christ (John 4:25), and so many of the Samaritans believed on him (John 4:39-42). The Samaritans by the time of Jesus were as monotheistic as the Jews, but were seperated from Jerusalem. Hence, they knew not what they worshipped.

Therefore, in John 17:3, it was imperative for Jesus to "MAKE the Father KNOWN" (Luke 10:22) as the ONLY true God - NOT "the one true God," a phrase which IMPLIES that the Father is "one true God" among "many OTHER true Gods."

The Jews already knew their God was the only true God. What Jesus was to do, was to prove it!

(?) I've never come across a translation that refers to the Father as the "one true God" all that I have encountered translate "only true God" or "uniquely true God". So I think your argueing against a figment of your own imagination.

You keep referring to the Father as the "one true God" instead of "ONLY true God," haven't you?

I just spent time scanning the 11 pages of this thread. The only person who used the phrase "one true God" is you - starting at your post #152. So either you are deluding yourself, or you have just proved yourself a false witness and an absolute liar.

Really? Don't you remember writing this? "Given the Jews already worshipped what they already knew, the one true God, it is obvious that to give this knowledge was not Jesus' mission. Imu, his mission was to make manifest the Father as the one true God. As A.John says: "In this the love of God was made manifest among us, that God sent his only Son into the world, so that we might live through him." (1 John 4:9). This is why John 17:3 requires us to take in knowledge (have a relationship) with both the Father and the Son." I’m sure you know who your father is (John 8:44) by now!

If you read what originally I wrote I did not use the phrase in the context of John 17:3. Which was the topic under discussion when you made your accusation.

In post #148, in the context of the Shema (Deut 6:4), I did use it as the Jewish & Samaritan view of things. I do apologise for not making myself clear.

In post #152 you said: "To the Jews, the Father was simply 'one true God' among MANY other 'true Gods'. Therefore, in John 17:3, it was imperative for Jesus to 'MAKE the Father KNOWN' (Luke 10:22) as the ONLY true God - NOT 'the one true God', a phrase which IMPLIES that the Father is 'one true God' among 'many OTHER true Gods'."

No Jew would agree with your opinion, to them one means one. Especially in the context of the Shema. Also, there is nothing in scripture that suggests in the time of Jesus that to the Jews the Father is "one true God" among "many OTHER true Gods." In fact the opposite.

I find your objection strange: "one true God" via the Shema is affirmative that there is only one God, and all other things called god are false gods.

That aside: In my earlier posts I was giving the Jewish view of things. As I said: "Jesus said 'we [Jews] worship what we know'...In the period of the second temple, the Jews had taken worship of the one true God to the extreme, imposing extremes to ensure purity of worship..."

You should note I placed no stress on the phrase, but in the context of John 4, I went on to suggest that what the Samaritans didn't realise was that Jerusalem was the God appointed center for the establishment of the kingdom. Thus it was the God appointed center for worship, not the mountain.

And the Bible NEVER refers to the Father as "uniquely true God," either.

It is interesting you think it inappropriate, I've only encountered such in a non-trinitarian citation in an arguement against Nicene teaching. Though "Unique" is an interpretative rendering of the Greek word "monas" which primarily means 'alone (without a companion)', "only" seems to be the more common sense of the word.

I don’t think referring to the Father as “uniquely true God” as “inappropriate.” I think it is HERETICAL. The word “unique true God” could be used by Trinitarians to mean some other way (like, unique true God in essence, etc.) to justify their belief in a TRIUNE God.

? I really don't see how. Unique is a stronger word than only. Though both indicate exclusivity.

The Biblical phrase that refers to the Father is “ONLY true God.” That means that the Father ALONE is the ONLY true God. This means that there is NO other God but the Father.

Actually it doesn't mean "NO other God but the Father". If that was A.John's intention he would have simply have heard Jesus saying "you, the only God" but instead he says "you, the only true God". That adjective "true" gives credence that other G/gods exist, but the Father of the Son is the only one that is truthful/reliable/keeps his promises.

Point of fact: A.Paul calls Satan, the god of this world/age = 2 Cor 4:4.

"But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost: in whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them. For we preach not ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord; and ourselves your servants for Jesus' sake."

Peace