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

[apostoli]

Hello IncRus,

Response to your post #216

What apostle Paul is saying does NOT support your belief that “the Son is true God from the ONLY true God, not God OF himself but God IN himself.” Your INTERPRETATION of Col. 1:16 is FALSE because apostle Paul himself said that the Father is the CREATOR of ALL things (1 Cor. 8:6 TEV). What Col. 1:16 means is that God CREATED all things BECAUSE OF (through, by) Jesus. Heb. 1:3 does NOT say that Jesus is the “exact replica of the Father’s hypostasis.” What Heb. 1:3 states is “express image of His person” or “exact likeness of God’s own being” (Heb. 1:3 TEV). That does NOT mean that the Son is “true God from true God.”

Sure does. Col 2:9 the word used to describe the Son is "theotēs" = "the state of being God".

Thus your consistent omission and consequent distortion of what texts fully say...

"For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as there are many gods and many lords), yet for us [there is] one God, the Father, of whom [are] all things, and we for Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom [are] all things, and by whom we [live]. 1 Cor 8:5-6.

Of interest, is it your opinion that we live through both the Father and the Son (cp. Titus 1:3,4; Jn 17:3), the Father only (Jn 3:16; 1 Jn 4:9) or the Son only (Jn 3:36; 20:30) ?

The Trinitrarian belief that the Father begot the Son is NOT relevant to whether the Trinitarian belief that Jesus is God is true or not.

Sure is!

the TRUTH is, the Father ALONE is the ONLY true God (John 17:3).

And what does that mean to us?

Since we both know the meaning of the word “only,” then, any OTHER God (whether OF himself or IN himself) is a FALSE God.

Nope! Was Moses whom YHWH declared to be God to Pharaoh a false God? And was he by YHWH's command "instead of God", a false God? Can God lie?

You don’t seem to understand what I meant. I meant to say that apostle John referred to the “word” or “logos” only twice: once in John 1:1 and second in John 1:14.

Actually thrice. Twice in 1:1 & once in 1:14.

All the pronouns “he” and “him” referred to Jesus, the “flesh” or “human being” that the “word” or “logos” BECAME.

There is only one nominee in vs3 to 16, and that is the Logos.

Though by A.John's association from vs17 onwards I agree the texts refer to the son of man known as Jesus, who was the Logos made flesh. One thing for certain, there is nothing in A.John that suggests the Logos ceased to exist as you proclaim!

Jesus is NOT the “logos that BECAME flesh.”

Sure is! You even admitted it above!!!

That’s circular reasoning. Before the “logos” BECAME “flesh,” there was NO Jesus.

The name Jesus applied to the person may have been absent for a time, just as his rightful name Immanuel was! But there is nothing in scripture that teaches that the person did not exist, the evidence is he existed by many other names eg: Logos/Sophia/Messenger of YHWH/YHWH of hosts/the presence of YWHH/Immanuel etc!

Why would I believe that you know English better than I when you DON’T even understand what the word “ONLY” means?

You said above "Since we both know the meaning of the word “only”, So by your own admission, I do know its meaning ;-)

Now this demonstrates your problem, you are so confused you constantly contradict yourself!

Why would I believe that you know English better than [mine]...IS Washington not the first president of the United States?

Not "is" as your current president is Obama! The first person in rank in the USA! Washington "was and continues to be" the first president of the USA. Just as the Logos "was and continues to be" (the word used by A.John three times at Jn 1:1-2 is "ēn" = indefinite tense, which is the impefect of "eimi" = first person singular present indicative).

The "logos WAS made flesh" or "the logos BECAME a human being" is what is written in the Bible. There is NO such individual called "logos made flesh."

But there is an idividual who become sarx (literally: flesh permeated with blood) and dwelt amongst us!

Thats true. He simply remained the Logos though becoming flesh and according to vs15 "John bore witness of him".

I repeat, Jesus is NOT the “logos made flesh.” Jesus is the “flesh that the logos BECAME.” Jesus - NOT the "logos" - is "him" whom John bore witness of.

John 1:4-9; 14-15 say John the baptist bore witness of the Logos who is called the true light (vs9) and the Logos made flesh (vs14). From vs17 we become aware that the Logos made flesh is Jesus.

That’s a LIE. These verses do NOT state that John bore witness of the “logos.”

No LIE! Until vs17, the only nominee is the Logos!

Jesus Christ is the human being INTO whom the "logos" BECAME.

All here will understand your words to mean that Jesus existed and the Logos became flesh by going into Jesus (?)

You are correct. There’s nothing better than NOT reading beyond what is written, thus: “the logos was made flesh” or “the logos became a human being.” That “flesh” or “human being” that the “word” or “logos” became is named Jesus.

So you hold that Jesus was possessed by the Logos, like a demon posseses other human beings (?)

How did you get that idea that “I hold Jesus was possessed by the logos?” When I said you were correct, I meant I was wrong in saying “Jesus Christ is the human being INTO whom the logos BECAME” because it gave you the wrong understanding that Jesus existed and the logos became flesh by going INTO Jesus. That’s why I said, “there is nothing better than NOT reading beyond what is written.

I suspect you haven't a clue what you believe and just parrot your father (Jn 8:44). Your last sentence is so full of contradictions...

...you agree that it is the butterfly – NOT the pupa – that flies among the flowers, don’t you? Hence, it is the human being – NOT the logos or word – that dwelt among us, isn’t that true?

My two year old neighbour would call it a bee! Its a matter of perception. A mature mind, would declare what the pupa and the butterfly is essentially - the thing contemplated by the mind not by the deception of the eyes. (cp. 1 Cor 1:13-14; Rom 1:20). For the butterfly might in fact be a moth!

[QUOTE=IncRus]But believing that the “logos” in John 1:1 is the Son of God is an absurdity because there is NO verse in the Bible that says it.

If such were true, then in John's gospel we have no record of Jesus' origination. However, verse 1-16 tell us of the Logos whom John the baptist bore witness and from John 1:17 onwards we are lead to associate the "Logos made flesh and dwelt amongst us" as Jesus.[\QUOTE]There is NO such phrase as “logos made flesh” in the Bible.

Sure is! Though the actual Greek is "sarx" which means in full "flesh permeated with blood".

Jn 1:14 "καὶ ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο καὶ ἐσκήνωσεν ἐν ἡμῖν [/b]καὶ ἐθεασάμεθα τὴν δόξαν αὐτοῦ δόξαν ὡς μονογενοῦς παρὰ πατρός πλήρης χάριτος καὶ ἀληθείας" = And the Logos became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.

That is your own invention.

Nope! That is exactly what the scripture says in the original Greek! Jesus is the name that Joseph was commanded to call his step son! And that individual would be called "God with us!" (Immanuel)

Jesus is the name of the “flesh” or human being that the “word” or “logos” BECAME.

Yep! The name Joseph was comanded to call him by!

Jesus is NOT the “logos” that was MADE “flesh.”

Sure was! As you confirmed in your previous posts and above with much verbal confusion retract!

John 1:14 states: “And the word BECAME a human being” or “And the word was made flesh.”

And dwelt amoungst us!

You are saying then that the “logos” ENCASED itself with flesh, aren’t you?

Nope!

You are therefore, denying that earlier, you said that “the logos ADDED flesh to himself,” aren’t you?

Nope!

You are denying that the “logos” BECAME flesh or human being, aren’t you?

Nope!

If you agree that the “logos” indeed BECAME a human being, then logic demands that it is the human being that dwelt among us, don’t you agree?

The pre-existent Logos became as man and dwelt amongst us!

Just because Jesus is the name of the human being that the logos turned into does not mean that Jesus is a “God” or a “god.”

I never said it did!

Good! You agree then that Jesus is NOT a “God” NOR a “god,” don’t you?

He is the true Son of his Father, and therefore whatever is attributed to his his Father, he is also!

Even if the NKJV is a literal rendering, I still take it to mean that it is the “flesh” that the “word” BECAME, that “dwelt amongst us.” And this conforms to the rendering of the TEV which states that the human being lived with us.

Still, it was the Logos that lived with us as a human being! No escaping this fact! Even the TEV says so explicitly "The Word became a human being and, full of grace and truth, lived among us."

You PRESUME too much! According to apostle John, the “word” or “logos” that was in the beginning WITH God (John 1:1) ceased to exist AFTER the “word” BECAME “flesh” or “human being” (John 1:14).

A.John does not say the Logos ceased to exist! He says explicilty that the Logos became flesh and dwelt amongt us! Which is an emphatic statement of persistence!

Yes, the ”logos” BECAME a child, a human being. That child or human being was named Jesus. And it was this child named Jesus who eventually grew up and dwelt amongst us.

I can only assume you have no children - I have 4. From the moment of their conception my children impacted on my life and those around me, and therefore, dwelt with us! Moreso for my wife ;-)

Psalm 96:5 says “ALL gods are idols…” We know what the word “all” means, don’t you?

As usual you have ignorantly omitted scripture and so come to an erroneous conclusion. Psalms 96:5 says "For [b]all the gods of the nations [are] idols"[\b]. It continues "but the LORD [YHWH] made the heavens." Compare Col 1:16 which says of the Son "for by him were all things created that are in heaven...visible and invisible..."

We are talking about “gods” or “idols.” Hence, your reference to the second part of the verse and Col. 1:16 is an IRRELEVANT diversionary tactic.

No diversion. You equated G/gods and idols. You refered to Psalm 96:5 which speaks of the idols of the nations! If you read Genesis you'll discover Abraham and Jacob erected idols (pillors) which were acceptable to YHWH. As for other valid Gods, we have YHWH saying he made Moses God to pharaoh, and instead of God to Aaron. Did YHWH who does not lie, lie? Colossians attributes what was said of YHWH to the Son. Who is not depicted as an idol!

A.Paul calls Satan the God of this world etc. Not “God” but “god.” Apostle John knew that there is NO God besides the ONLY ONE true God.

There is no upper/lower case distinction in the Greek. All letters were originally written in upper case. the "G" vs "g" is simply interpretative according to the inclination of translators.

Nevertheless, apostle Paul did NOT mean to teach that Satan is ALSO God IN ADDITION to the Father who is the ONLY true God.

It seems to have escaped your attention that "God" is not an identity statement. In fact A.Paul tells us there are many things called G/god! Also, remember Hosea 1:9 where YHWH says "And I will not be your God". Seems you have no idea what to be God is!

for us, true Christians, there is ONLY ONE God, the Father who is the CREATOR of all things (1 Cor. 8:6 TEV). His being the CREATOR of ALL things makes the Father the ONLY true God. All others whom people recognize as “Gods” or “gods” are FALSE “Gods” or simply IDOLS.

1 Cor 8:6 says all things are of the Father by the Son. So the fact that you need to omit scripture shows your colors...

The point is, Jesus said that he is a MAN (John 8:40) and the Father is the ONLY true God (John 17:3). Apostle Paul did NOT say that Jesus WAS God manifest in the flesh. Moreover, what Jesus said carries more weight than what Paul or anyone else says.

Apostle Paul did say at 1 Tim 15-16 that God was manifest in the flesh. He repeats the same idea at Col 2:9 and Jesus affirms such at John 12:45 & 14:9.

These verses do NOT tell us that Jesus is God. And, as you said, Jesus did NOT imply that he is God in John 12:45 & 14:9.

But they do attest that Jesus is God manifest in the flesh!

I agree! That is why the Nicene creed teaches Jesus is true God from true God.

And that’s why the teaching that “Jesus is true God from true God” is FALSE.

Which only demonstrates your opinion needs to ignore the testimony of scripture. Scripture says the Son is the creator of the worlds (Col 1:16; Heb 1:2 etc) and the exact replica of his his Father's hypostatis (Heb 1:3) etc etc.

These verses do NOT tell us that Jesus is “true God from true God.” That’s only your OPINION.

Jesus is the Son of God, the exact replica of his Father's very being (hypostatis) and all things were created by and for him, and if you have seen the Son you have seen the Father. Scripture is telling us clearly that the things we attribute to God, are attributable to the Father and the Son, so as true Son he is whatever his Father is!

Peace

[apostoli]

Hello IncRus,

Response to your post #219

If what you are saying were true, then these Jewish Targums were/are the very first MANIPULATION of scriptures. Nehemiah 9:6 plainly states “Thou, even thou, art Lord ALONE; thou hast MADE heaven…..” Why would the Jewish Targums refer to the “memra” (word) of God when it is clear that Nehemiah was talking to the Lord?

The Targums are the Aramaic scriptures used in the synagoues in Jesus' day. They simply expound what Moses actually tells us (and thus Nehemiah), as distinct from the superstitions of the nations.

If you bothered to read all of Nehemiah 9, you would quickly notice that all the things spoken of at 9:7-15, are identified by Moses as done by the messenger of YHWH (the Memra of the Lord, the Word of God). At Proverbs 8, this one is identified as the wisdom of God, who says "I was beside him like an architect." (Prov 8:30). A.Paul likewise calls the Son the wisdom and power of God (1 Cor 1:24).

All things of God in respect of those things experienced by man, especially as depicted in Moses' five books, were by the messenger of YHWH (the Memra of the Lord, the Word of God) who is explicitly stated as being present at the activities Nehemiah discusses! In other texts he is refered to as YHWH of hosts,and the presence of YHWH. He is identified as the very personification of YHWH and in scripture shares his name. Thus Jesus declares "Holy Father! Keep them safe by the power of your name, the name you gave me" (John 17:11)

Hence the witness of the NT that all things are of the Father, by the Son (eg: 1 Cor 8:6). Such is the consistent message, explicitly declared, throughout the NT!

Jesus himself tells you "No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared [him]" (John 1:18). And as A.Paul says concerning the Father of the Son "No one has ever seen him; no one can ever see him." (1 Tim 6:16). So, who was it that Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Moses saw?

when Jesus says he is the Son of God, do you THINK he is IMPLYING that he is God? When John says Jesus is the Son of God, do you THINK John was IMPLYING that Jesus is God? Isn’t it true that you EQUATE Jesus’ being the Son of God to Jesus’ being God?

Nope! God in A.John's gospel is identified as the Father of the Son! Hence, the Son is not the Father, but as Son he is what his Father is! (John 1:1; 12:45; 14:9)

I suggest you stop referring to Jewish Targums because they lead you AWAY from the truth.

Why! They were good enough for Jesus and the apostles! They refer to them!

Can’t you see that your INTERPRETATION of Exodus 3:14 is FALSE

In Exodus 3 the messenger of YHWH explicitly identifies himself as the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Remember: The NT tells us that no man has ever seen God! However, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Moses did! (cp. Ex 24:10-12)

Moses is the messenger whom God, whom God (who calls Himself “I AM”) commands to tell the children of Israel that “I AM” (God) has SENT him (Moses) to them (children of Israel).

Indeed Moses was sent as a prophet, "instead of God" to Aaron (Exodus 4:16) and as God ('elohiym) to Pharoah (7:1).

Exodus 3:2 makes it explicit that the messenger of YHWH appeared to Moses in the burning bush! As is evident from Ex 23:20 & 33:12-23, this one was not merely an angel but the very presence of YHWH. Compare Isaiah where we encounter the Messianic prophesy that the child born of the virgin would be called Immanuel, which means "God with us".

You say that Jesus was “claiming to be the same one who appeared to Abraham, etc. in Exo. 3:6, 15, 16 and 4:5. And...you INSERT “Memra of YHWH” as if it were the “word of God” whom you THINK is the “Son of God” who appeared to Abraham, etc in these verses you cited...Earlier, you said that Jesus did NOT claim to be God. But now, you are saying that “Jesus was claiming to be the same one who appeared to Abraham, etc.”

Jews and Christians consistently teach that the messenger of YHWH, is the Word of God (the Memra of YHWH). A.John associates this one with Jesus (John chapter 1). Jesus and A.Paul tell us that no man has ever seen God. So who was it that the Patriarchs heard and saw?

...Exo. 3:6 says, “I am the God…”

Nope! It says "i am the God of your Father..."

Verse 15 says, “And God said moreover to Moses…” Verse 16 says, “The Lord God of your fathers….”

Yep! but he didn't say I am God (full stop) as you want!

If you say that “Jesus was claiming to be the SAME one who appeared before Abraham, etc.,” isn’t it true then that you are ACTUALLY saying that Jesus was claiming to be God?

Nope! As Jesus says at John 17:6 "I have manifested Your name to the men whom You have given Me out of the world..." The messenger of YHWH does the same thing.

Concerning the two phrases you mined from scripture, and use as your (only) defence for your opinion, consider Genesis 32:24-30. Jacob says "I have seen God face to face, and I am still alive" (v30), yet identifies this one as a man (v24). Now have a read of Gen 35:1 "God said to Jacob, "Arise, go up to Bethel, and dwell there; and make there an altar to the God who appeared to you..."

Also have a read of the conditional nature of Jacob's recognition of God (Gen 28:20-21, TEV) Then Jacob made a vow to the Lord: “If you will be with me and protect me on the journey I am making and give me food and clothing, and if I return safely to my father's home, then you will be my God."

There is NO verse in the NT which tells us that Jesus is the “word” by which God CREATED everything in Genesis 1. In Gen. 1:3, God SPOKE the “word” “let there be light, and there was light.”

There is John 1:3! A.Paul numerous times identifies the Son as by whom God created all things whether in heaven or on earth, visible or invisible.

BEFORE the early “church fathers” existed and BEFORE the Trinity doctrine was even THOUGHT of, NO Jew would have ever considered that Gen. 1:3 involved anyone else but God, whom the prophets identified as the Father (Isaiah 63:16; 64:8; Mal. 2:10).

Not true, as the dead sea scrolls, the Targums and various other Jewish works that predate Christianity prove.

Apostle Paul is a Jew who was also a ranking member of Judaism.

Indeed, before he became a Christian he was fanatical Jew who persecuted all who believed in Jesus! And it is he who tells us all things were made by and for the Son, whether visible or invisible (Col 1:16).

Therefore, apostle Paul would NOT have THOUGHT that God CREATED light (Gen. 1:3) by Jesus, whom apostle Paul said is a MAN (1 Tim. 2:5). Therefore, the only logical explanation for Heb. 1:3 and Col. 1:16 is that God CREATED all things BECAUSE OF...

Nope! At Hebrews 1:2 and 1 Cor 8:6 the word used is "dia" which means "with" and is interpreted as "by" (241 times in the KJV). The lexicon notes: "a primary preposition denoting the channel of an act"

At Col 1:16 the word "en" is translated "by". The lexicon notes: "a primary preposition denoting (fixed) position (in place, time or state), and (by implication) instrumentality."

since “Jesus had NOT spoken on his own authority,” Jesus spoke ONLY those that God COMMANDS him to say or speak. Therefore, John 8:40 and John 17:3 were COMMANDS of God for him to say or speak.

In contradiction to your fantacies the word "EVERTHING" does not appear in the text. The text does not refer to every word and syllable he spoke, but to the overall message concerning his Father and himself, which he phrases in many ways. In Jn 17:3 he is praying to his Father, not preaching. At Jn 8:40 he says that Abraham did not want to kill him though a man appeared as God before him, but his audience did! (see Gen 18).

...you know that your OPINION that “all Christians believe Jesus was a man and that his Father is the only true God,“ is NOT confirmed in, as you say, Luther’s Long Catechism, Calvin’s Long Catechism, the Catholic Catechism and all expositions of the Nicene Creed, as shown in the above Belgic Confession of 1567, as anyone can readily see, don’t you?

My opinion sure is confirmed by all whom I cited! Read them for yourself. They all say the same thing! Here are the links to the sources:

Luther's Catechism
Calvin's Catechism
Catholic Catechism
Belgic Confession from which I previously quoted.
Various historic Reformed (Protestant) Church Documents

It seems to have escaped your attention that Isaiah 44 refers to the nation of Israel not to the conception of any person (see verses 1,5,21). You really should learn to read the whole of a scripture! Your mining of phrases is making you look very foolish, and devoid of credibility.

This only shows how WARPED your thinking is!

Your favourite rendition of scripture the TEV again rebukes you, and proves you wrong! Isaiah 44:1 "The Lord says, “Listen now, Israel, my servant, my chosen people, the descendants of Jacob."

Isaiah 44:1 states: “Yet hear now, O Jacob my servant AND Israel, whom I have chosen:” And verse 2 continues, thus: “Thus saith the Lord that MADE thee, and FORMED thee from the womb, which will help thee; Fear not, O Jacob, my servant; AND thou, Jesurun whom I have chosen.”

From these verses, WHO do you THINK God FORMED from the womb, Jacob or the nation of Israel?

Israel! Isaiah is prophetic not a history! Jacob was dead. God wasn't addressing him but his seed. Remember, Jacob and his seed were renamed Israel! (Gen 35:10)

Read Isaiah 44:5 (TEV) "One by one, people will say, ‘I am the Lord's.’ They will come to join the people of Israel."

...it was Jacob, a MAN, whom God FORMED from the womb of his mother.

Read Isaiah 44:1-8 fully and it is obvious the text refers to the nation of Israel.

vs8 (TEV) "Do not be afraid, my people!"

By the way Jeshurun is a poetic name of Israel see Deut 32:15; 33:5,26. In Hebrew it means "upright one", though in the LXX (the Greek) it is rendered as a term of affection and rendered "beloved". The designation in Isaiah is reminding the nation of Israel of the covenant and their obligation to remain upright.

Of course, anyone or anything OTHER than God whom people worship or recognize as “God” is a “god” or an “idol.” Since God says that there is NO “God” beside Him, then it follows that Jesus and the Holy Spirit whom people recognize as “Gods” are NOT “true Gods” but man-made “gods” or “idols” in the eyes of God.

Nope! The Son and the Spirit were neither invented nor formed by mankind. Things invented by man are false gods. YHWH says he made Moses God to pharaoh (Ex 7:1) and instead of God to Aaron (Ex 4:6). Was Moses a false God? Was all he said and did falsehood? Did God lie to Moses?

You associate Jesus with the “word” that God SPOKE in Gen. 1:3 where there is NOT any indication that the “word” was Jesus.

It is A.John (Jn 1:1-3) and A.Paul (1 Cor 8;6; Col 1:17; Heb 1:2-3) that tells us, that it was by Jesus that all things were created, whether they be in heaven or earth, visible or invisible. The Jewish teaching, in the synagogue, in the time of the apostles, witness of the Memra (Word) of YHWH as he that apeared to the Patriarchs and by whom God created all things. As many Jews quickly responded to the apostle's teaching, it would seem, to the believing Jew, there was no controversy concerning the apostles teaching of Jesus as being this one.

you DENY that Psalm 80:17 refers to Jesus where it CLEARLY says: “Let thy hand be upon the MAN of thy right hand, upon the SON OF MAN whom thou madest strong for thyself.”

Psalm 80:17 is not Messianic. It explicity and exclusively refers to David and his then kingdom see vs4-6,12-16. See vs 15-16: "And the vineyard which Your right hand has planted, And the branch [that] You made strong for Yourself. [It is] burned with fire, [it is] cut down; They perish at the rebuke of Your countenance."

The phrase "the son of man" is not a term exclusive to Jesus. At Job 25:6 we read "...man, [who is] a maggot, And a son of man, [who is] a worm?" At Psalms 146:3 it says "Do not put your trust in princes, [Nor] in a son of man, in whom [there is] no help." Also see Ps 8:4; 144:3.

It is true that Jesus is a MAN (John 8:40)...that Jesus is at the right hand of God (Col. 3:1)...that Jesus called himself the Son of Man (Matt. 24:30), don’t you agree?

Yep!

Then, why CAN’T you accept that Psalm 80:17 refers to Jesus?

Because if you read ALL of Ps 80 you'd actually know what is said in vs17!

You truly DON’T believe that Bible, don’t you?

I very much believe in the scriptures as fully written. However, unlike you I don't mine it for phrases and then make unsupportable assumptions. Compare Ps 80 with Ps 89, they share much symbolism.

Heb. 1:3 does NOT say that the Son is the “EXACT replica of the Father’s very being....While Jesus is the IMAGE of the invisible God, he is NOT an “exact replica” of God that would qualify him to be God.

A.Paul's exact words are "χαρακτὴρ τῆς ὑποστάσεως". χαρακτὴρ=precise reproduction in every respect (facsimile). ὑποστάσεως=very being (self existence) - transliterated=hypostasis.

Jesus does NOT even know the date and time of his second coming.

And his Father will not remember our sins! (Isaiah 43:25; Jer 31:34). Other than Greek philosophy, there is no necessity for the Son to know his return. Even his Father chooses not to know some things.

How can he be an “exact replica” of God? The TRUTH is, Jesus is the IMAGE of God “in righteousness and true holiness” (Eph. 4:24).

Ephesians 4:24 does not reference Jesus but those who put on the new man! The new man is Jesus formed in the Christian = Col 3:10-11; Gal 4:19 etc. Colossians 3:10 refers to "the image of him that created [the new man]".

God is the Israelites’ Father in much the same way as God is the Father of Jesus and his brethren (John 20:17; Matt. 23:9).

Nope. In the OT God's fatherhood is national not personal. Jesus' sonship is depicted as personal.

The God of Abraham, etc. whom the Israelites called Father in Isaiah 63:16 and 64:8 is the SAME God whom Jesus called Father (John 17:1). In Gal. 3:18, apostle Paul made reference to God's promise to Abraham and Abraham's seed whom Paul identified as Christ.

Compare Isa 1:2 with 64:8. The texts refer to Israel collectively, the nation of Israel, which recognises YHWH as their national father (cp. Ex 4:22-23). In the NT believing Israel is born anew (cp Jn 3:3-5 with lk 13:28), but the OT shows no trace of a conscious personal sonship. A.Paul explains in Gal 4:1-7, the Israelite as a child "differed nothing from a servant". The Spirit, as the "Spirit of his Son" (Rom 8:9-14) could not be given to impart the consciousness of sonship until redemption had been accomplished (Gal 4:4-6).

Have a read of Ephesians 1:5; Gal 3:25-27.

Whether Jesus was speaking of a “hypothetical” glory, or “one that he had personally experienced,” the point is, John 17:5 does NOT prove that Jesus WAS God before he was born.

He definitely didn't claim to be his own Father, whom he identifies as the only true God. However, John 17:5 makes it plain (along with many other words of Jesus) that he had a real existence before becoming as a son of man.

You are saying then that Jesus did NOT pre-exist as God, aren't you?

According to A.Paul he existed and exists in the morphe of God! Phil 2:6.

Therefore, why do you INSIST that Jesus pre-existed if "pre-existence" does NOT prove that he was God?

Firstly, scripture speaks clearly of Jesus existing before he became as a son of man.

Secondly, if your perception of God is restricted to who created all things, then the Son is clearly depicted as God by A.John and A.Paul. However, it seems you don't have an inkling of what being God entails, let alone what John 17:1-3 is telling you!

There can be NO other God that comes from the Father because Jesus said, the Father , ALONE, is the ONLY true God.

Jesus said "you, the only true God". The "ALONE" is not used. Though I would agree "only" would imply it. The interesting thing is that grammatically the syntax of John 17:3 prohibits a reading "you alone are true God". Thus we learn "And this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent."

Second, Your understanding of John 20:29 is FALSE.

Nope it is true. Jesus didn't castigate Thomas for his remark. What we have in vs29 is a threefold witness. That the Son has risen and is our Lord and our God.

If you noticed, Thomas did NOT touch Jesus as he was told. Instead, Thomas said, “My Lord and my God.” To this, Jesus answered, “Thomas because you have seen me, you have believed.” How did Jesus know that Thomas believed? Jesus knew by his “expression of belief” (My Lord and my God) that Thomas had believed that he had indeed risen.

In case you hadn't noticed in the gospels Jesus had pre-knowledge eg: 1:48-49; Jn 2:23-25; Mt 12:25. So there is no need for your fantacy.

What was Jesus’ “full testimony of himself?”

That he came from heaven, not of his own accord but his Father sent him (eg: Jn 8:42). That his very Father was the only true God. That he had glory with the Father before the word was. That he is the source and cause of eternal life. That he would raise those belonging to him from the dead. That if you see the Son you see the Father. The list is extensive...

Did Jesus IMPLY that he is God?

He identifies his Father as God and himself as the Father's Son.

You also said that Jesus did NOT claim to be God, didn’t you?

He didn't claim to be his own Father, whom he identified as God!

Wasn’t Jesus telling the TRUTH when he told the Father, “that they may know YOU (Father) the ONLY true God…?”

He didn't tell the Father that the Father was the "only true God". His Father already knew! What Jesus prayed was "And this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent."

Whose father is the devil now apostoli?

Obviously yours! After all, you are the one that adds to, omits and falsifies scripture to suit your opinion.

He is not "another" God! Just as I am not another type humanity. As I am whatever my father is in respect to being human, the Son is whatever his Father is, in respect to being God to us!

You are comparing apples with oranges.

Either you accept that Jesus is truely the Son of God or you don't! If Son then he is what his Father is, as all sons are in respect of their fathers.

Jesus is “another God” just as you are “another person.” God is NOT analogous to “humanity,” Godhead is. But the scripture does NOT talk of “ONLY one Godhead.”

Col 2:9. The word used is "theotēs" which means "the state of being God". Thus A.Paul tells us: "Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ. For in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily; and you are complete in Him, who is the head of all principality and power." (Col 2:8-10). Also see Rom 1:20 where "theotēs" is said of the Father (Rom 1:1-9).

The scripture teaches “ONLY one true God.”

And that Jesus is his Son! "For God is my witness, whom I serve with my spirit in the gospel of His Son...For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes...For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith..." Rom 1:9,16,17

There can only be ONE Godhead composed of THREE Gods just as there are persons (plural) in, as you say, ONE humanity.

In the Trinity there are three hypostases (individuals=plural) who are homoousia (same existence=single). Similarly, in humanity there are many hypostases (plural) but all are homoousia (single), each individual has the same existence = human.

A.Paul and A.Peter say that our condition of existence will change, we becoming "theoisis" (Eph 3:19; 2 Pet 1:4 cp. 1 Pe 1:4-5). A.John says "...it has not yet been revealed what we shall be, but we know that when He is revealed, we shall be like Him, for we shall see Him as He is."

In contrast to us the Son and the Father are described as being "theotēs"="the state of being God" (Col 2:9; Rom 1:12). This is their common existence. Hence Jesus says he does as the Father does.

As the Father is the source and cause of the "theotēs" all things are of him, including the Son and the Spirit, and so he is the only true God. But as the only source and cause of the Son and the Spirit they are blessed with all that the Father has = John 16:13-15.

Therefore, just as you are ONE person among numerous persons in ONE humanity, Jesus is ONE God among THREE Gods in ONE Godhead.
Your analogy MISLEADS people into believing that THREE Gods equals ONE God

Nope! Your distortion and mixing of terms is what confounds you. Lets keep the analogies consistent. Just as there are numerous human individuals whose existence is seen as common (each is human), there are three divine individuals that are seen to have in respect to us a common existence. What the Father has and does, so the Son and so the Spirit (cp John 16:13-15; 5:17; 14:10; 15:24)

The notion of THREE Gods is the "square peg" that you want to "blungen" into ONE God which is a "round hole."

As I said, it is you that invents "sqaure pegs" and needs to "bludgen" your opinion. Trinitarianism does not teach three Gods! As you have no idea what to be God in scripture means, and resort to pagan conceptions (1 Cor 1:20-24; 2:14), it is understandable that you can't understand Trinitarian teaching!

TBC

[apostoli]

Hello IncRus,

The conclusion of my response to your post #219 & a response to your post #220.

Where in the Bible does apostle John indicate that "the logos was fully formed and functional BEFORE becoming flesh?

John 1:3-5 To quote from your favourite rendering of the NT, the TEV: "Through him God made all things; not one thing in all creation was made without him. The Word was the source of life, and this life brought light to humanity. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has never put it out."

As you can readily see "the Word" was fully functional, being the source of life.

You are reading from a MISTRANSLATED version of John 1:4.

I quoted from your favourite version of the NT the TEV. Being a paraphrase, I'm not keen on the TEV but as you always appeal to it, I assumed it contains the renderings you find most reliable! Pick a translation, they all attest to what I said!

How can the "word" or "logos" be the source of life when IT has BECOME "flesh" or a "human being?"

See Jn 6:45. Also Jn 8:12 & Jn 1:4.

The King James Version renders John 1:4 DIFFERENTLY, thus: “In him was life; and the life was the light of men.”

I quoted vs3-5 which read in the NKJV "All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend [or overcome] it."

It is clear from vs3 that the Logos (the nominee of him) is accredited with being the source of all things made. Thus as life is one of the things caused in creation, then the one who is accredited with all creation (vs3) is the source of life! Likewise light.

Verses 3-5 make it obvious that the Logos (the nominee of him) is fully functional!

If we were to computerize this “becoming flesh” and “living among us,” which command do you think would come first? Be honest to yourself apostoli.

Under the rules of 5th form normalisation and state theory they would be simultaneous.

You must be kidding!

Obviously you know nothing of data normalisation, process automation nor state theory.

It can never be simultaneous because "living amongst us" is dependent upon "becoming a human being

Not two events but one event! From conception he effected the lives of his mother and all those around her (thus lived amongst us).

Jesus is the name GIVEN by Mary to the child that she gave birth to (Matt. 1:21).

The name Jesus was not given to him by Mary. Matthew 1:20-21 says Joseph was commanded to "call his name Jesus".

This baby that was born to Mary and was given the name Jesus is the SAME Jesus that we are talking about, aren’t we?

Sure is!

And all things are done “in the name OF Jesus” – NOT, as you say, “in the name Jesus.”

Not exactly all things. Jesus commanded that baptism is to be performed "in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit". one name but a plurality of individuals.

That aside: Jesus most often uses the phrase "my name". At Mark 9:38 we learn that people were casting out demons in "your name". Of the various occurances of someone's name being used in Matthew thru to John, the name is always singular eg: Elizabeth, Mary, John etc

ps: "name of Jesus" renders the Greek phrases "τῷ ὀνόματι τοῦ Ἰησοῦ" = the {dative] name the {genitive} Jesus" (eg: Acts 4:18; 5:40) and "τοῦ ὀνόματος τοῦ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ" = the name the Jesus Christ". So the instances are readily translated into English as "the name Jesus" and "the name Jesus Christ". The use of the English word "of" changes the emphasis from a talisman to a concentration on a particular person (ie: it is the person who has the name, not the name that has significance).

Yes, God GAVE Jesus His (God’s) name making God and Jesus sharing the SAME name. That does NOT make Jesus God, however, because God giving him a name does NOT make him God. The Father REMAINS the ONLY true God.

Yep, the Father of the Son remains the only true God.

You are saying that the Father remains the ONLY true God, aren’t you?

Sure am!

Yet you say that Jesus “is what his Father is,” You are therefore saying that Jesus is ALSO God, aren’t you?

He isn't his own Father! The scriptures testify that he is the Son of God, and A.Paul tells us that "[God's] Son. He is the one through whom God created the universe, the one whom God has chosen to possess all things at the end. He reflects the brightness of God's glory and is the exact likeness of God's own being, sustaining the universe with his powerful word." (TEV Heb 1:2-3). From this and elsewhere we know that all things were created by the Son. He is an exact replica of the Father. And he sustains the universe.

God and Jesus may share the same name but the TRUTH remains that the Father ALONE is the ONLY true God.

And what is the name they share?

Apostle Paul called Jesus CHRIST. Therefore, the NAME that God GAVE Jesus is CHRIST (Acts 2:36).

You made reference to John 17:11-12, and you state above "God GAVE Jesus His (God’s) name making God and Jesus sharing the SAME name". So if the name given to Jesus is Christ, given Christ means "annointed one", who is it that annoints God?

“Anointed one” is the meaning that people give to the name “Christ.” However, in God’s perspective, “Christ” is a name that is ABOVE every name (Phil. 2:9).

Phillipians 2:5 refers to Christ Jesus. Phillipians 2:9-11 says "Therefore God also has highly exalted Him and given Him the name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow...and [that] every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ [is] Lord, to the glory of God the Father."

As usual you ignore what the scriptures teach, and so ignore vs10 which flows from the declaration of vs9.

And “there is NO OTHER name under heaven given among MEN by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12).

See Acts 4:7,10,12 "By what power or by what name have you done this?...by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified...there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved."

As is readily obvious "Christ" is not the name!

___________________

Read what he said. the clause ends "if you do not believe that I am [He], you will die in your sins."

Was Jesus saying, “I am He” (the Father), or “I am He” (the Son of God), or I am He” (the Christ), or “I am He” (the savior)?

At John 8:24 Jesus is refering to himself as the Son of God, who in segments of Jewish expectation would be the Messiah (gr. Christ). Note John 8:25 "Then they said to Him, "Who are You?" And Jesus said to them, "Just what I have been saying to you from the beginning."

Of course, those who believe Jesus to be “God the Son” INSTEAD of “Son of God” will die in their sin because they REJECT his words that he is a MAN (John 8:40) and the Father is the ONLY true God (John 17:3). These were what Jesus was telling the Jews from the beginning.

Nope! He didn't proclaim himself to be just a man, nor Christ, nor that his Father was the only true God to the Jews! See John chapters 1 to 3, for the first testimonies. Particularly, Jn 3:12-18!

John means that the "word" or "logos" of God concerning a savior, was FULFILLED with the birth of Jesus...What God told the prophet in Isaiah 7:14 is the “word that was with God in the beginning” concerning a savior and fulfilled with the birth of Jesus.

Neither Mt 1:21-23 nor Isaiah 7:14 support your supposition that "John means that the "word" or "logos" of God concerning a savior, was FULFILLED with the birth of Jesus". These texts only support one aspect of the prophetic salvation process.

I didn’t say John 1:1 concerns ALL aspects of the salvation process, did I?

Yep! Or you don't know what FULFILLED means!

You say that Heb. 2:14-17 and Phil. 2:6-7 “indicate” that “the Son existed in reality before becoming a man.”...these verses do NOT tell us why we are “joint-heirs” with Christ.

Sure do! They both say that he existed before becoming man and that he became as man, like his brethren!

What was Jesus BEFORE he BECAME a man?

The Logos according to A.John. The Son of God according to both A.Paul and A.John.

Was Jesus God apostoli?

According to A.Paul he was an exact replica of his Father's hypostasis. According to A.John "what God was the Logos was".

Is there any verse in the whole Bible that tells us EXPLICITLY that Jesus was God BEFORE he BECAME a man?

No need! John 1:1; Col 1:13-17; Heb 1:2-3; Phil 2:6 etc, tells us what we need to know.

The inheritence is not eternal life. The inheritence is the kingdom. We already have eternal life if we believe Jesus is the Christ the Son of God (John 20:31). According to A.Paul, eternal life is a free gift. (Rom 5:15-18)

If you don’t know it yet, an inheritance is also a free gift apostoli.

Guess you haven't read about Esau and how an inheritence is conditional.

And only those who “inherit the kingdom” have eternal life.

The only scripture that has the words "kingdom" and "life" in them is 1Ki 11:34.

Read 1 Cor 15:50 'Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; nor does corruption inherit incorruption.' Also see Mt 25:34; 1 Cor 6:9-10; Gal 5:21.

Eternal life was not the promise given to Abraham! What was promised is detailed at Gen 13:14-17. Also compare Gen 22:18 with Gal 3:14.

That’s correct. Abraham was not promised eternal life. What was promised to Abraham and his seed is all of Canaan for an everlasting (eternal) possession and God will be their God (Gen. 17:8). But the blessings of Abraham come upon the Gentiles in Christ that they might receive the promise of the Spirit by faith (Gal. 3:14). This promise to those who are “in Christ” is the Holy City, the new Jerusalem and God Himself will be with them and be their God” (Rev. 21:1-4).

Almost! Abraham was promised that his seed would be as numerous as the dust of the earth. A.Paul understood this as not limited to a specific geographic location, nationality nor direct seed of Abraham but spiritually universal (ie: those who live by faith). King David who was of the seed of Abraham was given the promise of an eternal kingdom, the kingdom of God, which Jesus tells us to pray for.

Eternal life and the kingdom are USED interchangeably.

Show me where!

Jesus says "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God" Jn 3:5

Jesus says "The kingdom of God does not come with observation...For indeed, the kingdom of God is within you." Lk 17:20-21

As I said, only those who receive eternal life shall inherit the kingdom and only those who “ENTER the kingdom of God” (Matt. 7:21) shall inherit eternal life.

Mt 7:21 teaches something totally different. It would be a good idea for you to read vs22-23!

“And this is the PROMISE that He has promised us – ETERNAL LIFE” (1 John 2:25).

Indeed we have the promise of the free gift of eternal life, via faith in Jesus Christ. But this promise has no reference to our inheritence.

The Bible teaches us what will happen to ungodly people(2 Peter 3:7) and who do not know God and do not obey the gospel of Christ (2 Thes. 1:7-8) on judgment day. They will be destroyed by flaming fire. On the other hand, those who are “in Christ” (or INSIDE Christ’s BODY) will meet Jesus in the air (1 Thes. 4:16-17). And they will live and reign with Christ a thousand years (Rev. 20:6).

Indeed! A seperate class of people to those written in the book of life and judged! (Rev 20:12) This special class receive the gift of eternal life through faith in Jesus as the Son of God, and are judges rather than the judged!

Jesus is telling the Samaritan that “she worships WHAT she does NOT know while he and the Jews know WHAT they worship” (John 4:24 NKJV). This IMPLIES that the Samaritan worships a FALSE God (what or whom she does not know) while Jesus and the Jews worship a TRUE God (what or whom they know).

Nope! As already explained, they do not worship a false God, they worship incorrectly! The Greek word translated "know" with the negation means they had knowledge but were not skilled in it. Thus they worshiped the same God as the Jews but did not do so according to YHWH's instructions. John 4:39-42 is one of the first testimonies of bulk belief in Jesus as the Christ, the Son of God, and all those that believed were Samaritans!

You have been telling me that Trinitarians believe that “the Father of the Son is the ONLY true God.” Now you are IMPLYING that I don’t have a clue concerning the phrase “only true God.” Tell me apostoli, what do you really understand by “the Father is the ONLY true God?”

He is the source and cause of the Son, by whom he made all things visible and invisible. Not some idolisation to be feared, but one who wants a real paternal relationship with us! He who loved us so much that he sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him!

Peace

[apostoli]

Hello IncRus,

Response to your post to me #225

In John 8:40, Jesus said he is a MAN. And in John 17:3, Jesus said the Father is the ONLY true God.

John 8:40 says in full "But now you seek to kill Me, a Man who has told you the truth which I heard from God. Abraham did not do this." Which refers to Genesis Chapter 18 when YHWH appeared to Abraham as a man!

John 17:3 says "And this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent."

These verses you cite [Phil 2:5-7; Col 1:16; Heb 1:2; 1 Cor 8:6; Eph 4:4-5; Jn 1:1-3; 20:31 etc] do NOT say OUTRIGHT that Jesus is God.

And Jesus never said outright to the Jews that he was the Christ! Those that did come to believe on him, had to discern his words!

Phil 2:9 explicity describes the pre-existence of the Son and the steps he took to become as man. Col 1:16 & Heb 1:2 explicity say the Son created all things made. Col 2:9 says outright "ἐν αὐτῷ κατοικεῖ πᾶν τὸ πλήρωμα τῆς θεότητος σωματικῶς" = "in him dwells the fullness of theotetos sōmatikōs". "theotetos" = "the state of being God". "sōmatikōs" refers to the whole inner person, which is more emphatic than sarx (flesh).

As A.Paul says "But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him..." (1 Cor 2:14) Hence, you ignore the explicit statements which we have concerning "the Son of God" because you do not discern what that means. As A.Paul says "For since, in the wisdom of God, the world through wisdom did not know God, it pleased God through the foolishness of the message [we] preach to save those who believe." (1 Cor 1:20)

Neither do these verses imply or claim that Jesus is God.

They claim that the Son created all things, he was and continued to be in the morph of God before becoming as man, he is the exact replica of his Father's very being (hypostasis), he is the reflection of his Father's glory, he is our Lord (owner and master, something that was attributed to YHWH in the OT). That both the Father and he are our only saviour (Titus 1:3,4) and what is said of YHWH in the OT, is said of the Son throughout the NT!

Whether you accept scripture's testimony, wherein we find whatever is said about the essential being of the Father is repetatively said of the Son, is none of my business. My only aim is to demonstrate to those reading this thread, that your word mining and consequent speculations are contradicted by scripture.

Jesus says "You search the Scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life; and these are they which testify of Me" (John 5:39). in this regard the closing words of A.John's gospel say "these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name." (John 20:31).

And, as you say, Jesus NEVER implied that he is God NOR did Jesus claim that he is God.

He did not claim nor imply he was his Father who he identified as God. However, he did equate everything he did and said to the works of his Father. He said "I work as my Father" and "If you have seen me, you have seen the Father."

Therefore, it is CLEAR that Trinitarians ALONE imply and/or CLAIM that Jesus is “true God from true God.”

Nope! Get your historical facts straight - they are very well documented and fully accessible, as are the arguments for and against. Your fantacising is making you look both lazy and silly!

Trinitarians, Binitarians, "semi-Arians" and apparently even Messianic Jews agree/d, the Son is “God from God, true God from true God” because they discern that is what scripture teaches!

Some minor "christian" groups hold the Son to be a creation of God, and seem to follow a subordinationist path, where they have G/gods of different ranks. Therefore, in their argument, while the Son can be spoken of as God, he is done so impefectly. Imu, some groups allow the Nicene formula, others don't.

Opposing opinion comes from Orthodox Jews, Moslems and in the last century or so the reinvented Sabellianisers and Unitarians (Spiritualist, Libitarian Universalist etc). The Sabellianisers think the Father and the Son are the same individual. As for Unitarians: I've encountered such a diversity of teaching, it is difficult to figure out what they really believe. Imo, the only thing consistent with all these groups, they ignore the full NT witness.

I, for one, don’t care what non-Christian religions and Trinitarians, for that matter, teach.

Seems you do! As you champion non-christian opinion. And at every turn you are found to be disputing (from ignorance) with trinitarians.

I only care what Jesus, my Lord and Savior, TAUGHT.

Seems you don't, as you ignore almost 100% of what he says concerning himself!

Jesus TAUGHT that he is a MAN (John 8:40)

The full account has Jesus saying, Abraham had no inclination to kill him, as Jesus' audience were inclined to do. Read ALL of John 8:40 and compare the account of Genesis 18!

and the Father is the ONLY true God (John 17:3).

More importantly: the text teaches, eternal life is dependent on knowing (in an imtimate way) both the Father of the Son and the Son! (cp. Jn 20:30; 1 Jn 4:9).

Any doctrine that CONTRADICTS these teachings is HERESY.

Well guess you are the HERETIC, as you omit the full teaching of both Jn 8:40 & 17:3.

And HERETICS will NOT enter the kingdom of heaven (Gal. 5:19-21).

Gal 5:19-21 doesn't speak of heretics but those who do the works of the flesh. 1 Cor 2:14 tells us what leads to heresy (eg: people who deny the gospel because such and such, which is spritually discerned is not spelt out in specific words). As A.Paul warns "Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ. For in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily; and you are complete in Him [Christ], who is the head of all principality and power" (Col 2:8-10).

You say you believe Jesus’ teaching that the Father is the ONLY true God, yet you INSIST that Jesus is ALSO “true God.” You don’t have a clue what a hypocrite is, don’t you?

No hypocracy. It is simply you are ignorant of what A.John's gospel is telling you, concerning the state of being God (cp. Col 2:9). Which is understandable because you are ignorant of what the OT says of YHWH, and ignorant of the fact that all such is said of the Son in the NT.

Pointedly, A.Paul does not say "only" but that there are many that are called G/gods but to us there is one God, the Father! (1 Cor 8:7-8).

What you are saying that “A. Paul does not say “only” is NOT true. In the New King James Version of 1 Cor. 8:6, apostle Paul says, “yet for us there is ONLY ONE God, the Father…”

You mean the TEV! (or NLT, both of which, being interpretative paraphrase, have no relation to the original Greek = A.Paul's actual words). The KJV and all translations of the Greek do not have the word "only" as the word isn't in the original Greek! Here are numerous renderings, including the KJV.

I SUBMIT myself to Christ (Eph. 5:23) and believe and obey all his teachings which are commands from God (John 7:16; 12:49).

Jesus says I came from the Father and entered the world; now I am leaving the world and going back to the Father (Jn 16:28), and that he had personal glory with/beside (gr: echo para) the Father before the world was (Jn 17:5). You dispute what Jesus' plainly said, so it seems you do not submit yourself to his plain words, prefering your own opinion.

It is also because of their “very familiarity” with OT teachings about God that I have no valid reason to believe that these apostles ever IMPLIED that Jesus is God.

Jesus definitely isn't the Father, but the Son of the Father. Thus A.Paul and A.John could and do attest that all things were creaated by the Son/Logos, and he was identical in himself (hypostasis) to the Father in every respect (Heb 1:3; Phil 2:6; Col 2:9; Jn 1:-3).

Earlier, you said that Jesus did NOT imply that he is God and Jesus did NOT claim to be God. Are you now saying that Jesus IMPLIED that he is God or CLAIMED that he is God because of what he said in John 10:34-35?

Nope!

Tell me, was Jesus saying in John 10:34-35 that he is God CONTRARY to what he said in John 8:40 that he is a MAN and in John 17:3 that the Father is the ONLY true God?

He is saying exactly what is written at John 10:35 = there are many things called GOD in the OT.

Now read vs 37-39 which was his witness concerning himself "If I do not do the works of My Father, do not believe Me; but if I do, though you do not believe Me, believe the works, that you may know and believe that the Father [is] in Me, and I in Him...."

From your post #216...

Do you realize that by saying, "the Father of the Son is the ONLY true God," you are in effect saying that any OTHER being, person, entity, or hypostasis, who is recognized by Trinitarians as God is a FALSE God?

Nope! The Son is true God from the only true God, begotten by the only true God as truely Son. Thus there is no conflict: the Son is not God of himself, but God in himself (John 14:11) As A.Paul says "all things were created by and for him (Col 1:16). And the Son is an exact replica of the Father's hypostasis (the word used at Heb 1:3).

"What apostle Paul is saying does NOT support your belief that “the Son is true God from the ONLY true God, not God OF himself but God IN himself".

You should note I referenced A.John as well as A.Paul. A.John gives us Jesus' testimony of himself. As is readily seen from the quote above, Jesus at Jn 10:38 (and numerous other places) directly refutes your opinion. Jesus by his own admission is God in himself = "the Father in Me, and I in Him."

Are you now telling me that I reject Jesus’ IMPLIED or DIRECT testimony of himself that he is God?

(?) Jesus never claimed he was his Father, whom he identified as God. If you read Jesus' testimony in A.John's gospel he rarely speaks of "God", rather he speaks of his Father. And he refers to his origins from heaven to which he would return, his existence with his Father even before the world was, and that if you see him you have seen the Father. Seems there is a lot you reject of Jesus' own words because they conflict with your opinion.

Have a read of Jn 13:31-32 and see if you can discern their meaning "Jesus said, Now the Son of Man is glorified, and God is glorified in Him. If God is glorified in Him, God will also glorify Him in Himself..."

Peace

[IncRus]

Hello IncRus,

A continuation of my reply to your post #215...

Trinitarianism is NO different from Sabellianism in that they BOTH believe that Jesus is God...

Nope! Sabellians hold the Father and the Son are the same individual...In contrast Trinitarians hold the Father is exclusively the only true God, and the Son being begotten of the Father is thus true God from the only true God.

Nevertheless, BOTH Sabellians and Trinitarians are HERETICS because Jesus TAUGHT that the Father ALONE is the ONLY true God and he himself is a MAN (Jn 8:40). Thus, Jesus EXCLUDED himself from being a “true God,” whether “OF himself” or “IN himself.”

Nicenes (Trinitarians) proudly declare that the Father of the Son is the only true God

You FAILED to mention that Nicenes (Trinitarians) believe that Jesus is ALSO “true God.” Why? Is it because you are ashamed to admit that Trinitarians are indeed HERETICS and HYPOCRITES as well?

...Eph. 4:6...says, "ONE God and Father who is ABOVE all." The Father who is the ONLY true God does NOT have any equal!

In terms of rank, there is none greater than the Father. But all things, other than the Father, are subject to the Son (1 Cor 15:27) and in this point and time the Son has all the privileges of the Father, and is not subject to the Father (1 Cor 15:27-28). And when the kingdom is established the throne of God and the Lamb will reside with us and from it will flow the river of life (Rev 22:1-3).

That’s only your OPINION. Jesus did NOT say that the Father is GREATER than he “in terms of rank.” What you are saying does NOT conform to what Jesus said in Jn 14:28.

Not my opinion but what scripture teaches eg: "whatever He [the Father] does, the Son also does in like manner...I do not seek My own will but the will of the Father who sent Me...the very works that I do bear witness of Me, that the Father has sent Me...I have come in My Father's name, and you do not receive Me; if another comes in his own name, him you will receive." Jn 5:19-43.

Jn 14:28 says exactly what I relate (as is made clear by v20-28), for as is obvious at Jn 17:2 "You [the Father] have given [the Son] authority over all flesh". And Jn 17:3 "this is eternal life, that they may know You...and whom you have sent..." And as Jesus says at Jn 5:19 "whatever He [the Father] does, the Son also does in like manner"

You truly are blind, aren’t you?

“Whatever the Father does, the Son ALSO does” means the Father is GREATER than the Son. “I do not seek my own will but the Father who SENT me” means the Father is GREATER than the Son. “The very works I do bear witness of me, that the Father has SENT me” means the Father is GREATER than the Son. “I have come in my Father’s name” means the Father is GREATER than the Son. One who SENDS is GREATER than he who is SENT.

“You [the Father] have given [the Son] authority…” means the Father is GREATER than the Son. One who GIVES authority is GREATER than he who is GIVEN authority.

For Nicean Trinitarians, there is but (only) ONE Godhead, the Father, AND the Son, AND the Holy Spirit; and these THREE (Gods) are ONE true Godhead."

Individually they are the one God to us.

Even gramatically, this belief stinks! How can you say without tongue in cheek that "individually THEY (plural) ARE (plural) the ONE (singular) God to us?"

Thus in your opinion grammatically English and most other languages stink! For instance: We might say there are three men but in reality there is only one humanity. Or these (plural) people (plural) are ONE church (singular).

One can only deduce multiplicity if there is division. Where there is unity there is only singularity.

If you admit that these THREE Gods (plural) are ONE Godhead (singular), then you are correct. But then, the Bible does NOT teach that there is only one “Godhead!”

It is humourous to observe that your arguments are those that the pagans used against Christians in its early days. Rather than reinvent the wheel I'll just refer you to Gregory of Nyssa apology "On Not Three Gods" written to Ablabius, another of your father's sons (Jn 8:44).http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2905.htm

Any lunatic can say that the moon is made of cheese and a fellow lunatic will defend this belief till kingdom comes.

But if you say that these THREE Gods (plural) are ONE God (singular), then your belief does NOT match your analogy, and therefore, FALSE..

Your analogy is: THREE men = ONE humanity; MANY people = ONE church.

Your belief is: THREE Gods = ONE God.

Therefore, there is NO singularity of one thing (God) where there is plurality of the SAME thing (God).

Nope three individuals = one God, just as many things are one in their repects.

I realize that you have lost your ability to think rationally. What a waste of God-given talent!

Your mindlessness, proves how totally ignorant you are of scripture, the teaching of trinitarianism and the historical opposition of pagans like yourself who oppose/d Christianity. Your supposition is that your philosophic "God", the primal being, requires "God" to be the personal identity of that individual. The scriptures teach the title is positional - some of whom were true as their appointment was by YHWH, others false as they are merely the machinations of men.

It is only your Trinity-crazed mind – NOT the Scriptures- that teaches that the term “God” is a “title” that is “positional.” Scriptures indicate that the term “God” is reserved for a “supreme being who is the CREATOR of all things.” And this God or supreme being or creator is identified in scriptures as the Father ALONE. All others whom people recognize and worship as creator or supreme being are “gods” or idols (Psalm 96:5).

As Jesus plainly states, there are those in the scriptures whom God validly called Gods (Jn 10:34; Ps 82:6) - As these were true judges, and were appointed by God and acted on his behalf. But being men these die involuntarily and remain dead (Ps 82:7).

You make God a liar! God did NOT “validly” call these judges “Gods.” God called them “gods” whom he called “idols” (Psalm 96:5).

Whereas Jesus says of himself "I lay down My life that I may take it again" (Jn 10:17). No other man had this capability! And it is something only one who is persistant in his existance can claim (cp. Ex 3:14; Jn 8:58).

You WANT Jesus to IMPLY that he is God, don’t you? Jesus himself is NOT implying that he is God, is he?

If one reads the NT fully (especially Jesus' witness of himself) the idea that Jesus is just a man like any other (albeit one who remained sinless), whose only existence was established at his conception in Mary, is definitely a man-contrived doctrine that denies the plain witness of the NT.

Earlier, you said that Jesus did NOT claim to be God NOR did Jesus IMPLY that he is God.

Yep! And to reinterate: Jesus did not claim that he was his own Father. He identified his Father as God.

What you are saying “yep” to is “Jesus did not claim to be God,” is that correct? I don’t believe you ever said “Jesus did not claim that he was his own Father” before. What you said was “Jesus did NOT imply that he is God” and “Jesus did NOT claim to be God,” didn’t you? If you want to renege on your previous statement, why don’t you simply say so?

And Jesus identified his Father as the “ONLY true God” – not simply God. You can fool some of the people most of the time but you can’t fool all people all the time.

What is “Jesus’ witness of himself” that you are talking about?

Chiefly, he is the source and cause of us obtaining eternal life, that all that the Father has are his, that the Father and he perform the same works, that if you see the Son you see the Father, not to mention he healed, forgave sin and judges under the authority of his own name, he did not come in his own name etc etc etc.

These “Jesus’ witness of himself do NOT explicitly tell us that Jesus is God, don’t they? However, you are IMPLYING to me that these “Jesus’ witness of himself” makes Jesus God, aren’t you? Since you earlier said that Jesus did NOT imply that he is God, therefore, YOU (not Jesus) are IMPLYING that Jesus is God, aren’t you?

Isn’t it true that Jesus said he is a MAN?

Yep! He says he is son of man several times, but more often he is depicted as the Son of God.

You are saying that his being more often depicted as Son of God IMPLIES that Jesus is God, aren’t you?

Isn’t it true that Jesus’ existence was established at his conception in Mary?

His human existence definitely. As A.Paul says "as the children have partaken of flesh and blood, He Himself likewise shared in the same...Therefore, in all things He had to be made like [His] brethren" (Heb 1:14,17). And "Christ Jesus, who, being in the form of God...made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, [and] coming in the likeness of men." Phil 2:5-7. Not to mention Jesus' own testimony that he came from heaven, and had glory with his Father before the world was!

Since Jesus NEVER claimed to be God NOR did Jesus IMPLY that he is God, then it is ONLY your OPINION that these verses MAKE Jesus God, isn’t that true? Considering that Jesus said he is a MAN (John 8:40) and the Father is the ONLY true God (John 17:3), why would your OPINION carry more weight than Jesus’ DIRECT witness of himself being a MAN and of the Father being the ONLY true God?

Isn’t it true that these are all recorded in the Bible?

Sure are! But it seems you need to ignore the full tesimony of scripture concerning your two phrases. Thus your need to omit the last clauses of both Jn 8:40 & Jn 17:3.

Tell me honestly apostoli, do the last clauses of John 8:40 and John 17:3 make Jesus NOT only a MAN but ALSO God IN ADDITION to the Father whom Jesus identified as the ONLY true God? Tell me apostoli, why would your OPINION of what the last clauses of John 8:40 and John 17:3 mean carry more weight than what Jesus EXPLICITLY said about himself being only a MAN and NOT God because the Father is the ONLY true God?

And you THINK that Jesus WAS the “logos” who ALONE made the heavens and the earth as recorded in Nehemiah 9:6?

A.John says the Logos was with God when by this one were all things created. A.Paul says that all things are of the Father and by the Son, and that all things were created by and for the Son.

Nehemiah 9:6 does not say that YHWH ALONE made the heavens and the earth. It says "You alone [are] the LORD; You have made heaven...The earth..."

Who is this “Lord” whom the prophet Nehemiah said made the heavens ALONE?

apostle John wrote that the “logos” was WITH God in the beginning. Who is this God that the “logos” was WITH in the beginning?

The Father.

Do you THINK this God WAS the “logos” himself? Or do you THINK that this “logos” that was WITH God was ONE and the same with this God?

Nope! The word pros (with) means faceward (face to face). The logos wasn't alone and nor was ho theos before all things were created. (see Jn 1:1-3)

Therefore, if the God that the “logos” was WITH in the beginning is the Father, then there would have been TWO Gods in the beginning, wouldn’t it?

If God is identified as the creator of all things then without a full reading of scripture it would be evident that the Son is solely the creator God! However, A.Paul qualifies telling us "All things were created through the Son and for Him" and all things are by God through the Lord Jesus Christ. (1 Cor 8:6). By the will of the Father, all things in heaven and earth (other than the Father) are subject to the Son. Thus the Son is not God of himself, but God in himself (Jn 14:11; 17:21) - God from God.

I wonder why you strive so hard to REJECT Jesus’ words that the Father is the ONLY true God.

I've admitted and afirmed repetatively that the Father of the Son is the only true God. So, unlike you I have no need to strive against scripture that plainly states that all things were created by and for the Son (Col 1:16, Heb 1:2; 1 Cor 8:6; Jn 1:1-3).

I realize that Trinitarians have no qualms about telling one thing and believing another.
Yes, you affirm that the Father is the only true God but you do NOT really believe that because you TRULY believe that the Jesus, the Son of God, is ALSO another “true God” IN ADDITION to his Father who is the ONLY true God.”

You said that Jesus did NOT claim to be God NOR did he IMPLY that he is God. Have you been commissioned by God to DECLARE Jesus as “true God from true God” or “God in himself?” Don’t bother to answer because I won’t believe that God would commission someone to CONTRADICT His beloved son.

I have no direct commission. However, the testimony of scripture is that in respect of us there is no differentiation between the Father and the Son. In fact Jesus says if you see him you have seen the Father. And Jesus regularly attests that the Father is in him and he is in the Father (eg: Jn 10:38; 14:10; 17:21,23).

As A.Paul tells you "Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men...not according to Christ. For in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily;" Col 2:9. The word translated "Godhead" is "theotēs" = "the state of being God".

You REJECT Jesus’ declaration that the Father is the ONLY true God. You have been cheated by your religious teachers through philosophy and empty deceit to believe the LIE that Jesus and the Father are the SAME God..

That Jesus was just a man is NOT an opinion.

Sure is! And one regularly contradicted by scripture. However, from scripture it is readily demonstrated that the Son became as man (Phil 2:6-7; Heb 2:14,17; Jn 1:14 etc).

Jesus himself said he is a MAN (John 8:40). And since Jesus himself said that the Father is the ONLY true God, then Jesus EXCLUDED himself from being ANOTHER true God IN ADDITION to the Father who is the ONLY true God.

May God have pity on those whom God gave the intelligence to know the meaning of the word ONLY but REFUSE to acknowledge it because of their Trinitarian fanaticism.

You turn around and say the "logos" that was WITH God in the beginning was Jesus. That's circular resoning!

Nothing circular, nor any interpretation required. Such is clearly A.John's inference see 1:6-7, 15, 26-34.

It is only your OPINION that “such is clearly A. John’s INFERENCE.” An OPINION that what was written in John 1:6-7, 15, 26-34 is an INFERENCE that “Jesus was the “logos” that was WITH God in the beginning” does NOT carry any weight since this OPINION goes AGAINST the TRUTH that there is ONLY ONE God in the beginning as witnessed by the prophet Isaiah in Isaiah 44:2; 44:24; 45:6; 46:9, and that ONLY ONE God is identified in Isaiah 63:16 and 64:8 as the Father.

This doctrine can only line up with what Jesus said IF the word "ONLY" is cut out from Jn 17:3 or, as you seem to have done, PRETEND that the word "ONLY" is NOT there...

Nope! the Church and I insist that the word "ONLY" is emphatically there, and is absolutely applied exclusively to the Father and to no other. The complete phrase "only true God" in exclusive reference to the Father is essential to Trinitarian belief! It is because the Father is the only true God, that his Son can be deemed true God from true God (true God from the only true God). You are a "true man" from a "true man," your father, aren't you?

If you were standing beside your father apostoli, tell me, how many "true men" do I see? One true man or TWO true men?

One. There is only one humanity.

Would you teach your child to answer this way apostoli? You know very well that this is NOT the correct answer, don’t you?

Now, suppose I say that your father is the "ONLY true man" in your family, what does that make you apostoli?

As his Son, what he essentially is! Albeit not my Father himself.

How can you be a son when your father is the ONLY true man in your family? In your fanaticism, you have forgotten that a man is a male and a son is a male, haven’t you? Therefore, if your father is the ONLY true man/male in your family, you can NEVER be a true son (man/male). You must be a LESBIAN daughter (woman/female) who PRETENDS to be a son!

This is what Trinitarians make of Jesus when they say that Jesus is “true God from the ONLY true God.”

You DELUDE yourself into believeing the LIE that Jesus was "begotten NOT made."

A.John says he was begoten! And all things made were created by him (Jn 1:3) and A.Paul affirms (Col 1:16; Heb 1:2; 1 Cor 8:6).

Your fanaticism PREVENTS you from seeing beyond your nose. The words “by” or “through” also mean “because of” as in “lost by default” or “lost through no fault of his.” The Bible tells us, way BEFORE John 1:3; Col. 1:16; and Heb. 1:2 were written, that the Father ALONE created the world (Neh. 9:6; Isaiah 63:16; 64:8; Mal. 2:10). Therefore, these NT verses mean to tell us that the Father ALONE created the world BECAUSE OF Jesus. And this is attested by apostle Paul who wrote that Christ is the “first born over all creation” (Col. 1:15).

God FORMED Jesus in the womb of his mother.

There is nothing in the NT that says so! Though it is logical to assume that as he became like his brethren in all things (Heb 3:14,17), the fleshy aspect of him had a normal gestation.

You are saying that Jesus FORMED himself in the womb of Mary, aren’t you?

And whether Jesus is the exact replica of the Father or not, Jesus CANNOT be God because Jesus himself said that the Father is the ONLY true God (Jn 17:3).

And it seems you remain totally ignorant of why Jesus said so and what it means!

You are telling me that Jesus did NOT really mean to say that the Father is the ONLY true God, aren’t you?

The words that Jesus spoke in Jn 17:3 were the words of God that God gave Jesus to say or speak (Jn 17:8; 14:28).

Obviously you ignore the fact that Jesus wasn't preaching but praying to his Father. Thus his words are his personal testimony to his Father. He testifies of himself to his Father and even makes requests of the Father.

It seems you think Jesus was a programed robot, incapable of a thought of his own. Thus as usual you are forced to misapply scripture!

You are telling me that what Jesus was saying when he prays is NOT as true as what he says when he preaches, aren’t you? You are, therefore, calling Jesus a LIAR, aren’t you?

I don’t have to know WHY God commanded Jesus to say these.

According to Jesus eternal life requires knowing these things! (Jn 17:3)

Again, you are straining to grab at straws. Jesus did NOT say that we have to know WHY God commanded him to say these things.

Jn 17:3 is self-explanatory to anyone who TRULY desires to know the TRUTH.

Seems you have no desire to know the truth! Jn 17:3 says more than your isolated phrase. "this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent."

There is NOTHING more that John 17:3 says other than what you have written.

Whether the Son and the Spirit ARE “true God OF themselves” OR “true God IN themselves,” Trinitarians still recognize them as Gods, isn’t it? Therefore, IF the Son and the Spirit ARE true Gods (whether OF themselves or IN themselves, it does not matter), then, the Father is NOT actually the ONLY true God that Trinitarians recognize, isn’t that true?

Nope! The Son and Spirit are not God of themselves. If such was taught by Niceans (which it is not) then you would have a valid case. However, scripture plainly teaches that the Son and the Spirit are God in themselves. A.Paul removes all debate on this score, concerning the Son. A.Paul says the Son is "theotēs" = "the state of being God". (Col 2:9)

You are saying then, that “the son and the spirit being Gods IN themselves” are NOT as “true Gods” as the Father who, as you say, is “God OF himself”, aren’t you?

As with the church, though many members in each congregation there be but one congregation, and though there be many congregations there be but one body. The head of the body is Christ, and the head of Christ is his Father. Not many but one.

Again, your analogy does NOT fit your belief about the ONE true God. Whereas, your analogy talks of “many members” that comprise “ONE church,” your Trinity belief talks of “THREE Gods” that comprise “ONE God.” Can’t you see the difference, apostoli?

There are not three Gods, just as there is not many bodies or spirits or hopes (Eph 4:4). The Nicene creed plainly says "we believe in one God, the Father...and one Lord, begotten not made, God from God...and the Spirit who proceeds from the Father..."

In their manifestation to us they each are aclaimed our God, ….

Open your eyes apostoli. See you the Nicene Creed makes a fool out of you. The Creed says, “there are not three Gods.” But the Creed follows this up with, “….they EACH are acclaimed our God.” You can’t see that if you “acclaim the Father, the Son and the Spirit EACH as your God,” then the TRUTH is, Trinitarians believe in THREE Gods, don’t they?

The TRUTH of the matter is, Trinitarians recognize THREE Gods when they say, God, the Father, AND God, the Son AND God, the Holy Spirit, no matter how much they DENY it. As any grade-schooler can see, God, repeated THREE times does NOT equal ONE God.

Sure does! As any grade schooler would tell you, where no division is seen, there is only one thing = they go to the one school, that consists of many parts.

Again, your analogy stinks! THREE Gods equals ONE God is NOT analogous to THREE pupils equals ONE school. But your Trinity-crazed mind CAN’T perceive this, don’t you?

[apostoli]

Hello IncRus,

Reply to your post to me #230.

You FAILED to mention that Nicenes (Trinitarians) believe that Jesus is ALSO “true God.” Why?

Post length. As there is synonymity of terms, there is no failure.

...Jesus did NOT say that the Father is GREATER than he “in terms of rank.” What you are saying does NOT conform to what Jesus said in Jn 14:28.

Not my opinion but what scripture teaches eg: "whatever He [the Father] does, the Son also does in like manner...Jn 14:28 says exactly what I relate (as is made clear by v20-28)...And as Jesus says at Jn 5:19 "whatever He [the Father] does, the Son also does in like manner"

You truly are blind, aren’t you?

Nope! But apparently you are! Apart from Jn 14:28 none of the scriptures you cited say that the Father is greater than the Son in every way as you want! As I said the Father is greater in rank, as all father's are! Especially when one's father is king and cedes the kingship to his son, granting him all dominion.

Thus, Jesus designates equivalence with his Father in all that he does. And so says, if you have seen him [Jesus] you have seen the Father (Jn 12:45; 14:9)!

Have a non-dogmatic think on John 14:28 "If you loved Me, you would rejoice because I said, 'I am going to the Father[b],' for My Father is greater than I." Now have a read of vs26 "the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name". Now compare Jn 15:26 & 16:7. Notice that Jesus claims equivalence with the Father in sending the Spirit! Why do you think the apostles should rejoice that Jesus was leaving them?

Any lunatic can say that the moon is made of cheese and a fellow lunatic will defend this belief till kingdom comes.

So it seems with you, who can only support your opinion by adding to and/or omiting scripture, and/or fabricate meanings not supported by the original words of their writers (Greek or Hebrew).

It is only your Trinity-crazed mind – NOT the Scriptures- that teaches that the term “God” is a “title” that is “positional.”

Nope! It is the opinion of the Jews (and all OT scholars) regarding the teaching of the OT. And as you should know, Jews oppose Trinitarians!

Scriptures indicate that the term “God” is reserved for a “supreme being who is the CREATOR of all things.”

El/Elohim (God) is not a reserved term in scripture, as anyone who has ever read the scriptures fully knows. In the OT it is YHWH who is applauded as the God of Israel and is identified as the creator (eg: Isa 45:18).

In most English translations of the OT: LORD (all upper case) identifies replacement of the tetragrammaton (YHWH). Lord refers to royalty, and lord someone of superior rank.

And this God or supreme being or creator is identified in scriptures as the Father ALONE.

A.Paul says there are many that are called God, but to us there is one God, the Father... (1 Cor 8:5,6)

All others whom people recognize and worship as creator or supreme being are “gods” or idols (Psalm 96:5).

A.Paul says all things are of the Father and by the Son (1 Cor 8:6; Col 1:16; Heb 1:2). A.Paul doesn't designate the Son as "a god" nor as an idol, but as the creator of all things seen and unseen, visible and invisible.

Ps 96:5 says YHWH made the heavens. Also notice vs8 "Give unto YHWH the glory due to his name". Compare Jn 5:23 "that all should honor the Son just as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent Him."

But most importantly see Ps 96:13 "For He is coming, for He is coming to judge the earth." Who was it that has come, and judges the earth according to the NT?

As Jesus plainly states, there are those in the scriptures whom God validly called Gods (Jn 10:34; Ps 82:6) - As these were true judges, and were appointed by God and acted on his behalf. But being men these die involuntarily and remain dead (Ps 82:7).

You make God a liar! God did NOT “validly” call these judges “Gods.” God called them “gods” whom he called “idols” (Psalm 96:5).

No lie! If you bothered to read Ps 96:5 without omiting what is actually written you will discover it refers to "the gods of the nations". YHWH says Moses was God to pharaoh, and instead of God to Aaron!

Whereas Jesus says of himself "I lay down My life that I may take it again" (Jn 10:17). No other man had this capability! And it is something only one who is persistant in his existance can claim (cp. Ex 3:14; Jn 8:58).

You WANT Jesus to IMPLY that he is God, don’t you? Jesus himself is NOT implying that he is God, is he?

Nope! Jesus is not implying he is his Father! Jesus says he is the Son of God, and identifies his Father as the only true God!

What you are saying “yep” to is “Jesus did not claim to be God,” is that correct?

Yep!

I don’t believe you ever said “Jesus did not claim that he was his own Father” before. What you said was “Jesus did NOT imply that he is God” and “Jesus did NOT claim to be God,” didn’t you?

Yep! He identifies God as being his own Father.

If you want to renege on your previous statement, why don’t you simply say so?

I have nothing to renege. As I said: For clarification, Jesus did not claim to be his own Father, whom he identified as the only true God. I said such to emphasise that Jesus did not and could not claim or imply that he is God of himself!

And Jesus identified his Father as the “ONLY true God” – not simply God.

He says often his Father was God, and proclaimed in prayer his Father is the only true God. To think that the Son is "God" is pure Sabellianism. In opposition to that opinion, the Nicene Creed (Trinitarianism) teaches that the Son, as true Son, is God from God, true God from true God.

These “Jesus’ witness of himself do NOT explicitly tell us that Jesus is God, don’t they?

They simply demonstrate that, in regards to us, as true Son, he was equivalence with his Father in all things. As Jesus says "And he who sees, Me sees Him who sent Me" (Jn 12:45)

However, you are IMPLYING to me that these “Jesus’ witness of himself” makes Jesus God, aren’t you?

Nope! He says he is the Son of God!

Since you earlier said that Jesus did NOT imply that he is God, therefore, YOU (not Jesus) are IMPLYING that Jesus is God, aren’t you?

Nope! Such would be Sabellianism which I oppose. He is not the same hypostasis as the Father.

You are saying that his being more often depicted as Son of God IMPLIES that Jesus is God, aren’t you?

Nope! See above.

Since Jesus NEVER claimed to be God NOR did Jesus IMPLY that he is God, then it is ONLY your OPINION that these verses MAKE Jesus God, isn’t that true?

I've never once said Jesus is God, whom he identifies as his Father. That is some hullucination of your own concoction. I've consistently said he is the Son of God.

Considering that Jesus said he is a MAN (John 8:40) and the Father is the ONLY true God (John 17:3), why would your OPINION carry more weight than Jesus’ DIRECT witness of himself being a MAN and of the Father being the ONLY true God?

As you omit Jesus' full witness at Jn 8:40 & 17:3 you demonstrate you are not prepared to accept his full DIRECT witness of himself. ie: Jn 8:40, he compares himself to YHWH appearing as a man to Abraham. And you ignore that eternal life requires knowing in an intimate way both the only true God (the Father of the Son) and the one the Father sent (the Son).

it seems you need to ignore the full tesimony of scripture concerning your two phrases. Thus your need to omit the last clauses of both Jn 8:40 & Jn 17:3.

...do the last clauses of John 8:40 and John 17:3 make Jesus NOT only a MAN but ALSO God IN ADDITION to the Father whom Jesus identified as the ONLY true God?

Being true Son, they make him God from God, true God from true God! Not an additional God to the only true God! As the scriptures explicity say, God manifest in the flesh.

...why would your OPINION of what the last clauses of John 8:40 and John 17:3 mean carry more weight than what Jesus EXPLICITLY said about himself being only a MAN and NOT God because the Father is the ONLY true God?

Because Jesus never says he is "only" a man. His explicit claim is that he is the Son of God and that God is his Father, and if you see him [Jesus] you see the Father (Jn 12:45, 14:9).

Nehemiah 9:6 does not say that YHWH ALONE made the heavens and the earth. It says "You alone [are] the LORD; You have made heaven...The earth..."

Who is this “Lord” whom the prophet Nehemiah said made the heavens ALONE?

No translation has Nehemiah saying YHWH (the LORD) made the heaven alone! Even the TEV & NLT paraphrases have it as I quoted. Check for yourself.
http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible...&t=NKJV#vrsn/6

if the God that the “logos” was WITH in the beginning is the Father, then there would have been TWO Gods in the beginning, wouldn’t it?

Nope! Two individuals definitely! There would be o theos, with whom o logos was pros (face to face) en arche (in the beginning) (vs 1:1b&2), before all things created were created (vs 1:1a&3), and o logos (the Son) who as A.Paul puts it, is an exact replica of the Father's hypostasis (cp. Heb 1:2-3 with Jn 1:1-3).

I realize that Trinitarians have no qualms about telling one thing and believing another.

Not if they adhere to the teaching of the Nicea Creed. And if they do not hold to the Creed they are not Trinitarian!

you affirm that the Father is the only true God but you do NOT really believe that

Sure do!

...that because you TRULY believe that Jesus, the Son of God, is ALSO another “true God” IN ADDITION to his Father who is the ONLY true God.”

Not another! There is only one who begot the Son, who as true Son, is what his Father is in essential existence towards us! ie: if you see the Son you see the Father (Jn 12:45; 14:9)

Your idea above applies to Tritheists, not Trinitarians. Tritheists believe in three Gods. Trinitarians oppose Tritheist opinion, just as they do Sabellians.

You REJECT Jesus’ declaration that the Father is the ONLY true God.

Nope! But from your posts it is obvious you reject Jesus' words at Jn 12:45 & 14:9!

You have been cheated by your religious teachers through philosophy and empty deceit to believe the LIE that Jesus and the Father are the SAME God.

Nope! The Nicene creed specifically says there is one God = the Father, and one Lord = the Son etc.

As in creation the offspring is whatever their parent is in essential existence, so the Son of the Father. No philosophy required, Romans 1:20 and so Heb 1:3 & John 1:1b are sufficient to make such clear.

My religious teachers, teach exactly what is written in scripture without addition, ommission, distortion or interpretation. Obviously, you confuse the language of the refutation of heresy, the defence against the heretics using the arguments and language of the heretics against them, with what is actually taught.

You turn around and say the "logos" that was WITH God in the beginning was Jesus. That's circular resoning!

Nothing circular, nor any interpretation required. Such is clearly A.John's inference see 1:6-7, 15, 26-34.

It is only your OPINION that “such is clearly A. John’s INFERENCE.”

You either accept what A.John clearly says, who was the disciple most loved by Jesus, or you don't. I believe his testimony!

An OPINION that what was written in John 1:6-7, 15, 26-34 is an INFERENCE that “Jesus was the “logos” that was WITH God in the beginning” does NOT carry any weight

A.Paul says all things created, were created by the Son at Col 1:16 & Heb 1:2. So it seems A.Paul and A.John had a common opinion. They even agreed on the quality of the Son see Jn 1:1c, Phil 2:6, Heb 1:3.

since this OPINION goes AGAINST the TRUTH that there is ONLY ONE God in the beginning as witnessed by the prophet Isaiah in Isaiah 44:2; 44:24; 45:6; 46:9, and that ONLY ONE God is identified in Isaiah 63:16 and 64:8 as the Father.

Who would be called mighty God, almighty Father, God with us at Isaiah 9:6 & 7:14?

Compare: Isa 40:3 with Jn 1:23; Isa 45:23 with Phil 2:9-11; which say of Jesus, what is said of YHWH.

Also see Isaiah 44:6 "Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I [am] the first, and I [am] the last; and beside me [there is] no God." Notice the duality. See Rev 1:8 & 17 (cp Titus 1:3 & 4). All translations are basically the same. I noticed the TEV paraphrase diverges from the original Hebrew, so I checked the LXX (the Greek the 1st century Christians read) which says "Thus says God (o theos), the king of israel, and (kai) the one [who] rescueing [for] him - God of hosts (theos sabaoth)...". Which corresponds to the Hebrew, albeit in Hebrew the grammaton (YHWH) appears instead of theos/LORD.

Also who was "us" at Genesis 1:26; 3:22; 11:7?

ps: apart from one verse, none of your references have reference to the point/s you were attempting to make.

If you were standing beside your father apostoli, tell me, how many "true men" do I see? One true man or TWO true men?

One. There is only one humanity.

Would you teach your child to answer this way apostoli?

Sure have! Didn't want them to be idiots, thinking they are something other than what they are. Likewise, I've taught them that one bowl of fruit is one bowl of fruit. Did your education cover calculus?

You know very well that this is NOT the correct answer, don’t you?

So you believe you are unique to your father, something other than human? Grammatically, we might say there are two men as there is external division in mankind (as any Nazi eugenicist will tell you), but that is not a scientific perspective nor God's purpose (we were meant, and for Christians required, to be one).

Now, suppose I say that your father is the "ONLY true man" in your family, what does that make you apostoli?

As his Son, what he essentially is! Albeit not my Father himself.

How can you be a son when your father is the ONLY true man in your family?

You asked if my father etc. If your man had no offspring he wouldn't be a father.

In your fanaticism, you have forgotten that a man is a male and a son is a male, haven’t you?

Seems you have ignored that according to Genesis "man" comprises both male or female (Gen 1:27; 5:2).

Therefore, if your father is the ONLY true man/male in your family, you can NEVER be a true son (man/male).

If no offspring then no father, merely a man. Which proves the self contradictions of your argument/s.

You must be a LESBIAN daughter (woman/female) who PRETENDS to be a son!

Nope! Your argument fails because your terminology is self contradictory, and has no relation to biblical reality. eg: Adam begot sons and daughters, but only Seth and his line is said to be in his image. Why do you think such is so?

This is what Trinitarians make of Jesus when they say that Jesus is “true God from the ONLY true God.”

Nope! Ishmael was Abraham's son, just as Isaac, but Isaac was Abraham's only son according to YHWH (Gen 22:2). The difference of course is that God the Father's Son, is the only Son he begot. And as Seth was what Adam was, and Isaac was what Abraham was, so the Son of God the Father is what his Father is!

You DELUDE yourself into believing the LIE that Jesus was "begotten NOT made."

A.John says he was begoten! And all things made were created by him (Jn 1:3) and A.Paul affirms (Col 1:16; Heb 1:2; 1 Cor 8:6).

Your fanaticism PREVENTS you from seeing beyond your nose.

Where in scripture does it say he was made or created? Colossians 1:15 certainly doesn't mention it. It calls him the "protokos" which is a legal term for whomever has the first right to a Father's property.

The words “by” or “through” also mean “because of” as in “lost by default” or “lost through no fault of his.”

Not in the texts I cited. As I said...

At Hebrews 1:2 and 1 Cor 8:6 the word used is "[b]dia[,b]" which means "with" and is interpreted as "by" (241 times in the KJV). The lexicon notes: "a primary preposition denoting [b]the channel of an act[b/]"

At Col 1:16 the word "en" is translated "by". The lexicon notes: "a primary preposition denoting (fixed) position (in place, time or state), and (by implication) instrumentality."

The Bible tells us, way BEFORE John 1:3; Col. 1:16; and Heb. 1:2 were written, that the Father ALONE created the world (Neh. 9:6; Isaiah 63:16; 64:8; Mal. 2:10). Therefore, these NT verses mean to tell us that the Father ALONE created the world BECAUSE OF Jesus. And this is attested by apostle Paul who wrote that Christ is the “first born over all creation” (Col. 1:15).

Nope! Neh 9:6 you misquote. Isaiah 63:16 doesn't refer to the creation but the founding of Israel (God as father of Israel). Isaiah 64:8 refers to YHWH as a potter and the work of his hand, which fits the verses I cited. And Mal 2:10 is used by Trinitarian in their argument.

If you want to be a Jew or Moslem be one! But don't randomly cite scripture improperly, it makes you look stupid. I could give you scripture that directly conflicts with my opinion, and if you were not so obviously lazy I would have. It would certainly make our conversation more intellectually stimulating!

1 Cor 8:6 plainly states that all things are of God, and by the Son. Col 1:16 says "by and for the Son", this text particularly demonstrates your silliness. Of the 2600 or so times "en" occurs in the NT, it never has the meaning "because", the most common rendering (1902 times) is "in". The next most common rendering is "by" eg: Mt 2:5 "thus it is written by the prophet"

God FORMED Jesus in the womb of his mother.

There is nothing in the NT that says so! Though it is logical to assume that as he became like his brethren in all things (Heb 3:14,17), the fleshy aspect of him had a normal gestation.

You are saying that Jesus FORMED himself in the womb of Mary, aren’t you?

Nope! I accept Luke 1:32.

I'm guessing you think, as some religious leaders of Jesus' day, that God causes every malediction occuring in the womb. Personally, I believe God setup the self sustaining mechanism of reproduction, and anything that goes wrong is mankind's fault.

You are telling me that Jesus did NOT really mean to say that the Father is the ONLY true God, aren’t you?

Nope! As I said: And it seems you remain totally ignorant of why Jesus said so and what it means!

The words that Jesus spoke in Jn 17:3 were the words of God that God gave Jesus to say or speak (Jn 17:8; 14:28).

Obviously you ignore the fact that Jesus wasn't preaching but praying to his Father. Thus his words are his personal testimony to his Father. He testifies of himself to his Father and even makes requests of the Father.

It seems you think Jesus was a programed robot, incapable of a thought of his own. Thus as usual you are forced to misapply scripture![/QUOTE]You are telling me that what Jesus was saying when he prays is NOT as true as what he says when he preaches, aren’t you?[/QUOTE]Nope! Merely he had a mind of his own (cp. Luke 22:42) and his words to his Father were his!

You are, therefore, calling Jesus a LIAR, aren’t you?

Nope! But as you never quote all he said at John 17:3 and reject what he says at vs5 it seems you do!

I don’t have to know WHY God commanded Jesus to say these.

According to Jesus eternal life requires knowing these things! (Jn 17:3)

Jesus did NOT say that we have to know WHY God commanded him to say these things.

Scripture plainly teaches the why! see Jn 17:8.

Jn 17:3 is self-explanatory to anyone who TRULY desires to know the TRUTH.

Seems you have no desire to know the truth! Jn 17:3 says more than your isolated phrase. "this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent."

There is NOTHING more that John 17:3 says other than what you have written.

And yet you omit two thirds of it in your posts. Eternal life is dependent on knowing both the Father and the Son! Why is it fight against the Son?

You are saying then, that “the son and the spirit being Gods IN themselves” are NOT as “true Gods” as the Father who, as you say, is “God OF himself”, aren’t you?

Nope! They are exactly, in essential being, what the Father is! However, the Father is their source and cause. Just as: although my father precedes me, I'm not inferior to him in terms of my essential being.

There are not three Gods, just as there is not many bodies or spirits or hopes (Eph 4:4). [b]The Nicene creed plainly says "we believe in one God, the Father...and one Lord, begotten not made...true God from true God...and the Spirit who proceeds from the Father...[b]"

The Father is God of himself, and the Father begot the Son, and the Spirit proceeds from the Father and is received by us through the Son. Thus the Son and the Spirit are God in themselves. In their manifestation to us they each are aclaimed our God, as there is no perceptable difference in their activity concerning us. As Jesus declared to his disciples, All that the Father has, belongs to the Son, and All the Son has, belongs to the Spirit (Jn 16:13-15).

The Creed says, “there are not three Gods.” But the Creed follows this up with, “….they EACH are acclaimed our God.” You can’t see that if you “acclaim the Father, the Son and the Spirit EACH as your God,” then the TRUTH is, Trinitarians believe in THREE Gods, don’t they?

Firstly, it is obvious you haven't read the creed. Secondly, I cited the creed (in bold above), which clearly states that there is one God = the Father, then gave a synopsis of the teaching. Thirdly, where there is no division there can only be singularity, we give them each the accolade God, because each has the same existence and activity in respect to us, not three (divided) existences nor three diverse activities but one, performed by three individuals who are in total unity!

Peace

[fm93]

Alright, I've done some research, so...

Probably the best analogy of the Trinity I've come across so far is that of a fire. The Father is the actual substance of the fire, the Son is the light from the fire, and the Holy Spirit is the heat from the fire. Thus, three in one, yet one cannot survive without the other, just like there cannot exist a fire that doesn't give off light or heat.

So, since the Father is the actual substance of the fire, and the Son and Holy Spirit are emanations from the substance of the fire, the Father is said to be the "one true God", because the other two members of the Godhead derive their existence FROM the Father. However, all three share the same attribute of divinity. Thus, the Son and Holy Spirit can also be said to be God in the sense that they are both divine as well.

Now, because Jesus derives His existence from the Father, the Father is said to be greater, and the Son does what the Father commands. So, the Son is subordinately lower in function, but equal ontologically.

And really...can we stop citing John 8:40? The Son took on human flesh. The body of the man known in history as Jesus of Nazareth is a fully human body, but the soul of Jesus is divine. Thus, Jesus of Nazareth is both God and man.

Personally, I think apostoli explained this well enough already.

Also...IncRus, I apologize for the harsh treatment of you from myself and other Trinitarians on the other thread.

Anyway, getting back to the main topic...what's the big deal about the creation of the world? The Bible says that God spoke the universe into existence, thus "by Your Word were all things made." Keep in mind what we mean when we say God. God is an unembodied, infinite mind. The Son is the Word and Wisdom of God. So, before time was created, God was just...there. Time began with the creation of the universe, which was the first action ever performed. For more on this, check out this article: http://www.tektonics.org/jesusclaims...tydefense.html

Finally...to be honest, I personally could NOT declare that Jesus isn't divine and consider myself an honest person. For anyone who has read the Gospels seriously, he or she will agree that there's just that...power, that beauty, that majesty, that AUTHORITY in Jesus' words. His very character and heart echo and resemble VERY STRONGLY that of YHWH in the Old Testament.

Actually, one more thing:

"Then they asked him, "Where is your father?" "You do not know me or my Father," Jesus replied. "If you knew me, you would know my Father also." (John 8:19) Also,

"Jesus said to them, "If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and now am here." (John 8:42)

Jesus is saying that if one TRULY knows the Father (that is, has established a relationship with the Father), then he/she WILL RECOGNIZE the Son when he/she encounters Him.

[apostoli]

Hi frm93,

Probably the best analogy of the Trinity I've come across so far is that of a fire. The Father is the actual substance of the fire, the Son is the light from the fire, and the Holy Spirit is the heat from the fire. Thus, three in one, yet one cannot survive without the other, just like there cannot exist a fire that doesn't give off light or heat.

So, since the Father is the actual substance of the fire, and the Son and Holy Spirit are emanations from the substance of the fire, the Father is said to be the "one true God", because the other two members of the Godhead derive their existence FROM the Father. However, all three share the same attribute of divinity. Thus, the Son and Holy Spirit can also be said to be God in the sense that they are both divine as well.

My favourite analogy is the the spring (source=Father), the stream (interceder=the Son) and the pond - which sustains us - from which we drink (the Spirit). Each provides the same water.

Finally...to be honest, I personally could NOT declare that Jesus isn't divine and consider myself an honest person. For anyone who has read the Gospels seriously, he or she will agree that there's just that...power, that beauty, that majesty, that AUTHORITY in Jesus' words. His very character and heart echo and resemble VERY STRONGLY that of YHWH in the Old Testament.

Basically I agree. Via deduction (Jn 20:31, 17:3,8; 3:31-36; 1:1c).

Jesus is saying that if one TRULY knows the Father (that is, has established a relationship with the Father), then he/she WILL RECOGNIZE the Son when he/she encounters Him.

Basically I agree. Though I place the emphasis on if we receive the Spirit, we perceive the Son and so know the Father as father.

Peace

[fm93]

Hmm, IncRus hasn't replied in some time.

[apostoli]

Hmm, IncRus hasn't replied in some time.

He is probably having a busy week, or actually doing some study, or consulting with his "teachers", or just having some time out to set his thoughts in order. Based on his prior patterns he'll probably reply over the coming weekend.

I doubt anything I've said has had any influence on his opinion, but I think I have challenged his core premises, so he is looking for a retort that proves me wrong. I've noticed as I've firmed my argument, he has increasingly resorted to evasive vindictive, and I really do not think such is his personal nature nor preference.

Peace