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

[apostoli]

Hello Incrus,

You say that the early church didn't perceive the "incarnation" as a theory, but as a fact.

One of the earliest, non apostolic sources, are the letters of Ignatius.

Doesn't "incarnation" mean the embodiment of DEITY into human form?

Nope! The original greek word, basically means embodied, and can apply to anything perceived as previously existing without body. Consequently, groups such as the WT&TS teach that the Archangel Michael who had existed as a spiritual creature, and as the Logos of God, was embodied (became flesh).

The doctrine of the incarnation that the Church holds to be true and taught by scripture holds that it was not some creature that became flesh but the only begotten Son of God.

If it is true that "all INFORMED Trinitarians AGREE with me" that "John could NOT have been telling us that the "word" was ACTUALLY "a god" ( a judge or a mighty man) or ACTUALLY some OTHER "God" besides the God WITH whom the the "word" was in the beginning,".....WHO is the "God" who "incarnated" into human form?

The Son of God.

Your abuse of the word "God" remains deaf to scripture. It is apparent, that you still haven't bothered to learn how the words el/elohim and theos are used in scripture. All testimonies, from religious to secular, from Jew to Christian, from trinitarian to unitarian, attest that the word "G/god", in the OT & NT, is not an exclusive name or description of the primal being but an accolade.

Consequently, groups such as the WT&TS teach that the Archangel Michael who had existed as a spiritual creature, and as the Logos of God, was godlike, a god, but not the God of gods, the Father.

The Church teaches that the Logos is Son of God, begotten not made, and thus God from God. The church does not teach that the Son is God of himself, nor does it teach that the Son and the Father are associated by species. The Church does apply the same accolade/s to the Father and the Son. Thus I can readily admit that the identity, Son of God, is attributed with the accolade God, and it is he who became incarnate.

The modern debate (ie: such as your opinion) is based on non-christian philosophical views that require God to be detached from creation (cannot participate in his own creation).

What do you mean by "God to be detached from creation" or "cannot participate in his own creation?" Why is it "non-Christian philosophical view" to require that God be detached from creation" or that God "cannot participate in his own creation?"

Because such have foundations in ancient Greek philosophy, not scripture.

Eunomius, one of the more articulate of the extreme Arians in the fourth century, in his first apology used such arguments - he also advocated that the Son could not truely know the Father (which contradicts Jesus), and that the Father is the only true God because he is the only unbegotten. Of course Eunomius argued from natural philosophy, not scripture.

NB: As you consistently advocate an islamic position, I assume you are not Christian, although you might identify yourself as such (Matthew 7:21-23).

Are you telling me that John 8:40 and John 17:3 are "islamic positions?"

As you use them - definitely. Islamic apologists ignore context just as you do.

Who is then the "God" who INCARNATED into a MAN?

The Son of God!

If, as you say, that "all INFORMED Trinitarians AGREE with me" that "John could NOT have been telling us that the "word" was ACTUALLY "a god" ( a judge or a mighty man) or ACTUALLY some OTHER "God" besides the God WITH whom the the "word" was in the beginning,".....how can the Son of God be the "God" who INCARNATED himself into a MAN?

Given that neither the Church nor scripture teaches that "the Son of God [is] the God who INCARNATED himself into a MAN", I have no idea what you are asking. According to Luke it was by the Holy Spirit and the power of the Highest that the Son was incarnated (Luke 1:35), and according to A.Paul the Son had emptied himself and taken on the morphe of a servant before the incarnation, then became as man (Phillipians 2:6-8).

Heb. 1:3 is entirely DIFFERENT from John 1:1. John 1:1 does NOT refer to a "person" but to an idea, intent or plan. The "logos" is NOT a "person."

Only from your perspective! Both say the same thing as does various texts in A.Paul, A.John and A.Peter's letters.

Earlier you said that "all INFORMED Trinitarians AGREE with me" that "John could NOT have been telling us that the "word" was ACTUALLY "a god" ( a judge or a mighty man) or ACTUALLY some OTHER "God" besides the God WITH whom the the "word" was in the beginning,"

Therefore, the "word" was NOT a "god" NOR a "God." Then, tell me, WHAT was the "word" that was WITH God in the beginning?

The Son of God!

Are you or aren't you an "INFORMED" Trinitarian?

I believe so. Though there are always new things to learn in the Church's teaching.

On the other hand, Heb. 1:3 refers SPECIFICALLY to a "person" and that "person" being referred to SPECIFICALLY is the SON of God.

And yet Hebrews tells us that this man "upholds all things by the word of his power".

How is this so? Is the man greater than his Father, his God? Or could it be, that as Son of God he has the same power as his Father?

Yes, this MAN "upholds all things by the word of his power" (sustaining the universe with his poowerful word - Heb. 1:3 TEV), BUT, this MAN is NOT God, because the Father is the ONLY true God (John 17:3).

Jesus, the MAN is NOT greater than the Father. In fact, Jesus said the Father is GREATER than he (John 14:28). But Jesus said, "all authority has been GIVEN to me in heaven and on earth" (Matt. 28:18).

I noticed you evaded answering the conclusions of your opinion, which I alluded to in my previous post. God is the only true God is a non-answer, as were your other Islamic mantras.

The context of Hebrews 1:3b is Hebrews 1:3a "The Son reflects God's own glory, and everything about him represents God exactly. He sustains the universe by the mighty power of his command." (NLT)

Whatever Heb. 1:3 says about Jesus does NOT make Jesus God because Jesus HAD declared WITHOUT equivocation that he is a MAN (John 8:40) and the Father is the ONLY true God (John 17:3).

Jesus also says "WITHOUT equivocation" that he is the Son of God, and he did so in such a way that those around him, understood him as saying, he had a real (natural = ousia as opposed to physis) fillial relationship with his Father, who he identified as being God (ie: in modern terms, genetically a son).

The Jews NEVER understood Jesus. When Jesus said, "I am the Son of God," (John 10:36), the Jews understood that to mean "Jesus was making himself God." Hence, they FALSELY accused Jesus of BLASPHEMY and had him killed.

A.Peter and the other apostles were jews! As was Jesus. So your tirade, as usual, ignores all the facts.

Jesus' being the Son of God does NOT make him God because Jesus himself says that he is a MAN (John 8:40) and the Father is the ONLY true God (John 17:3). Therefore, whether Jesus is "genetically a son" or not, or had "real or filial relationship with God the Father is IRRELEVANT.

Jesus thought it very relevent that his Father is the only true God, and that his filial relationship with his Father was the whole basis of his teaching. Most strange you call Lord, Lord and yet deny him and his teaching!

What matters are the WORDS of Jesus that one MUST believe in order to be saved (John 3:16, 18, 36)...

I agree. Why then do you ignore his words?

Read John 3:18 carefully "He who believes in him is not condemned; he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God." Now have a read of John 3:13-15 "No one has ascended into heaven but he who descended from heaven, the Son of man. And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of man be lifted up, that whoever believes in him may have eternal life."

saying that he is a MAN and the Father is the ONLY true God.

Read very carefully John 17:1-3. Jesus humanity is not Jeus' focus but the fact that we need to take in full and accurate knowledge (epignosis) of both the Father and the Son to gain eternal life.

Peace

[IncRus]

Hello Incrus,

You say that the early church didn't perceive the "incarnation" as a theory, but as a fact.

One of the earliest, non apostolic sources, are the letters of Ignatius.

Do we find the letters of Ignatius in the Bible? I don't believe we do. Hence, I treat Ignatius' letters just as I treat the opinions of even the most scholarly Trinitarian of our time. Only the Bible is the TRUTH and only truths are FACTS, don't you think so too?

Doesn't "incarnation" mean the embodiment of DEITY into human form?

Nope! The doctrine of the incarnation that the Church holds to be true and taught by scripture holds that it was not some creature that became flesh but the only begotten Son of God.

That's a FALSE teaching then! The Bible does NOT teach that "the only begotten Son of God" BECAME flesh. You have NO Biblical proof that the "only begotten Son of God BECAME flesh, " do you?

The TRUTH is, it is the "word" or SPOKEN promise, intention, or plan of God that "BECAME flesh," and the Son of God is the "flesh" that the "word" TURNED into, isn't that true?

If it is true that "all INFORMED Trinitarians AGREE with me" that "John could NOT have been telling us that the "word" was ACTUALLY "a god" ( a judge or a mighty man) or ACTUALLY some OTHER "God" besides the God WITH whom the the "word" was in the beginning,".....WHO is the "God" who "incarnated" into human form?

The Son of God.

Your abuse of the word "God" remains deaf to scripture. It is apparent, that you still haven't bothered to learn how the words el/elohim and theos are used in scripture. All testimonies, from religious to secular, from Jew to Christian, from trinitarian to unitarian, attest that the word "G/god", in the OT & NT, is not an exclusive name or description of the primal being but an accolade.

Consequently, groups such as the WT&TS teach that the Archangel Michael who had existed as a spiritual creature, and as the Logos of God, was godlike, a god, but not the God of gods, the Father.

The Church teaches that the Logos is Son of God, begotten not made, and thus God from God. The church does not teach that the Son is God of himself, nor does it teach that the Son and the Father are associated by species. The Church does apply the same accolade/s to the Father and the Son. Thus I can readily admit that the identity, Son of God, is attributed with the accolade God, and it is he who became incarnate.

I see that your belief that it was the "Son of God" who "incarnated" or BECAME flesh, is based on SPECULATIONS and OPINIONS.

On the other hand, the Bible teaches that it was the "word" (promise, intention, plan) of God that BECAME flesh (John 1:14). The Bible does NOT teach that the "word" (promise, intention, plan) that BECAME flesh is the Son of God. The TRUTH is, the Son of God is the "flesh" into which the "word" BECAME.

The modern debate (ie: such as your opinion) is based on non-christian philosophical views that require God to be detached from creation (cannot participate in his own creation).

What do you mean by "God to be detached from creation" or "cannot participate in his own creation?" Why is it "non-Christian philosophical view" to require that God be detached from creation" or that God "cannot participate in his own creation?"

Because such have foundations in ancient Greek philosophy, not scripture.

Eunomius, one of the more articulate of the extreme Arians in the fourth century, in his first apology used such arguments - he also advocated that the Son could not truely know the Father (which contradicts Jesus), and that the Father is the only true God because he is the only unbegotten. Of course Eunomius argued from natural philosophy, not scripture.

Are you saying that it is non-Christian to think that "God did NOT create Himself" and "did not participate in creating Himself?" Where did you get the idea that God created Himself and participated in His own creation?

NB: As you consistently advocate an islamic position, I assume you are not Christian, although you might identify yourself as such (Matthew 7:21-23).

Are you telling me that John 8:40 and John 17:3 are "islamic positions?"

As you use them - definitely. Islamic apologists ignore context just as you do.

Didn't Jesus use the same verses the way I use them? Aren't you saying then that Jesus had an "islamic position" concerning his nature, being a MAN and concerning his Father, being the ONLY true God? Anyway, I don't really care what you call my position because the TRUTH remains that Jesus is a MAN and the Father is the ONLY true God.

Who is then the "God" who INCARNATED into a MAN?

The Son of God!

If, as you say, that "all INFORMED Trinitarians AGREE with me" that "John could NOT have been telling us that the "word" was ACTUALLY "a god" ( a judge or a mighty man) or ACTUALLY some OTHER "God" besides the God WITH whom the the "word" was in the beginning,".....how can the Son of God be the "God" who INCARNATED himself into a MAN?

Given that neither the Church nor scripture teaches that "the Son of God [is] the God who INCARNATED himself into a MAN", I have no idea what you are asking. According to Luke it was by the Holy Spirit and the power of the Highest that the Son was incarnated (Luke 1:35), and according to A.Paul the Son had emptied himself and taken on the morphe of a servant before the incarnation, then became as man (Phillipians 2:6-8).

I asked you WHO is the God who incarnated into a MAN and you answered - the Son of God! I then asked you HOW can the Son of God be the God that incarnated himself into a MAN and you now say, you have no idea what I'm asking. Luke 1:36 and Phil. 2:6-8 do NOT talk of "incarnation" and do NOT tell us that the "Son of God" was the God that "incarnated" into a MAN.

Clearly, your belief that the Son of God WAS the God that "incarnated" into a MAN does NOT have Biblical support, and therefore, FALSE!

Heb. 1:3 is entirely DIFFERENT from John 1:1. John 1:1 does NOT refer to a "person" but to an idea, intent or plan. The "logos" is NOT a "person."

Only from your perspective! Both say the same thing as does various texts in A.Paul, A.John and A.Peter's letters.

Earlier you said that "all INFORMED Trinitarians AGREE with me" that "John could NOT have been telling us that the "word" was ACTUALLY "a god" ( a judge or a mighty man) or ACTUALLY some OTHER "God" besides the God WITH whom the the "word" was in the beginning,"
Therefore, the "word" was NOT a "god" NOR a "God." Then, tell me, WHAT was the "word" that was WITH God in the beginning?

The Son of God!

Then, if you are truly an "informed" Trinitarian, you would then believe that the Son of God who was WITH God in the beginning (if that were true!) is NOT a "god" NOR a "God," wouldn't you?

At any rate, you CAN'T show me Biblical proof that the "word" that was WITH God in the beginning was the Son of God, can you?

Are you or aren't you an "INFORMED" Trinitarian?

I believe so. Though there are always new things to learn in the Church's teaching.

I'm glad you are opening your mind jyust a little bit. Remember, the mind is like a parachute that is useless unless it opens.

On the other hand, Heb. 1:3 refers SPECIFICALLY to a "person" and that "person" being referred to SPECIFICALLY is the SON of God.

And yet Hebrews tells us that this man "upholds all things by the word of his power".

How is this so? Is the man greater than his Father, his God? Or could it be, that as Son of God he has the same power as his Father?

Yes, this MAN "upholds all things by the word of his power" (sustaining the universe with his poowerful word - Heb. 1:3 TEV), BUT, this MAN is NOT God, because the Father is the ONLY true God (John 17:3).

Jesus, the MAN is NOT greater than the Father. In fact, Jesus said the Father is GREATER than he (John 14:28). But Jesus said, "all authority has been GIVEN to me in heaven and on earth" (Matt. 28:18).

I noticed you evaded answering the conclusions of your opinion, which I alluded to in my previous post. God is the only true God is a non-answer, as were your other Islamic mantras.

The context of Hebrews 1:3b is Hebrews 1:3a "The Son reflects God's own glory, and everything about him represents God exactly. He sustains the universe by the mighty power of his command." (NLT)

Jesus may reflect the glory of God. Jesus may have all God's powers which God GAVE him. Still, the TRUTH of Jesus' "words" remains, i.e. he is a MAN and the Father is the ONLY true God. I wonder why this is just too hard for Trinitarians to accept!

Whatever Heb. 1:3 says about Jesus does NOT make Jesus God because Jesus HAD declared WITHOUT equivocation that he is a MAN (John 8:40) and the Father is the ONLY true God (John 17:3).

Jesus also says "WITHOUT equivocation" that he is the Son of God, and he did so in such a way that those around him, understood him as saying, he had a real (natural = ousia as opposed to physis) fillial relationship with his Father, who he identified as being God (ie: in modern terms, genetically a son).

The Jews NEVER understood Jesus. When Jesus said, "I am the Son of God," (John 10:36), the Jews understood that to mean "Jesus was making himself God." Hence, they FALSELY accused Jesus of BLASPHEMY and had him killed.

A.Peter and the other apostles were jews! As was Jesus. So your tirade, as usual, ignores all the facts.

Of course, all or most of the people Jesus talked to in his time were Jews. And his apostles were Jews too. But I believe you are mature enough to understand that when I refer to Jews who did NOT understand Jesus, these are the Jews and the Pharisees who sought to kill him and in fact succeeded in having him killed as recorded in the Bible.

Jesus' being the Son of God does NOT make him God because Jesus himself says that he is a MAN (John 8:40) and the Father is the ONLY true God (John 17:3). Therefore, whether Jesus is "genetically a son" or not, or had "real or filial relationship with God the Father is IRRELEVANT.

Jesus thought it very relevent that his Father is the only true God, and that his filial relationship with his Father was the whole basis of his teaching. Most strange you call Lord, Lord and yet deny him and his teaching!

Of course Jesus thought it VERY relevant that his Father is the ONLY true God. That's why Jesus declared this in no uncertain terms!

But I must have missed the part where Jesus taught about his being "genetically" the son of God or about whether his relationship with the Father is "real" or "filial."

Since you seem to know what Jesus was thinking, I would appreciate your showing me the verses where I could learn "that his filial relationship with the Father was the whole basis of his teaching."

What matters are the WORDS of Jesus that one MUST believe in order to be saved (John 3:16, 18, 36)...

I agree. Why then do you ignore his words?

Read John 3:18 carefully "He who believes in him is not condemned; he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God." Now have a read of John 3:13-15 "No one has ascended into heaven but he who descended from heaven, the Son of man. And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of man be lifted up, that whoever believes in him may have eternal life."

You are jumping to the WRONG conclusion. I did NOT say I don't believe that Jesus "descended from heaven" and that "Jesus must be lifted up, that whosoever believes in him have eternal life," did I?

saying that he is a MAN and the Father is the ONLY true God.

Read very carefully John 17:1-3. Jesus humanity is not Jeus' focus but the fact that we need to take in full and accurate knowledge (epignosis) of both the Father and the Son to gain eternal life.

You don't understand what "FULL and ACCURATE knowledge" mean, do you?

John 17:3 says, the Father is the ONLY true God and Jesus Christ is the one whom the ONLY true God SENT.

Therefore, to have "FULL and ACCURATE knowledge" of BOTH the Father and Jesus Christ, you must NOT forget that the Father is the ONLY true God and Jesus Christ is the one whom the ONLY true God SENT.

You said, "Jesus thought it very relevent that his Father is the only true God," didn't you? Or are you now reneging on this?

[Cowthulu]

Originally posted by Incrus
Whatever Heb. 1:3 says about Jesus does NOT make Jesus God because Jesus HAD declared WITHOUT equivocation that he is a MAN (John 8:40) and the Father is the ONLY true God (John 17:3).

Originally posted by apostoli
Jesus also says "WITHOUT equivocation" that he is the Son of God, and he did so in such a way that those around him, understood him as saying, he had a real (natural = ousia as opposed to physis) fillial relationship with his Father, who he identified as being God (ie: in modern terms, genetically a son).

The Jews NEVER understood Jesus. When Jesus said, "I am the Son of God," (John 10:36), the Jews understood that to mean "Jesus was making himself God." Hence, they FALSELY accused Jesus of BLASPHEMY and had him killed.

A.Peter and the other apostles were jews! As was Jesus. So your tirade, as usual, ignores all the facts.

This is an excellent point that you should expand. The fact the Incrus continues to ignore is that Jesus being a Jew would absolutely know that when he said these words it would convey to his audience a claim of being God.

Jesus knew he was claiming to be God and his audience would perceive it that way.

[apostoli]

Hello Incrus,

You say that the early church didn't perceive the "incarnation" as a theory, but as a fact.

One of the earliest, non apostolic sources, are the letters of Ignatius.

Do we find the letters of Ignatius in the Bible? I don't believe we do. Hence, I treat Ignatius' letters just as I treat the opinions of even the most scholarly Trinitarian of our time. Only the Bible is the TRUTH and only truths are FACTS, don't you think so too?

Given Ignatius iis recognised as having been appointed over the asian congregations by one of the apostles and scripture in his time was considered to be limited to the OT, and Ignatius' letters were as widely distributed among the congregations as those of A.Paul, I think we can consider them as a collaborative resource to the testimony of the NT canon. Especially pertinent when we encounter innovative modern opinions such as yours that find no support in either NT scripture or the testimony of the succesors to the apostles, who were appointed by the apostles.

Doesn't "incarnation" mean the embodiment of DEITY into human form?

Nope! The original greek word, basically means embodied, and can apply to anything perceived as previously existing without body. Consequently, groups such as the WT&TS teach that the Archangel Michael who had existed as a spiritual creature, and as the Logos of God, was embodied (became flesh). The doctrine of the incarnation that the Church holds to be true and taught by scripture holds that it was not some creature that became flesh but the only begotten Son of God.

That's a FALSE teaching then! The Bible does NOT teach that "the only begotten Son of God" BECAME flesh. You have NO Biblical proof that the "only begotten Son of God BECAME flesh, " do you?

Only the words of Jesus and all the apostles! eg: John 1:14,18

The TRUTH is, it is the "word" or SPOKEN promise, intention, or plan of God that "BECAME flesh," and the Son of God is the "flesh" that the "word" TURNED into, isn't that true?

Nope. Neither Jesus nor the apostles affirm your position. They repeatedly contradict your opinion.

I see that your belief that it was the "Son of God" who "incarnated" or BECAME flesh, is based on SPECULATIONS and OPINIONS.

Nope. My opinions are based on scripture John 1:1-4,14,18 etc etc etc etc etc

On the other hand, the Bible teaches that it was the "word" (promise, intention, plan) of God that BECAME flesh (John 1:14). The Bible does NOT teach that the "word" (promise, intention, plan) that BECAME flesh is the Son of God. The TRUTH is, the Son of God is the "flesh" into which the "word" BECAME.

In an earlier post you said it wasn't the flesh but the man. Truth is, you are so confused in your own opinion that you can't articulate it. Which is not remarkable as you cannot find a single scripture that supports your denial of Jesus as the actual, and only begotten, Son of God.

Are you saying that it is non-Christian to think that "God did NOT create Himself" and "did not participate in creating Himself?" Where did you get the idea that God created Himself and participated in His own creation?

I said neither. I presume such is a unique speculation of your own about what scripture must mean, if it doesn't mean what you want it to mean. In any case, your opinion is non-christian because it denies that Jesus came from heaven and is truely the Son of God (both of which he attested of himself).

Didn't Jesus use the same verses the way I use them?

Nope. In regards to John 8:40 & John 17:3 Jesus gives a full teaching which you prefer to ignore

Aren't you saying then that Jesus had an "islamic position" concerning his nature, being a MAN and concerning his Father, being the ONLY true God?

Nope. You have a similar approach to readers of the Koran, which provides only a collection of sayings, without context. You seem intent on ignoring the context of scripture, prefering to isolate phrases that you think support your opinion, while disgarding any verse that disagrees with your opinion. Imo, a most strange way of determining truth.

Anyway, I don't really care what you call my position because the TRUTH remains that Jesus is a MAN and the Father is the ONLY true God.

And those that deny that Jesus is truely the Son of God, will not gain eternal life. The choice is yours - stick your head in the sand and adhere to your man made (Islamic) opinion, or accept the apostolic witness. No sweat off my brow. Though I am concerned for you.

I asked you WHO is the God who incarnated into a MAN and you answered - the Son of God! I then asked you HOW can the Son of God be the God that incarnated himself into a MAN and you now say, you have no idea what I'm asking. Luke 1:36 and Phil. 2:6-8 do NOT talk of "incarnation" and do NOT tell us that the "Son of God" was the God that "incarnated" into a MAN.

Clearly, your belief that the Son of God WAS the God that "incarnated" into a MAN does NOT have Biblical support, and therefore, FALSE!

Clearly you have no idea what el/elohim/theos means in the scripture. It is not an identity statement but an accolade. Such is not a trinitarian opinion but a scholarly one, affirmed by even modern day Jewish Rabbi. The evidence is against you, scholarly and scripturally. eg: Phillipians 2:6-7 makes plain that the Christ Jesus pre-existed in the morphe of God before becoming as man!

I stated that "According to Luke it was by the Holy Spirit and the power of the Highest that the Son was incarnated (Luke 1:35)". It is true that the incarnation is not explicit in this text, though it is implied in the last clause. Note Luke 1:36 "with God nothing is impossible".

Actually, while we are at Luke 1:35, notice the distinction made between the Holy Spirit and the power of the Most High. Something for us to think upon.

if you are truly an "informed" Trinitarian, you would then believe that the Son of God who was WITH God in the beginning (if that were true!) is NOT a "god" NOR a "God," wouldn't you?

Nope. Then again as you don't understand what G/god or a god is, or what A.John is saying at John 1:1, I don't expect you to comprehend scripture. How do you classify something that is identical to something else? Both John 1:1 and Hebrews 1:3 say such.

At any rate, you CAN'T show me Biblical proof that the "word" that was WITH God in the beginning was the Son of God, can you?

Yep! John 1:1-4,14,18. NB: note vs 14 says that the Logos had the glory of a son.

Are you or aren't you an "INFORMED" Trinitarian?

I believe so. Though there are always new things to learn in the Church's teaching.

I'm glad you are opening your mind just a little bit. Remember, the mind is like a parachute that is useless unless it opens.

Remember, I was for the greater part of my life a non-trinitarian - my mind was closed in those days. These days, my mind is fully open and listening to scripture rather than man's speculations and philosophic opinions.

Jesus may reflect the glory of God. Jesus may have all God's powers which God GAVE him. Still, the TRUTH of Jesus' "words" remains, i.e. he is a MAN and the Father is the ONLY true God. I wonder why this is just too hard for Trinitarians to accept!

Trintarians accept all these ideas fully. However, we also understand the context of Jesus' teachings. Why is it so hard for you to accept Jesus' plain words, where he attests that he pre-existed and came down from heaven, and is the true and only begotten Son of God?

Whatever Heb. 1:3 says about Jesus does NOT make Jesus God because Jesus HAD declared WITHOUT equivocation that he is a MAN (John 8:40) and the Father is the ONLY true God (John 17:3).

Jesus also says "WITHOUT equivocation" that he is the Son of God, and he did so in such a way that those around him, understood him as saying, he had a real (natural = ousia as opposed to physis) fillial relationship with his Father, who he identified as being God (ie: in modern terms, genetically a son).

The Jews NEVER understood Jesus. When Jesus said, "I am the Son of God," (John 10:36), the Jews understood that to mean "Jesus was making himself God." Hence, they FALSELY accused Jesus of BLASPHEMY and had him killed.

A.Peter and the other apostles were jews! As was Jesus. So your tirade, as usual, ignores all the facts.

Of course, all or most of the people Jesus talked to in his time were Jews. And his apostles were Jews too. But I believe you are mature enough to understand that when I refer to Jews who did NOT understand Jesus, these are the Jews and the Pharisees who sought to kill him and in fact succeeded in having him killed as recorded in the Bible.

Despite your previous evasion, I believe you to be mature enough to face up to Jesus saying "WITHOUT equivocation" that he is the Son of God, and he doing so in such a way that those around him, understood him as saying, he had a real (natural = ousia as opposed to physis) fillial relationship with his Father, who he identified as being God (ie: in modern terms, genetically a son).

I must have missed the part where Jesus taught about his being "genetically" the son of God or about whether his relationship with the Father is "real" or "filial."

From your posts it seems you do not read the scriptures but only mine them. So it is not remarkable that you miss Jesus' overall message. The real bit can be found in 1 John. The fillial relationship part is found throughout the Gospels but John 17:1 should do.

Since you seem to know what Jesus was thinking, I would appreciate your showing me the verses where I could learn "that his filial relationship with the Father was the whole basis of his teaching."

I know not what Jesus was thinking, only what he taught! There are many texts, John 6:37-40 is one example.

What matters are the WORDS of Jesus that one MUST believe in order to be saved (John 3:16, 18, 36)...

I agree. Why then do you ignore his words?

Read John 3:18 carefully "He who believes in him is not condemned; he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God." Now have a read of John 3:13-15 "No one has ascended into heaven but he who descended from heaven, the Son of man. And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of man be lifted up, that whoever believes in him may have eternal life."

You are jumping to the WRONG conclusion. I did NOT say I don't believe that Jesus "descended from heaven" and that "Jesus must be lifted up, that whosoever believes in him have eternal life," did I?

Yep. You have repeatedly insisted that it was the "SPOKEN promise, intention, or plan of God that BECAME flesh".

saying that he is a MAN and the Father is the ONLY true God.

Read very carefully John 17:1-3. Jesus humanity is not Jesus' focus but the fact that we need to take in full and accurate knowledge (epignosis) of both the Father and the Son to gain eternal life.

You don't understand what "FULL and ACCURATE knowledge" mean, do you?

I do but your posts make it apparent that you don't. For instance your focus on the phrase "only true God" to the exclusion of the full message at John 17:3.

John 17:3 says, the Father is the ONLY true God and Jesus Christ is the one whom the ONLY true God SENT.

Nope. Read the full text, it starts in verse 17:1 = "Father, the hour has come; glorify thy Son that the Son may glorify thee, since thou hast given him power over all flesh, to give eternal life to all whom thou hast given him. And this is eternal life, that they know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent." The addressee is the Father. It is the Father who sent Jesus Christ. And it is the Father of Jesus Christ that is applauded (see vs2) as being the only true God.

Therefore, to have "FULL and ACCURATE knowledge" of BOTH the Father and Jesus Christ, you must NOT forget that the Father is the ONLY true God and Jesus Christ is the one whom the ONLY true God SENT.

Nope. You must not forget that the only true God is the Father of Jesus Christ, and the Father of Jesus Christ has given him power over all flesh, to give eternal life to all whom the Father has given him.

You said, "Jesus thought it very relevent that his Father is the only true God," didn't you? Or are you now reneging on this?

No need to reneg, as I know Jesus is not making an identity statement but applauding his Father as proved to be the only true God. Eternal life is not attained by taking in an intellectual fact, but attaining an appreciation, taking in full and accurate knowledge of fulfilled prophesy, that proves the Father as the only true God, because it was he who sent his only begotten Son, and it is through the Son that our salvation is sourced. Thus at 1 John 5:20 we read "And we know that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding, to know him who is true; and we are in him who is true, in his Son Jesus Christ." Notice both the Father and Son are true. (cp. John 17:23)

Peace

[IncRus]

This is an excellent point that you should expand. The fact the Incrus continues to ignore is that Jesus being a Jew would absolutely know that when he said these words it would convey to his audience a claim of being God.

Jesus knew he was claiming to be God and his audience would perceive it that way.

You DON'T know for sure that Jesus knew that the Jews who were plotting to kill him (John 11:52) would perceive it that way, do you?

Jesus did NOT know beforehand that the Jews would MISTAKE his saying "I am the Son of God" for making himself God. This is eveidenced by the fact that Jesus asked these Jews why they accuse him of "blasphemy" when he said he is the Son of God (John 10:36).

"Blasphemy" is committed when one who is a MAN makes himself God. That's what the Jews accused Jesus of when they heard him say, "I am the Son of God" (John 10:33).

The Jews who plotted to kill Jesus (John 11:52), simply took that opportunity to made it look like he was committing BLASPHEMY - a crime punishable by death under Jewish law.

[Vivian]

You DON'T know for sure that Jesus knew that the Jews who were plotting to kill him (John 11:52) would perceive it that way, do you?

Jesus did NOT know beforehand that the Jews would MISTAKE his saying "I am the Son of God" for making himself God. This is eveidenced by the fact that Jesus asked these Jews why they accuse him of "blasphemy" when he said he is the Son of God (John 10:36).

"Blasphemy" is committed when one who is a MAN makes himself God. That's what the Jews accused Jesus of when they heard him say, "I am the Son of God" (John 10:33).

The Jews who plotted to kill Jesus (John 11:52), simply took that opportunity to made it look like he was committing BLASPHEMY - a crime punishable by death under Jewish law.

I feel that you are both right and a bridge to understanding, imo, can be found by first looking at the traditional Jewish understanding of Son of God. That term was used in the Jewish culture to refer to a holy man, so close to God that it was said that he a filial relationship with God. As was said of King David.

And certainly any who are this close to God, are God on earth - just as we witness in the Old Testament, when the angels of YHWH also speak as YHWH himself.

And as YHWH spoke of Moses - he as a Messenger of God, was like God - carrying the Name of God, the power and authority of God, here on earth.

The Bible is very clear - Jesus came in the Name of YHWH - in God's Power and Authority, so for us, he was and is God. And I believe that the soul of Jesus continues to exist in unity with the Father, so comes in the Name of Father in whatever form he takes.

The difference for me, and I know this is a big one, is that taking this stance means that Jesus is not the only being or soul who is so united with the Father. But he joined the Father in the Highest realms possible, in unity of soul or consciousness - thus actually becoming the Word embodied in flesh, coming in greater Power and Authority than any before him, or since!

The second issue to consider is what Jesus spoke of John 17 - about he being in Father and the Father in him, and praying for the same for us.

May they be one as we are one. So whatever Jesus was claiming about himself when he said the Father and I are One, he prayed also for us.

Whatever relationship Jesus had with the Father, he prayed also for us.

So if we want to say that Jesus is part of the Trinity, then we have to say that Jesus prayed for us to be part of the Trinity too.

All of scripture must be consistent. We cannot say that Jesus meant one thing here and another thing there.


Shalom.

Viv

[apostoli]

Hi Viv,

I feel that you are both right and a bridge to understanding, imo, can be found by first looking at the traditional Jewish understanding of Son of God. That term was used in the Jewish culture to refer to a holy man, so close to God that it was said that he a filial relationship with God. As was said of King David.

This is true, but what we find with Jesus is he speaks of God in the first person, personal - actually daddy (Abba). This was unique in Jewish thought which saw the nation of Israel as the collective Son of God. David, is seen in Jewish thought as the first among equals.

In this regard it is interesting that Moses does not describe Abraham as a son of God, but as a friend of God.

The Bible is very clear - Jesus came in the Name of YHWH

Actually there is a bit of vagueness in this. Depends on whether one accepts whether there were one or two YHWHs - the one see in the OT by the patriarchs and the one known but unseen. In any case, in the NT the name of YHWH is no longer directly called upon. All that the Father has given to the Son, belongs to the Son. The bride belongs to the Son, not to YHWH as the OT had it.

The second issue to consider is what Jesus spoke of John 17 - about he being in Father and the Father in him, and praying for the same for us May they be one as we are one. So whatever Jesus was claiming about himself when he said the Father and I are One, he prayed also for us. Whatever relationship Jesus had with the Father, he prayed also for us.

Not quiet. Notice John 17:23. The sequence is that the Father is in the Son, and the Son is in us. A.Paul at Romans 8 says basically the same thing.

So if we want to say that Jesus is part of the Trinity, then we have to say that Jesus prayed for us to be part of the Trinity too.

Not true. According to A.John/Jesus we do not have direct participation but are associated by being in the Son. ie: via A.Paul we as the bride are adopted into the family (but remain seperate from the bloodline - so to speak).

All of scripture must be consistent. We cannot say that Jesus meant one thing here and another thing there.

Very true.

Peace

[Cowthulu]

You DON'T know for sure that Jesus knew that the Jews who were plotting to kill him (John 11:52) would perceive it that way, do you?

Jesus did NOT know beforehand that the Jews would MISTAKE his saying "I am the Son of God" for making himself God. This is eveidenced by the fact that Jesus asked these Jews why they accuse him of "blasphemy" when he said he is the Son of God (John 10:36).

"Blasphemy" is committed when one who is a MAN makes himself God. That's what the Jews accused Jesus of when they heard him say, "I am the Son of God" (John 10:33).

The Jews who plotted to kill Jesus (John 11:52), simply took that opportunity to made it look like he was committing BLASPHEMY - a crime punishable by death under Jewish law.

Your evasion of this fact is sad because it makes Jesus appear to be a dolt who doesn't even understand the people around him or comprehend what he is speaking to them. I prefer the real Jesus revealed in the scriptures to the mockery of him you pretend exists.

[Vivian]

Hi Viv,

Hi Paul!

Thanks for the reply...

This is true, but what we find with Jesus is he speaks of God in the first person, personal - actually daddy (Abba). This was unique in Jewish thought which saw the nation of Israel as the collective Son of God. David, is seen in Jewish thought as the first among equals. In this regard it is interesting that Moses does not describe Abraham as a son of God, but as a friend of God.

Yes, imu, there is a definite progression of revelation of God. With Moses, he was revealed for the first time as the I Am, and I Shall Be and with Jesus, although it was alluded to in Old Testament scripture, God was revealed as Abba Father.

And in our experience of God, or at least in my own experiencing of God, we will find this same pattern of progressive revelation. And while a certain aspect or attribute of God is revealed in the Bible, many reading the Bible do not 'know it'. For example, while Jesus revealed God as Abba Father, few actually know of him as such, yet.

Actually there is a bit of vagueness in this. Depends on whether one accepts whether there were one or two YHWHs - the one see in the OT by the patriarchs and the one known but unseen.

This is quite an interesting insight, one which I would enjoy pursuing further.

In any case, in the NT the name of YHWH is no longer directly called upon.

Actually this is debatable. The Pe[color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color]ta or the Aramiac New Testament (dated from the 5th century) has YHWH where our translations say "the Lord". Now given that it is widely believed that Jesus and the disciples spoke Aramaic, for that is the language spoken in Palestine during that time, this brings up an interesting question. Did the Aramaic speakers using these scriptures back before the 5th century change 'the Lord" to YHWH, or, did those translating from the Aramaic, somewhere along the line change YHWH to "the Lord"?

In my spiritual practice, I tend to believe it was the latter, for the words represented by the tetragammation YHWH still carry immense power.

Given this comment though and the insight shared above, I am guessing that you hold to an understanding that is supported by these two thoughts. An understanding that, again, peaks my interest for it feels as though it is touching onto something that I believe.

For indeed, imu, there is an aspect of YHWH, or the Godhead in its fullness, in its undivided form, that is hidden - all of it! What is revealed to us in the OT as YHWH are actually Messengers or Angels of YHWH, for no human can be in the presence of YHWH and live - or continue to exist in recognizable form!

All that the Father has given to the Son, belongs to the Son. The bride belongs to the Son, not to YHWH as the OT had it.

I would say that it is exactly as both the Old Testament and the New Testament declare, it is only that the traditional Christian understanding is limited, and even distorted. And this distortion put me once in a very uncomfortable place in my journey, feeling that the traditional understanding was incestuous - the Bride was the Father's and now it is the Son's!

I offer as I did before that YHWH is neither the Father nor the Son, but both. YHWH is God before the Son was begotten, or God existing in a realm where God is One - the Father, the Holy Spirit, and the Son are one.

And so then the Bride belongs to God as One, but when the Trinity takes on distinct personalities, the Bride belongs to the Son, for it is with the Son that the Bride unites, then joining with the fullness of the Godhead.

One way of looking at it in human terms is that the bride of a future son belongs to the family in which that son will eventually be born. The father holding the son within him, in his seed.

And once more, I would be interested in discussing this further with you.

Not quiet. Notice John 17:23. The sequence is that the Father is in the Son, and the Son is in us. A.Paul at Romans 8 says basically the same thing.

Yes, exactly. There is YHWH again - the Bride joined with the Son, and the Son (with the Bride) joined with the Father through the Holy Spirit.

We are though speaking of a mystery (the same that Apostle Paul alluded to in Ephesians 5). And have to consider that Jesus describes this unity, this joining as One, being the same joining that he has with the Father.

And the glory which You gave Me I have given them, that they may be one just as We are one: I in them, and You in Me; that they may be made perfect in one, and that the world may know that You have sent Me, and have loved them as You have loved Me.

Imo, the only way anyone can understand the mystery that Jesus speaks of here is to experience it for themselves. Our intellectual dialoging is sorely insufficient to bless us with understanding.

Not true. According to A.John/Jesus we do not have direct participation but are associated by being in the Son. ie: via A.Paul we as the bride are adopted into the family (but remain seperate from the bloodline - so to speak).

I can't say that you are wrong, but do not feel that this interpretation is true, complete, in that it does not explain fully what is even now occurring spiritually. All I can think to do is point to Matthew 11:11, where Jesus teaches that that which is a temple for God is lesser than that which is in God, One with God, in the heavenly kingdom.

And so the Bride in this world, we with Christ in us, are lesser than the Bride in the heavenly realms, or those who are in Christ. At a certain level of creation, there is no differentiation between the Son and the Bride. And likewise there is no differentiation between the Son and the Father and the Bride and the Father.

But I cannot explain this well for my experiencing of such things is quite limited.

Peace

And Peace to you.

Viv

[IncRus]

Hello Incrus,

You say that the early church didn't perceive the "incarnation" as a theory, but as a fact.

One of the earliest, non apostolic sources, are the letters of Ignatius.

Do we find the letters of Ignatius in the Bible? I don't believe we do. Hence, I treat Ignatius' letters just as I treat the opinions of even the most scholarly Trinitarian of our time. Only the Bible is the TRUTH and only truths are FACTS, don't you think so too?

Given Ignatius iis recognised as having been appointed over the asian congregations by one of the apostles and scripture in his time was considered to be limited to the OT, and Ignatius' letters were as widely distributed among the congregations as those of A.Paul, I think we can consider them as a collaborative resource to the testimony of the NT canon. Especially pertinent when we encounter innovative modern opinions such as yours that find no support in either NT scripture or the testimony of the succesors to the apostles, who were appointed by the apostles.

The fact that the letters of Ignatius are NOT even included in the Bible is PROOF that even the so-called early church fathers who canonized the Bible did NOT believe that what Ignatius wrote is worth mentioning at all.

Hence, I don't believe that Ignatius' letters are pertinent to the discussion about the nature of Christ as a MAN and the identity of the Father as the ONLY true God. These are NOT "innovative modern opinions" but are TRUTHS written in the Scriptures, specifically, John 8:40 and John 17:3.

Doesn't "incarnation" mean the embodiment of DEITY into human form?

Nope! The original greek word, basically means embodied, and can apply to anything perceived as previously existing without body. Consequently, groups such as the WT&TS teach that the Archangel Michael who had existed as a spiritual creature, and as the Logos of God, was embodied (became flesh). The doctrine of the incarnation that the Church holds to be true and taught by scripture holds that it was not some creature that became flesh but the only begotten Son of God.

That's a FALSE teaching then! The Bible does NOT teach that "the only begotten Son of God" BECAME flesh. You have NO Biblical proof that the "only begotten Son of God BECAME flesh, " do you?

Only the words of Jesus and all the apostles! eg: John 1:14,18

John 1:14 says "the word BECAME flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten son of God." And John 1:18 says, "No one has seen God at any time. The only begotten son who is in the bosom of the Father, he has declared him."

Common sense tells us that it is the "flesh" or the MAN, Jesus that the word BECAME who dwelt among us and is the "son of God!"

And you are telling me that it was the "son of God" who BECAME flesh! That's like saying it's the human being that became a human being or it is the chick that became a chick! How anyone can believe such NONSENSE is beyond me!

Let me ask you my friend, are you a sperm or a human being? Is it an egg you see walking on the street or a chick?

The TRUTH is, it is the "word" or SPOKEN promise, intention, or plan of God that "BECAME flesh," and the Son of God is the "flesh" that the "word" TURNED into, isn't that true?

Nope. Neither Jesus nor the apostles affirm your position. They repeatedly contradict your opinion.

Jesus and the apostles had more sense than even the most scholarly Trinitarian of today! Jesus said he is a MAN and the Father is the ONLY true God. The apostles taught that Jesus is a MAN and the Father is the ONLY true God. That's my position which I got from them and which Jesus and the apostles affirm.

I see that your belief that it was the "Son of God" who "incarnated" or BECAME flesh, is based on SPECULATIONS and OPINIONS.

Nope. My opinions are based on scripture John 1:1-4,14,18 etc etc etc etc etc

I repeat, common sense tells us that it is the "flesh" or the MAN, Jesus that the word BECAME who dwelt among us and is the "son of God!"

And you are telling me that it was the "son of God" who BECAME flesh! That's like saying it's the human being that became a human being or it is the chick that became a chick! How anyone can believe such NONSENSE is beyond me!

On the other hand, the Bible teaches that it was the "word" (promise, intention, plan) of God that BECAME flesh (John 1:14). The Bible does NOT teach that the "word" (promise, intention, plan) that BECAME flesh is the Son of God. The TRUTH is, the Son of God is the "flesh" into which the "word" BECAME.

In an earlier post you said it wasn't the flesh but the man. Truth is, you are so confused in your own opinion that you can't articulate it. Which is not remarkable as you cannot find a single scripture that supports your denial of Jesus as the actual, and only begotten, Son of God.

You're creating a strawman. I have NEVER denied that Jesus is the only begotten son of God.

Are you saying that it is non-Christian to think that "God did NOT create Himself" and "did not participate in creating Himself?" Where did you get the idea that God created Himself and participated in His own creation?

I said neither. I presume such is a unique speculation of your own about what scripture must mean, if it doesn't mean what you want it to mean. In any case, your opinion is non-christian because it denies that Jesus came from heaven and is truely the Son of God (both of which he attested of himself).

This is another of your strawmen. I have NEVER denied that Jesus "proceeded forth and came from God" (John 8:42). And since God is in heaven, then Jesus METAPHORICALLY came from heaven.

Didn't Jesus use the same verses the way I use them?

Nope. In regards to John 8:40 & John 17:3 Jesus gives a full teaching which you prefer to ignore

You seem NOT to know what "full teaching" means. "Full teaching" means including BOTH the teaching that Jesus is a MAN and the teaching that the Father is the ONLY true God.

Aren't you saying then that Jesus had an "islamic position" concerning his nature, being a MAN and concerning his Father, being the ONLY true God?

Nope. You have a similar approach to readers of the Koran, which provides only a collection of sayings, without context. You seem intent on ignoring the context of scripture, prefering to isolate phrases that you think support your opinion, while disgarding any verse that disagrees with your opinion. Imo, a most strange way of determining truth.

Obviously, you CANNOT discern what is "opinion" and what is not! That Jesus is a MAN and the Father is the ONLY true God is NOT an opinion but a FACT or truth. You can read these in John 8:40 and John 17:3.

Anyway, I don't really care what you call my position because the TRUTH remains that Jesus is a MAN and the Father is the ONLY true God.

And those that deny that Jesus is truely the Son of God, will not gain eternal life. The choice is yours - stick your head in the sand and adhere to your man made (Islamic) opinion, or accept the apostolic witness. No sweat off my brow. Though I am concerned for you.

You are saying that I DENY that Jesus is truly the Son of God, aren't you? I dare you to show me a post where I DENIED that Jesus is the Son of God. Otherwise, I would be constrained to say that you are of your father, the Devil, who is the father of lies!

I asked you WHO is the God who incarnated into a MAN and you answered - the Son of God! I then asked you HOW can the Son of God be the God that incarnated himself into a MAN and you now say, you have no idea what I'm asking. Luke 1:36 and Phil. 2:6-8 do NOT talk of "incarnation" and do NOT tell us that the "Son of God" was the God that "incarnated" into a MAN.

Clearly, your belief that the Son of God WAS the God that "incarnated" into a MAN does NOT have Biblical support, and therefore, FALSE!

Clearly you have no idea what el/elohim/theos means in the scripture. It is not an identity statement but an accolade. Such is not a trinitarian opinion but a scholarly one, affirmed by even modern day Jewish Rabbi. The evidence is against you, scholarly and scripturally. eg: Phillipians 2:6-7 makes plain that the Christ Jesus pre-existed in the morphe of God before becoming as man!

Your "squid tactic" of evading an issue you CANNOT refute is amazing! What has the meaning of "elohim/theos" got to do with my question? Whether "elohim/theos" is an identity statement or an accolade, the question is "HOW can the Son of God be the God who incarnated himself into a MAN?"

Philippians 2:6-7 does NOT tell us that Christ "pre-existed in the morphe of God BEFORE becoming a man." Besides, you earlier admitted that "informed trinitarians" would agree that John was NOT thinking of the "word" as a "god" or the ACTUAL "God" when he wrote John 1:1. Therefore, by your admission, Jesus was NOT the "word" that pre-existed in the morphe of God BEFORE the "word" BECAME a MAN.

I stated that "According to Luke it was by the Holy Spirit and the power of the Highest that the Son was incarnated (Luke 1:35)". It is true that the incarnation is not explicit in this text, though it is implied in the last clause. Note Luke 1:36 "with God nothing is impossible".

Again, you MISINTERPRET Scripture and inject your own OPINION into it. Luke 1:35 describes HOW the "word" of God BECAME a man. Through the power of the Holy Spirit, the "flesh" or MAN that the "word" BECAME was CONCEIVED and FORMED inside the womb of a woman by God.

To me, this does NOT look like "incarnation" or "embodiment of DEITY in human form" but a description of the FULFILLMENT of God's "promise, intent, or plan" through the CONCEPTION of Jesus in the womb of Mary.

Actually, while we are at Luke 1:35, notice the distinction made between the Holy Spirit and the power of the Most High. Something for us to think upon.

You can think all you want about Luke 1:35 but your perception about "the distinction made between the Holy Spirit and the power of the most High" does NOT make your "incarnation" theory true. The "word" that BECAME "flesh" or MAN was NOT a "god" NOR the ACTUAL God but the "promise, intent, or plan" of God that was FULFILED with the CONCEPTION and BIRTH of Jesus, the only begotten Son of God.

if you are truly an "informed" Trinitarian, you would then believe that the Son of God who was WITH God in the beginning (if that were true!) is NOT a "god" NOR a "God," wouldn't you?

Nope. Then again as you don't understand what G/god or a god is, or what A.John is saying at John 1:1, I don't expect you to comprehend scripture. How do you classify something that is identical to something else? Both John 1:1 and Hebrews 1:3 say such.

Earlier, you stated that "informed trinitarians" would agree that John was NOT thinking of the "word" that was WITH God in the beginning as a "god" or an ACTUAL "God." You can go over your past post to remind yourself of what you wrote. It occurs to me that you are NOT really sure of what you are saying, are you not?

At any rate, you CAN'T show me Biblical proof that the "word" that was WITH God in the beginning was the Son of God, can you?

Yep! John 1:1-4,14,18. NB: note vs 14 says that the Logos had the glory of a son.

WHO dwelt among us, the "word" or the "flesh" that the "word" BECAME? WHOSE glory did we behold, the "word" or the "flesh" that the "word" BECAME?

You are telling me that it was the "word" that dwelt among us and it was the "word's" glory that we beheld, arent you?

That's like saying "the sperm dwelt among us and we beheld the glory of the sperm" INSTEAD of saying "the human being dwelt among us and we beheld the glory of the human being in which the sperm BECAME." How anyone can believe such NONSENSE is beyond me!

I suggest you read the Today's English Version of John 1:14 to widen your knowledge.

Are you or aren't you an "INFORMED" Trinitarian?

I believe so. Though there are always new things to learn in the Church's teaching.

I'm glad you are opening your mind just a little bit. Remember, the mind is like a parachute that is useless unless it opens.

Remember, I was for the greater part of my life a non-trinitarian - my mind was closed in those days. These days, my mind is fully open and listening to scripture rather than man's speculations and philosophic opinions.

If you are true to what you are saying and your mind is "fully open and listening to scripture," read John 8:40 and John 17:3 over and over until you come to the full realization that Jesus is INDEED a MAN and the Father is the ONLY true God. These are NOT "philosophic" opinions.

Jesus may reflect the glory of God. Jesus may have all God's powers which God GAVE him. Still, the TRUTH of Jesus' "words" remains, i.e. he is a MAN and the Father is the ONLY true God. I wonder why this is just too hard for Trinitarians to accept!

Trintarians accept all these ideas fully. However, we also understand the context of Jesus' teachings. Why is it so hard for you to accept Jesus' plain words, where he attests that he pre-existed and came down from heaven, and is the true and only begotten Son of God?

You never run out of strawmen to attack. I have NEVER denied that Jesus is the only begotten son of God NOR have I denied that Jesus METAPHORICALLY came from heaven just as John was SENT from God (John 1:6) who is in heaven.

But you have NOT proven Biblically that Jesus "pre-existed" and ACTUALLY came from heaven. If Jesus "pre-existed," WHAT or WHO was he BEFORE he was CONCEIVED in the womb of Mary? How did Jesus ACTUALLY came from heaven? Show me scriptures to prove your SPECULATIONS or OPINIONS.

Whatever Heb. 1:3 says about Jesus does NOT make Jesus God because Jesus HAD declared WITHOUT equivocation that he is a MAN (John 8:40) and the Father is the ONLY true God (John 17:3).

Jesus also says "WITHOUT equivocation" that he is the Son of God, and he did so in such a way that those around him, understood him as saying, he had a real (natural = ousia as opposed to physis) fillial relationship with his Father, who he identified as being God (ie: in modern terms, genetically a son).

The Jews NEVER understood Jesus. When Jesus said, "I am the Son of God," (John 10:36), the Jews understood that to mean "Jesus was making himself God." Hence, they FALSELY accused Jesus of BLASPHEMY and had him killed.

A.Peter and the other apostles were jews! As was Jesus. So your tirade, as usual, ignores all the facts.

Of course, all or most of the people Jesus talked to in his time were Jews. And his apostles were Jews too. But I believe you are mature enough to understand that when I refer to Jews who did NOT understand Jesus, these are the Jews and the Pharisees who sought to kill him and in fact succeeded in having him killed as recorded in the Bible.

Despite your previous evasion, I believe you to be mature enough to face up to Jesus saying "WITHOUT equivocation" that he is the Son of God, and he doing so in such a way that those around him, understood him as saying, he had a real (natural = ousia as opposed to physis) fillial relationship with his Father, who he identified as being God (ie: in modern terms, genetically a son).

That's pure SPECULATION! You don't know for sure that Jesus said that he is the son of God in such a way that those around him understood him as saying, "he had a real (natural=ousia as opposed to physis) filial relationship with his Father."

While it is true that Jesus said WITHOUT equivocation that he is the "Son of God," he ALSO said WITHOUT equivocation that his Father is the ONLY true God. Therefore, a truly MATURE person would NEVER think that Jesus was INSINUATING that he is ALSO God when he said that he is the son of God. Instead, Jesus was stating in CLEAR and UNDERSTANDABLE terms that his being the only begotten Son of God does NOT make him God.

I must have missed the part where Jesus taught about his being "genetically" the son of God or about whether his relationship with the Father is "real" or "filial."

From your posts it seems you do not read the scriptures but only mine them. So it is not remarkable that you miss Jesus' overall message. The real bit can be found in 1 John. The fillial relationship part is found throughout the Gospels but John 17:1 should do.

Please specify the verse - NOT your interpretation or opinion of what these verses seem to say.

Since you seem to know what Jesus was thinking, I would appreciate your showing me the verses where I could learn "that his filial relationship with the Father was the whole basis of his teaching."

I know not what Jesus was thinking, only what he taught! There are many texts, John 6:37-40 is one example.

I don't see any "filial" relationship in these verses. All I read is that Jesus was SENT by the Father to do His will and that everyone who comes to him and believes in him may have everlasting life and will be raised in the last day.

The whole basis of his teaching, as I see it, is that Jesus came to do His Father's will to save His people from their sin (Matt. 1:21; John 3:17) and everyone who HEARS him and BELIEVES in him ( his gospel or message of salvation) shall not perish but shall have everlasting life (John 3:16).

What matters are the WORDS of Jesus that one MUST believe in order to be saved (John 3:16, 18, 36)...

I agree. Why then do you ignore his words?
Read John 3:18 carefully "He who believes in him is not condemned; he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God." Now have a read of John 3:13-15 "No one has ascended into heaven but he who descended from heaven, the Son of man. And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of man be lifted up, that whoever believes in him may have eternal life."

You are jumping to the WRONG conclusion. I did NOT say I don't believe that Jesus "descended from heaven" and that "Jesus must be lifted up, that whosoever believes in him have eternal life," did I?

Yep. You have repeatedly insisted that it was the "SPOKEN promise, intention, or plan of God that BECAME flesh".

Then we go back to where we began! Tell me, was it Jesus who BECAME "flesh?" Was it a "god" or ANOTHER "God" that BECAME "flesh?" You said you are an "informed" Trinitarian, did you not?

saying that he is a MAN and the Father is the ONLY true God.

Read very carefully John 17:1-3. Jesus humanity is not Jesus' focus but the fact that we need to take in full and accurate knowledge (epignosis) of both the Father and the Son to gain eternal life.

You don't understand what "FULL and ACCURATE knowledge" mean, do you?

I do but your posts make it apparent that you don't. For instance your focus on the phrase "only true God" to the exclusion of the full message at John 17:3.

But you focus on things OTHER than the TRUTH that the Father is the ONLY t rue God, don't you? And you call that "full and accurate" knowledge? What will you think of next, my friend?

John 17:3 says, the Father is the ONLY true God and Jesus Christ is the one whom the ONLY true God SENT.

Nope. Read the full text, it starts in verse 17:1 = "Father, the hour has come; glorify thy Son that the Son may glorify thee, since thou hast given him power over all flesh, to give eternal life to all whom thou hast given him. And this is eternal life, that they know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent." The addressee is the Father. It is the Father who sent Jesus Christ. And it is the Father of Jesus Christ that is applauded (see vs2) as being the only true God.

Bravo! You finally got it! The Father of Jesus Christ is the ONLY true God.

Therefore, to have "FULL and ACCURATE knowledge" of BOTH the Father and Jesus Christ, you must NOT forget that the Father is the ONLY true God and Jesus Christ is the one whom the ONLY true God SENT.

Nope. You must not forget that the only true God is the Father of Jesus Christ, and the Father of Jesus Christ has given him power over all flesh, to give eternal life to all whom the Father has given him.

Now, that is something we can finally agree upon! The ONLY true God is the Father of Jesus Christ.

You said, "Jesus thought it very relevent that his Father is the only true God," didn't you? Or are you now reneging on this?

No need to reneg, as I know Jesus is not making an identity statement but applauding his Father as proved to be the only true God.

Whether "Jesus was not making an identity statement or applauding the Father as proved to be the only God," you said "Jesus thought it VERY relevant that his Father is the ONLY true God," didn't you? You agree then, that if Jesus thought it VERY relevant that his Father is the ONLY true God, shouldn't you and I think it VERY relevant ALSO that the Father of Jesus is the ONLY true God?

Eternal life is not attained by taking in an intellectual fact, but attaining an appreciation, taking in full and accurate knowledge of fulfilled prophesy, that proves the Father as the only true God, because it was he who sent his only begotten Son, and it is through the Son that our salvation is sourced.

You are telling me to TWIST what Jesus EXPLICITLY said in john 17:3, aren't you? Jesus said, "and this is ETERNAL LIFE, that they may know YOU, the ONLY true God and Jesus Christ whom YOU have SENT." We don't see any "fulfilled prophecies" in this verse, do we?

Thus at 1 John 5:20 we read "And we know that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding, to know him who is true; and we are in him who is true, in his Son Jesus Christ." Notice both the Father and Son are true. (cp. John 17:23)

Again, you MISUNDERSTAND 1 John 5:20! Follow me:

1. The Son of God came. This Son of God is Jesus, right?
2. Jesus came to give us understanding.
3. This understanding is:
a. to know "him who is true;"
b. we are in "him who is true;"
c. even in "his son, Jesus Christ."
4. This (him who is true) is the true God and eternal life.

If Jesus is "him who is true," who is "his son, Jesus Christ?" No, my friend, Jesus could NOT be "him who is true God and eternal life."

[IncRus]

You DON'T know for sure that Jesus knew that the Jews who were plotting to kill him (John 11:52) would perceive it that way, do you?

Jesus did NOT know beforehand that the Jews would MISTAKE his saying "I am the Son of God" for making himself God. This is eveidenced by the fact that Jesus asked these Jews why they accuse him of "blasphemy" when he said he is the Son of God (John 10:36).

"Blasphemy" is committed when one who is a MAN makes himself God. That's what the Jews accused Jesus of when they heard him say, "I am the Son of God" (John 10:33).

The Jews who plotted to kill Jesus (John 11:52), simply took that opportunity to made it look like he was committing BLASPHEMY - a crime punishable by death under Jewish law.

I feel that you are both right and a bridge to understanding, imo, can be found by first looking at the traditional Jewish understanding of Son of God. That term was used in the Jewish culture to refer to a holy man, so close to God that it was said that he a filial relationship with God. As was said of King David.

And certainly any who are this close to God, are God on earth - just as we witness in the Old Testament, when the angels of YHWH also speak as YHWH himself.

The words of God TRANSCENDS even the highest laws of man or nature. This means that whatever God says takes precedence over what anyone says. For Christians or those who profess to be Christians, the words of God are found ONLY in the canonized Holy Bible.

Thus, whether Jesus had "real" or "filial" relationship with God the Father or whatever the understanding of the Jews is of the term "son of God," the word of God says, Jesus is a MAN (John 8:40) and the Father (John 17:1) is the ONLY true God (John 17:3).

And as YHWH spoke of Moses - he as a Messenger of God, was like God - carrying the Name of God, the power and authority of God, here on earth.

The Bible is very clear - Jesus came in the Name of YHWH - in God's Power and Authority, so for us, he was and is God. And I believe that the soul of Jesus continues to exist in unity with the Father, so comes in the Name of Father in whatever form he takes.

I have no problem with calling Moses, "LIKE a God" to the Egyptians. And I would have no problem with you calling Jesus, "LIKE a God" as well.

However, I take issue with anyone who calls or considers Jesus "God" BECAUSE God says, there is NO OTHER God beside Him (Isaiah 45:6; 46:9) and Jesus himself says that the Father is the ONLY true God. Thus, to make Jesus "God" makes Jesus, the SON of God a FALSE God.

The difference for me, and I know this is a big one, is that taking this stance means that Jesus is not the only being or soul who is so united with the Father. But he joined the Father in the Highest realms possible, in unity of soul or consciousness - thus actually becoming the Word embodied in flesh, coming in greater Power and Authority than any before him, or since!

This is the danger of calling Jesus "God." It allows the mind to wander BEYOND what is written in the Holy Bible resulting in CIRCULAR reasoning that TWISTS the TRUTH to make Jesus BECOME the "word embodied in flesh."

This is NOT what the Bible tells us. The Bible tells us that the "word BECAME (not embodied in)" flesh. When the "word" BECAME flesh, the "word" DISAPPEARED like an egg that disappears AFTER it BECOMES a chick or sperm that disappears AFTER it BECOMES a human being.

The second issue to consider is what Jesus spoke of John 17 - about he being in Father and the Father in him, and praying for the same for us.

May they be one as we are one. So whatever Jesus was claiming about himself when he said the Father and I are One, he prayed also for us.

Whatever relationship Jesus had with the Father, he prayed also for us.

So if we want to say that Jesus is part of the Trinity, then we have to say that Jesus prayed for us to be part of the Trinity too.

All of scripture must be consistent. We cannot say that Jesus meant one thing here and another thing there.

This is one issue that Trinitarians FAIL to recognize. Thus, when Jesus said "I and the Father are one," Jesus was NOT telling us that he is a part of the so-called Trinity. Jesus was simply telling us that he and the Father are ONE in caring for the sheep or ONE in judgment, or ONE in spirit just as he prayed that his DISCIPLES may be ONE in spirit, ONE in judgment, or ONE in caring for one another.

[Vivian]

Hi Incrus!

The words of God TRANSCENDS even the highest laws of man or nature. This means that whatever God says takes precedence over what anyone says. For Christians or those who profess to be Christians, the words of God are found ONLY in the canonized Holy Bible.

I do not disagree that the Holy Scriptures are a living revelation - with the Spirit of God existing behind them, but we have to be careful not to make an idol of them. For while the Spirit beyond the scriptures is perfect, the language in which they are expressed is not.

This is why one can read the Bible and, imo, not have a clue of anything, unless they make contact with the Word that is behind the scriptures. Jesus himself pointing this out to the Pharisees.

And so just because we see something in scripture with our intellect, does not mean we are understanding correctly, or rather fully or perfectly.

Again, human language and human intellect are imperfect and will on their own come up with imperfect, or incomplete understandings.

When Jesus said that the Father is looking for those who will worship in Spirit and Truth, when he said the letter of the law killeth and the Spirit gives life, when he said blessed are you for learning from the Father and not from flesh and blood, it was, imo, to this he was referring.

Thus, whether Jesus had "real" or "filial" relationship with God the Father or whatever the understanding of the Jews is of the term "son of God," the word of God says, Jesus is a MAN (John 8:40) and the Father (John 17:1) is the ONLY true God (John 17:3).

Excuse this bluntness, but a group of people looking at the same words will each come up with a different meaning. Yes? And so when we see something in scripture, to understand fully, we have to do more than apply our singular intellect.

But if our intellect is all we have a good place to begin is to look around us and see what others see in the words, looking at the cultural meaning of certain words and phrases for example. For all of humanity's linear interpretations are contained within the One Truth - which transcends all.

That said, I do not disagree with you that Jesus was a physical man. But more importantly, Jesus was and is also a soul and a spirit, just as we are. What is more important about his soul and spirit is that they were born again in his flesh. The physical flesh then being fully saved, liberated, aware of his soul and spirit and their unity with the Father, making Jesus a perfected temple or vehicle for Christ.

Christ, or Messiah, means the Anointed One. Jesus, the Anointed One, is his exact title. Jesus was not the only anointed one talked of in the Bible, but without question, his anointing was far greater than any who had gone before him, for as he declared, he was fully aware of his spiritual union with the Father.

We have to understand that God cannot appear directly in the physical world, for God has no physical form, or form that we would recognize or be able to perceive. God can only appear in and through perfected vehicles. With Moses, God appeared as a burning bush. And for us, God appeared as Jesus.

Again, I agree. Imu Jesus was not God. Jesus was flesh born of flesh, with a soul and spirit that was united as One with the Father, in and through Christ (the hows being the mystery of which Paul speaks.)

Jesus thus became the Body of Christ, a form in and through which Christ was able to appear in this world.

To understand how, imo, both you and apostoli are correct, we have to first understand how man exists in three parts: body-soul-spirit. Jesus was one with the Father at the spirit level - there being no differentiation between his spirit or consciousness at that level, and the Father's. Jesus, spiritually, was thus God.

But this spirit was clothed in flesh, which was not God, but as we are taught again and again, being a temple or vehicle for God.

It is the same with the burning bush and Moses. The burning bush declared I am God. But we know that the burning bush itself was not God, it was just a vehicle through which God manifested in this world - the Spirit of God uniting with the Spirit of the bush at a high level.

In other words, the bush became a perfected vehicle submitting itself to the Spirit revealing Itself through it.

This is why Jesus spoke of himself and the Father as separate beings. For at the physical level of consciousness, he was merely a vehicle for the Spirit of Christ. But then, again, at a very high spiritual level of consciousness, he and Christ were one and the same. Jesus, as a fully liberated soul, able to move between consciousness, saying I am separate from God, yet I am the same.

I have no problem with calling Moses, "LIKE a God" to the Egyptians. And I would have no problem with you calling Jesus, "LIKE a God" as well.

Yes, Moses was a vehicle for God, just as Jesus was. Although Jesus was a perfected vehicle, and Moses obviously was not. He had a lesser spirit or anointing working through him. (Remember Elisha asking for double the anointing that Elijah had?)

However, I take issue with anyone who calls or considers Jesus "God" BECAUSE God says, there is NO OTHER God beside Him (Isaiah 45:6; 46:9) and Jesus himself says that the Father is the ONLY true God. Thus, to make Jesus "God" makes Jesus, the SON of God a FALSE God.

I understand why you are troubled by this, for indeed saying that Jesus is God - period, does not coincide with all of scripture. Doing so makes Jesus look like some sort of idiot in talking of and to himself as though he were not himself?

It would be like me talking about Viv as though she and I were separate beings. If I did that, I would certainly be locked up.

And a key here in that the Jews did not consider Jesus crazy for talking this way, but blaspemous, for they understood fully the separate from God, yet united with God concept fully.

This is the danger of calling Jesus "God." It allows the mind to wander BEYOND what is written in the Holy Bible resulting in CIRCULAR reasoning that TWISTS the TRUTH to make Jesus BECOME the "word embodied in flesh."

Anytime we limit our understanding to the literal, there is great danger! Jesus called us to look at Spirit and Truth, which the literal points to, but is much much greater than the literal iteself.

Anytime we look to the literal in scripture, we are going to have to twist words to get them to fit together. Because, simply put, the literal of the Bible contains inconsistancies and contradictions! Human language is imperfect in describing the things of God. It is limited - linear, one dimensional, etc - which God is not. See, the problem with the looking at the literal of scripture alone for our understanding of God, is that God then has to be defined in the limited image of man.

This is NOT what the Bible tells us.

The Bible tells us a lot of things that are not understandable in the literal.

The Bible tells us that the "word BECAME (not embodied in)" flesh. When the "word" BECAME flesh, the "word" DISAPPEARED like an egg that disappears AFTER it BECOMES a chick or sperm that disappears AFTER it BECOMES a human being.

The word became flesh, just like our souls become flesh. Where does your soul end and your flesh begin? This is something that we indeed do learn in the spiritual journey. (see Romans 7)

And imu the Word did not disappear, any more than your soul and spirit disappear when you became flesh.

This is one issue that Trinitarians FAIL to recognize. Thus, when Jesus said "I and the Father are one," Jesus was NOT telling us that he is a part of the so-called Trinity. Jesus was simply telling us that he and the Father are ONE in caring for the sheep or ONE in judgment, or ONE in spirit just as he prayed that his DISCIPLES may be ONE in spirit, ONE in judgment, or ONE in caring for one another.

Such an idea comes from a literal interpretaion, yes?

As said above, being united with the Father is, imu, referring to the spirit - Jesus being fully aware of his consciousness or spirit-unity with the Father - knowing a place within himself where he and the Father are one and the same.

His flesh or outer body being a temple for this God-united spirit.

Shalom.

Viv

[apostoli]

Hello Incrus,

The fact that the letters of Ignatius are NOT even included in the Bible is PROOF that even the so-called early church fathers who canonized the Bible did NOT believe that what Ignatius wrote is worth mentioning at all.

Not at all. Until the 4th century when the Nicean fathers settled on the canon of the NT, there were various collections of writings defined as the "the bible" (bible simply means a collection of books = a library). In the late 4th century the Nicean bishops decided that all of them should use the same set of books as a reference point for doctrine. To reduce conflict on which books to include, they set the rule that only documents attributed to the apostles were to be included. The main argument: later writers simply parroted the apostles. The main method of selection, "Did the early church writers cite this book as having apostolic authority?"

So my friend, you should realise that the collection of books we have received, and today call "the Bible", and you and I use, were determined by Niceans (Trinitarians) for the defense of Nicean (Trinitarian) teaching.

Hence, I don't believe that Ignatius' letters are pertinent to the discussion about the nature of Christ as a MAN and the identity of the Father as the ONLY true God.

As Ignatius did not add to the teaching of the NT, I'm not dependant on him. He simply provides an example of the consistant faith of the early church in the incarnation (the topic of your earlier inquiry).

[My opinions] are NOT "innovative modern opinions" but are TRUTHS written in the Scriptures, specifically, John 8:40 and John 17:3.

Given you use both texts out of context, and these seem to be the only texts you can bring forward to support your opinion, it is obvious (from your posts) that your opinion forces you to distort or ignore even those things that are plainly explained to us in scripture. For instance: in your use of John 8:40 you are quick to cite Num 23:19 "God is not a man" but you ignore texts like Exodus 15:3 that says "God is a man". In both cases it is readily understood that the idea conveyed in the original language is "like a man" - they are not emphatic statements. Similarly, John 8:40 (cp. John 8:17-18).

It is true that your opinion is not exclusive to the modern age - rarely do we find anything new under the sun. Similar opinion appeared in gnostic and pagan thought - thoughts that the temporally minded attempted to impose upon the early church. Which it rejected! The early church is well documented as having combated such ideas. As A.Paul put it at 2 Cor 5:16 "Wherefore henceforth know we no man after the flesh: yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we [him] no more." (KJV) = "...Once I mistakenly thought of Christ...as though he were merely a human being. How differently I think about him now!" (NLT)

John 1:14 says "the word BECAME flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten son of God." And John 1:18 says, "No one has seen God at any time. The only begotten son who is in the bosom of the Father, he has declared him." Common sense tells us that it is the "flesh" or the MAN, Jesus that the word BECAME who dwelt among us and is the "son of God!"

Your own words attest that the Logos became Jesus. Seems you are resisting the truth that your subconscious is trying to tell you.

Common sense tells us to read what is written and not what we think should have been written. What was written was...

Καὶ ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο
and. the logos. flesh. became.

It is so blantantly obvious that that there is no other way to understand what is said! It is the Logos that became flesh! John 1:14-18, identifies the Logos who became flesh, becoming as man, came to be known as Jesus Christ.

I've come across various interpretations of what all this teaches, but I have never come across anyone like you who totally denies the obvious Greek and English meaning.

As you are having difficulty articulating your position, I'll help you out...

The Christadelphians who hold that Jesus did not pre-exist the incarnation and was just a man explain their position: "When the 'word was made flesh' (John 1:14) then, and only then, did Christ come into existence as 'the logos made flesh'. Christ is called the logos (Revelation 19:13, compare with I John 1:1; Luke 1:2) because he constitutes the outworking of God’s logos; the physical reality of a plan which had previously existed in the mind of God."

The difficulty with all Christadelphian argument is that it relies exclusively on the english rendering of scripture (more particularly the KJV rendering). Thus they argue that "word" means the spoken word. They appeal to Genesis "God said" and it was so. The obvious defect in the Christadelphian understanding: it is the Greek word "rhema' that means spoken word/s not Logos!

Even when Jerome translated Logos as verbum (the nearest Latin equivalent) the idea of the Logos as "spoken word" was not part of Christian thought, and remained so until about the 16/17th century when the first English translations began to appear. Logos has always been understood by the Church (RCC etc) in its Greek meaning/s. One of which is "a complete teaching", whether it be in written or spoken form. And the Church has always understood John 1:1 with 14 as saying that Jesus is the culmination of all that was foretold in the OT (think on the full text of Jn 17:1-3). In addition, on the basis of John 1:1,14,18; 7:16-18; 8:58; 14:5-11; 17:5; 20:28-29 etc, the Church has always understood that Jesus identified himself as the manifestation of the wisdom of God (cp. Jn 1:3 with Proverbs 8; John 1:4 with 6:44-46), and as the "messenger of YHWH" that appeared and spoke to the patriarchs (the visible YHWH, that became the God of Israel cp Ex 6:7). No man has ever seen God but they did see and hear the Logos, the invisible YHWH's true Son - but not in all his glory (cp. Ex 32:12-23).

And you are telling me that it was the "son of God" who BECAME flesh!...How anyone can believe such NONSENSE is beyond me!

Which just proves yourself to be a murmurer against Christ (John 6:60). As Jesus said to such "[What] if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?" (John 6:62).

One of many reasons that us foolish in Christ, chosen by God to confound the wise (1 Cor 1:27), believe that the "Son of God" became flesh is scripture constantly reminds us of the fact = "let no man deceive you...the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil" (1 John 3:7-8)

"the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, are spirit, and are life." (John 6:63)

That's like saying it's the human being that became a human being or it is the chick that became a chick!

Not at all. It is like Jesus being both the seed of Eve and the seed of David as prophesied. The one seed in two different respects.

Let me ask you my friend, are you a sperm or a human being? Is it an egg you see walking on the street or a chick?

Neither! A human being is not derived exclusively from sperm. All sperm provides is one half of of the DNA, and is not essential for reproduction/replication (see below). And a chick in an egg remains a chick, and if it starts to hatch feet first one could well perceive an egg walking on the street.

You need to do some research on basic biology. Look up the words Meiosis and Mitosis. The reality is that any eukaryote (eg: a human or a chick) can be induced to replicate without the need for male sperm or an egg. In fact there are eukaryotes that do!

In anycase, your examples and incredibility with the teaching of the Church, indicates you either agree with the pagan thought that God fornicated with Mary, injected her with his sperm and generated a son. Or, Jesus is not truely the Son of God. Or, you were being facetious in your argumentation. Which is it?

On the other hand, the Bible teaches that it was the "word" (promise, intention, plan) of God that BECAME flesh (John 1:14). The Bible does NOT teach that the "word" (promise, intention, plan) that BECAME flesh is the Son of God. The TRUTH is, the Son of God is the "flesh" into which the "word" BECAME.

In an earlier post you said it wasn't the flesh but the man. Truth is, you are so confused in your own opinion that you can't articulate it. Which is not remarkable as you cannot find a single scripture that supports your denial of Jesus as the actual, and only begotten, Son of God.

You're creating a strawman. I have NEVER denied that Jesus is the only begotten son of God.

No strawman, just pointing out your arbitrary argument which (though maybe not your intent) denies Jesus as being truely the only begotten Son of God.

Many posts ago, I asked you to explain how, in your understanding, Jesus is the Son of God. I am still waiting for an answer. Continued silence suggests to me that you don't believe he is!

Your continued silence is another reason I suspect you are a follower of the Quran pretending to be a christian. The Quran declares "[the Christians] say: '[God] Most Gracious has begotten offspring'. Glory to Him! They are but servants raised to honour" (21:26), and "God, the One and Only; God, the Eternal, Absolute; He begetteth not, nor is He begotten; And there is none like unto Him" (112:1-4). To Islam's credit they acknowledge the virginal conception of Isa by Maryam but as a decree of God. And, to Islam's credit they hold as true, that Isa will return to judge the world. But, deny all else that the Christians teach. Seems to align with your opinion.

I have NEVER denied that Jesus "proceeded forth and came from God" (John 8:42).

To the contrary you have done so regularly, as you do in your next sentence (see below). You have denied Jesus' pre-existence, so you are forced to deny he came down from heaven. Thus you deny that he "proceeded forth and came from God;" in the sense that Jesus meant. It is most illuminating that you constantly exclude the critical parts of verses that resist your opinion eg: the last clause of John 8:42 "neither came I of myself, but he sent me". Also note John 8:45 "And because I tell the truth, you believe me not."

And since God is in heaven, then Jesus METAPHORICALLY came from heaven

Not according to Jesus!

Of course I understand you as reading such as allegory ("Dah! it wasn't the man, Jesus, it was the..."). But the reality is that if such is allegory, so is the second coming of Christ.

Jesus plainly says "What if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?" (John 6:62) and "Remember what I told you: I am going away, but I will come back to you again." (NLT, John 14:28). Christians accept Jesus' words, not figuratively, not as metaphors, but literally.

Is it also your opinion that Jesus' death and resurrection are fantasies of the trinitarian mind?

Didn't Jesus use the same verses the way I use them?

Nope. In regards to John 8:40 & John 17:3 Jesus gives a full teaching which you prefer to ignore

You seem NOT to know what "full teaching" means. "Full teaching" means including BOTH the teaching that Jesus is a MAN and the teaching that the Father is the ONLY true God.

You definiely don't! Full teachings means, you don't exclude the bits of scripture you don't like. For instance: John 17:3 says, within the context of John 17:1-2, we have to come to intimately know both the Father and the Son to achieve eternal life. For some reason you seem intent on excluding the Son. Which demonstrates to all here that you are anti Christ!

Philippians 2:6-7 does NOT tell us that Christ "pre-existed in the morphe of God BEFORE becoming a man."

Yes it does! There is no other way to understand it. A.Paul gives a clear sequence and directly identifies Christ Jesus as his topic - had the morphe of God, emptied himself, took on the morphe of a servant, became man, etc. And he uses the example to tell us to have the same mind of him (Phil 2:5)! And most importantly, he holds the example up, to encourage us not to do anything through strife or vainglory (vs 3. ie: no matter how important you think you are, be like Christ who was in the morphe of God and chose to become a servant, and became as lowly as man. Imitate him).

Besides, you earlier admitted that "informed trinitarians" would agree that John was NOT thinking of the "word" as a "god" or the ACTUAL "God" when he wrote John 1:1. Therefore, by your admission, Jesus was NOT the "word" that pre-existed in the morphe of God BEFORE the "word" BECAME a MAN.

Not at all. Being in the morphe doesn't equate to being the person, whom the other is the morphe. None that were legitamately called gods in the OT are said to have the morphe of God. You really need to learn some basic Greek! I've already provided you A.Paul's progession of terms, and I presume you are capable of reading a Lexicon that explains in English each of the Greek words etymology.

By my own admission Jesus pre-existed as the Logos to mankind and remained the very Son of the very true God before and after his incarnation. Whatever has been revealed of the Father, is replicated in his Son (John 1:1; Phil 2:6; Heb 1:3; Col 1:16 etc).

Again, you MISINTERPRET Scripture and inject your own OPINION into it. Luke 1:35 describes HOW the "word" of God BECAME a man. Through the power of the Holy Spirit, the "flesh" or MAN that the "word" BECAME was CONCEIVED and FORMED inside the womb of a woman by God.

To me, this does NOT look like "incarnation" or "embodiment of DEITY in human form" but a description of the FULFILLMENT of God's "promise, intent, or plan" through the CONCEPTION of Jesus in the womb of Mary

As usual you contradict yourself. One moment you say that the word became man, then you deny it. (?)

The "word" that BECAME "flesh" or MAN was NOT a "god" NOR the ACTUAL God

The church (RCC etc) and I agree!

but the "promise, intent, or plan" of God that was FULFILED with the CONCEPTION and BIRTH of Jesus, the only begotten Son of God.

Actually, the promise to Eve was not fulfilled until the resurrection - once Christ had conquered death! And fulfillment of the promise to David is not complete until the kingdom come. As Jesus plainly said "the flesh profiteth nothing".

Scripture plainly reveals that the "promise, intent, or plan" was not fulfilled by Jesus' conception or birth. This was the start of fulfillment!

I must have missed the part where Jesus taught about his being "genetically" the son of God or about whether his relationship with the Father is "real" or "filial."

From your posts it seems you do not read the scriptures but only mine them. So it is not remarkable that you miss Jesus' overall message. The real bit can be found in 1 John. The fillial relationship part is found throughout the Gospels but John 17:1 should do.

Please specify the verse - NOT your interpretation or opinion of what these verses seem to say.

I already did elsewhere. But as you are not a student of scripture the "real" occurs at 1 John 5:20. Click here for the lexicon explanation of the Greek alēthinos = often translated "real" or "true", which is used at John 17:3 and 1 John 5:20.

Since you seem to know what Jesus was thinking, I would appreciate your showing me the verses where I could learn "that his filial relationship with the Father was the whole basis of his teaching."

I know not what Jesus was thinking, only what he taught! There are many texts, John 6:37-40 is one example.

I don't see any "filial" relationship in these verses.

Which demonstrates one of two things: either you don't understand what a filial relationship is, or John 8:43-44.

All I read is that Jesus was SENT by the Father to do His will and that everyone who comes to him and believes in him may have everlasting life and will be raised in the last day.

Reread John 6:37-40 it tells you a lot more eg: "All that the Father giveth me shall come to me"

The whole basis of his teaching, as I see it, is that Jesus came to do His Father's will to save His people from their sin (Matt. 1:21; John 3:17) and everyone who HEARS him and BELIEVES in him ( his gospel or message of salvation) shall not perish but shall have everlasting life (John 3:16).

Reread John 6:37-40 it tells you a lot more eg: "And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day." Note: though A.Paul was inspired to tell us that the Father raised Jesus from the dead, Jesus tells us that it is he who will raise those who follow him.

Read the full text, it starts in verse 17:1 = "Father, the hour has come; glorify thy Son that the Son may glorify thee, since thou hast given him power over all flesh, to give eternal life to all whom thou hast given him. And this is eternal life, that they know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent." The addressee is the Father. It is the Father who sent Jesus Christ. And it is the Father of Jesus Christ that is applauded (see vs2) as being the only true God.

Bravo! You finally got it! The Father of Jesus Christ is the ONLY true God.

It has never escaped my, nor the Church's (RCC etc) attention. However, you missed the teaching "it is the Father of Jesus Christ that is applauded". If Jesus is truely, and uniquely, the Son of the Father, and whatever can be said of the Father, is said of the Son (1 Jn 5:20, Jn 17:3, Jn 1:1; Heb 1:3; Phil 2:6 etc) then what does that make the Son?

Peace

[IncRus]

Hello Incrus,

The fact that the letters of Ignatius are NOT even included in the Bible is PROOF that even the so-called early church fathers who canonized the Bible did NOT believe that what Ignatius wrote is worth mentioning at all.

Not at all. In the late 4th century the Nicean bishops decided that all of them should use the same set of books as a reference point for doctrine. To reduce conflict on which books to include, they set the rule that only documents attributed to the apostles were to be included. "Did the early church writers cite this book as having apostolic authority?"

Whether the "early church writers" cite the canonized Bible as having apostolic authority or not is immaterial. The fact is, the canonized Bible is, TODAY, considered by professing Christians as the word of God and it is significant to note that the "letters of Ignatius" are NOT found in it.

I believe it is NOT worth my time to discuss religion with anyone who does NOT recognize the canonized Bible as the ONLY word of God because we do NOT have a COMMON ground of reference to agree upon.

So my friend, you should realise that the collection of books we have received, and today call "the Bible", and you and I use, were determined by Niceans (Trinitarians) for the defense of Nicean (Trinitarian) teaching.

Unfortunately for these Niceans (Trinitarians), they were UNABLE to FULLY mangle the word of God to defend their Nicean (Trinitarian) teaching. Thus, we find John 8:40 and John 17:3 INTACT and UNBLEMISHED that DISPROVE the FALSE Nicean (Trinitarian) teaching.

Had the Niceans (Trinitarians) CUT John 8:40 and John 17:3 out of the canonized Bible, there would NOT be any dispute about the Trinitarian nature of Jesus and the Trinitarian identities of the ONLY true God.

But God is NOT to be denied. He did NOT allow His words to go to waste!

Hence, I don't believe that Ignatius' letters are pertinent to the discussion about the nature of Christ as a MAN and the identity of the Father as the ONLY true God.

As Ignatius did not add to the teaching of the NT, I'm not dependant on him. He simply provides an example of the consistant faith of the early church in the incarnation (the topic of your earlier inquiry).

You stated earlier that "the Bible, were determined by Niceans (Trinitarians) for the defense of Nicean (Trinitarian) teaching." Therefore, what Ignatius wrote on the "incarnation" is in defense of the Nicean (Trinitarian) teaching which is NOT supported by the Bible itself. And since these letters of Ignatius are NOT included in the canonized Bible, these letters CANNOT be of higher authority than those written by the apostles.

[My opinions] are NOT "innovative modern opinions" but are TRUTHS written in the Scriptures, specifically, John 8:40 and John 17:3.

Given you use both texts out of context, and these seem to be the only texts you can bring forward to support your opinion, it is obvious (from your posts) that your opinion forces you to distort or ignore even those things that are plainly explained to us in scripture. For instance: in your use of John 8:40 you are quick to cite Num 23:19 "God is not a man" but you ignore texts like Exodus 15:3 that says "God is a man".

In both cases it is readily understood that the idea conveyed in the original language is "like a man" - they are not emphatic statements. Similarly, John 8:40 (cp. John 8:17-18).

Now you want Num. 23:19 to read "God is like a man!" That's a direct VIOLATION of God's command!

Heb. 1:1-2 determines for me, what I should believe. In these last times, God has SPOKEN to us BY His son, Jesus Christ.

Jesus says the Father is the ONLY true God (John 17:3). Jesus also says that God is spirit (John 4:24) and a spirit has NO flesh and bones as he (Jesus) has (Luke 24:39). These verses support God's statement in Num. 23:19 that God is NOT a MAN. To me, what God commanded Jesus to say or speak (John 12:49; Heb. 1:2) has higher authority than what God commanded the prophets to say or speak in time past (Heb. 1:1).

It is true that your opinion is not exclusive to the modern age - rarely do we find anything new under the sun. The early church is well documented as having combated such ideas. As A.Paul put it at 2 Cor 5:16 "Wherefore henceforth know we no man after the flesh: yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we [him] no more." (KJV) = "...Once I mistakenly thought of Christ...as though he were merely a human being. How differently I think about him now!" (NLT)

See how biased your mind is toward the DEITY of Christ? The Today's English Version renders 2 Cor. 5:16 more clearly, thus: "No longer then, do we judge anyone by human standards. Even if, at one time we judged Christ according to human standards, we no longer do so."

This means that if apostle Paul were to judge Christ according to human standards (like how Trinitarians compare Jesus to egg shell, egg white and egg yolk) and DISREGARD what the Holy Spirit teaches (1 Cor. 2:13), apostle Paul would NOT have written 2 Cor. 11:3-4 to warn the first-century Christians against heretical teachings of ANOTHER Jesus that he and the other apostle had NOT preached.

John 1:14 says "the word BECAME flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten son of God." And John 1:18 says, "No one has seen God at any time. The only begotten son who is in the bosom of the Father, he has declared him." Common sense tells us that it is the "flesh" or the MAN, Jesus that the word BECAME who dwelt among us and is the "son of God!"

Your own words attest that the Logos became Jesus. Seems you are resisting the truth that your subconscious is trying to tell you.

Yes, it is the "word" or "logos" that BECAME Jesus and it was Jesus who dwelt among us. It can't be any plainer than that!

Common sense tells us to read what is written and not what we think should have been written. What was written was...

Καὶ ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο
and. the logos. flesh. became.

It is so blantantly obvious that that there is no other way to understand what is said! It is the Logos that became flesh! John 1:14-18, identifies the Logos who became flesh, becoming as man, came to be known as Jesus Christ.

I'm glad you agree that it was the "word" or "logos" - NOT Jesus or the son of God - that BECAME flesh, or man or human being.

I've come across various interpretations of what all this teaches, but I have never come across anyone like you who totally denies the obvious Greek and English meaning.

According to Jesus, "...wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction and MANY go in by it...and narrow is the gate and DIFFICULT is the way that leads to life, and there are very FEW who find it" (Matt. 7:13-14).

Hence, I'm NOT surprised that you have never come across anyone like me who totally denies the obvious Greek and English meaning.

As apostle Paul wrote in 2 Cor. 5:16, I judge the nature of Christ NOT according to human standards but according to what the Holy Spirit teaches - by comparing spiritual things with spiritual (1 Cor. 2:13).

There are only a FEW of us who do as the Holy Spirit teaches!

As you are having difficulty articulating your position, I'll help you out...

The Christadelphians who hold that Jesus did not pre-exist the incarnation and was just a man .....The obvious defect in the Christadelphian understanding: it is the Greek word "rhema' that means spoken word/s not Logos!

The Christadelphians are correct in their belief that Jesus was just a man. Their argument that Jesus is the "outworking of God's logos; the physical reality of a plan which had previously existed in the mind of God," is also correct. That "rhema" means "spoken word" not "logos" makes NO difference. Whether "logos" means "spoken word" or spoken idea" or spoken plan," the more important thing to note is that the "word" or "logos" was NOT Jesus UNTIL the "word" or "logos" BECAME "flesh" or "man" or the human being named JESUS.

Even when Jerome translated Logos as verbum (the nearest Latin equivalent) the idea of the Logos as "spoken word" was not part of Christian thought,... Logos has always been understood by the Church (RCC etc) in its Greek meaning/s.

I won't argue that the so-called "early church" had always argued that Jesus was God because even when apostle Paul was still alive, they were already teaching ANOTHER Jesus that apostle Paul did NOT teach (2 Cor. 11:3-4; Gal. 1:6-8). In fact, apostle Paul forewarned the first-century elders (Acts 20:17) that after he dies some elders from among them will speak PERVERSE things to draw disciples after them (Acts 20:29-31).

And you are telling me that it was the "son of God" who BECAME flesh!...How anyone can believe such NONSENSE is beyond me!

One of many reasons that us foolish in Christ, chosen by God to confound the wise (1 Cor 1:27), believe that the "Son of God" became flesh is scripture constantly reminds us of the fact = "let no man deceive you...the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil" (1 John 3:7-8)

The works of the devil are LIES for the devil is the father of lies. To say that the "son of God" BECAME flesh is a LIE because the TRUTH is, it is the "word" or "logos" of God that BECAME flesh. And that flesh into whom the "word" or "logos" BECAME is Jesus.

That's like saying it's the human being that became a human being or it is the chick that became a chick!

Not at all. It is like Jesus being both the seed of Eve and the seed of David as prophesied. The one seed in two different respects.

John 1:14 (TEV) says is "the WORD became a HUMAN BEING" - NOT "a human being BECAME a human being." John 1:14 does NOT says either that "Eve's seed BECAME David's seed." That's an ABSURD opinion!

Let me ask you my friend, are you a sperm or a human being? Is it an egg you see walking on the street or a chick?

Neither! A human being is not derived exclusively from sperm. All sperm provides is one half of of the DNA, and is not essential for reproduction/replication (see below). And a chick in an egg remains a chick, and if it starts to hatch feet first one could well perceive an egg walking on the street.

That's an INANE rebutttal

In an earlier post you said it wasn't the flesh but the man. Truth is, you are so confused in your own opinion that you can't articulate it. Which is not remarkable as you cannot find a single scripture that supports your denial of Jesus as the actual, and only begotten, Son of God.

Please restate my argument which makes you THINK that I deny that Jesus is the only begotten son of God.

Many posts ago, I asked you to explain how, in your understanding, Jesus is the Son of God. I am still waiting for an answer. Continued silence suggests to me that you don't believe he is!

I don't have to tell anyone HOW Jesus is the son of God or only begotten son of God. It is enough for me that Jesus said he is the son of God (John 10:36), and I believe him, and so should you. My silence does not have anything to do with what I believe.

I have NEVER denied that Jesus "proceeded forth and came from God" (John 8:42).

To the contrary you have done so regularly, as you do in your next sentence (see below). You have denied Jesus' pre-existence, so you are forced to deny he came down from heaven. Thus you deny that he "proceeded forth and came from God;" in the sense that Jesus meant. It is most illuminating that you constantly exclude the critical parts of verses that resist your opinion eg: the last clause of John 8:42 "neither came I of myself, but he sent me". Also note John 8:45 "And because I tell the truth, you believe me not."

Jesus did NOT say he pre-existed, did he? You are reading too much BEYOND what is written and this is what apostle Peter told the early Christians NOT to do (1 Cor. 4:6).

And since God is in heaven, then Jesus METAPHORICALLY came from heaven

Not according to Jesus!

Of course I understand you as reading such as allegory ("Dah! it wasn't the man, Jesus, it was the..."). But the reality is that if such is allegory, so is the second coming of Christ.

You are saying it was NOT the man Jesus who came, right? And you are right. When Jesus said he proceeded forth and came from God, it was an allegory just as John 1:6 where John says he was SENT from God is also an allegory. You don't believe that John was LITERALLY sent from God, do you?

On the other hand, Jesus' second coming is LITERAL because Jesus said, "....all the tribes of the earth will mourn and they will SEE the son of man COMING on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory" (Matt. 24:30). The angel confirms this when he said, "Men of Galilee,...This same Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, will so come in like manner as you saw him go into heaven" (Acts 1:11, 9).

Christians accept Jesus' words, not figuratively, not as metaphors, but literally.

You mean Trinitarians accept Jesus' words literally, not figuratively, not as metaphors IF it suits their purpose. But Trinitarians do NOT accept Jesus' LITERAL words declaring the Father as the ONLY true God because this DESTROYS their FALSE belief that Jesus is God!

Is it also your opinion that Jesus' death and resurrection are fantasies of the trinitarian mind?

No. I must admit that Trinitarians, like people in insane asylums have their lucid moments too!

Didn't Jesus use the same verses the way I use them?

Nope. In regards to John 8:40 & John 17:3 Jesus gives a full teaching which you prefer to ignore

You seem NOT to know what "full teaching" means. "Full teaching" means including BOTH the teaching that Jesus is a MAN and the teaching that the Father is the ONLY true God.

You definiely don't! Full teachings means, you don't exclude the bits of scripture you don't like. For instance: John 17:3 says, within the context of John 17:1-2, we have to come to intimately know both the Father and the Son to achieve eternal life. For some reason you seem intent on excluding the Son. Which demonstrates to all here that you are anti Christ!

I did NOT say we don't have to intimately know the son, did I? To intimately know the Father and the Son, we have to ALSO recognize that the Father is the ONLY true God and the Son is the one SENT by the ONLY true God, don't you agree?

Philippians 2:6-7 does NOT tell us that Christ "pre-existed in the morphe of God BEFORE becoming a man."

Yes it does! There is no other way to understand it. A.Paul gives a clear sequence and directly identifies Christ Jesus as his topic - had the morphe of God, emptied himself, took on the morphe of a servant, became man, etc. And he uses the example to tell us to have the same mind of him (Phil 2:5)! And most importantly, he holds the example up, to encourage us not to do anything through strife or vainglory (vs 3. ie: no matter how important you think you are, be like Christ who was in the morphe of God and chose to become a servant, and became as lowly as man. Imitate him).

That's only your interpretation of Phil. 2:6-7 and it's FALSE because your CONCLUSION based on your FALSE interpretation CONTRADICTS John 8:40 and John 17:3 where Jesus EXPLICITLY said he is a MAN and the Father is the ONLY true God.

Besides, you earlier admitted that "informed trinitarians" would agree that John was NOT thinking of the "word" as a "god" or the ACTUAL "God" when he wrote John 1:1. Therefore, by your admission, Jesus was NOT the "word" that pre-existed in the morphe of God BEFORE the "word" BECAME a MAN.

Not at all. Being in the morphe doesn't equate to being the person, whom the other is the morphe. None that were legitamately called gods in the OT are said to have the morphe of God. You really need to learn some basic Greek! I've already provided you A.Paul's progession of terms, and I presume you are capable of reading a Lexicon that explains in English each of the Greek words etymology.

This does not negate your admission that John was NOT thinking that the "word" that was WITH God was a "god" NOR an ACTUAL "God."

By my own admission Jesus pre-existed as the Logos to mankind and remained the very Son of the very true God before and after his incarnation. Whatever has been revealed of the Father, is replicated in his Son (John 1:1; Phil 2:6; Heb 1:3; Col 1:16 etc).

I NEVER admitted that Jesus pre-existed as the "logos" of mankind and remained the very Son of the very true God "before and after his incarnation." How could I when I don't believe in your so-called "incarnation?"

Again, you MISINTERPRET Scripture and inject your own OPINION into it. Luke 1:35 describes HOW the "word" of God BECAME a man. Through the power of the Holy Spirit, the "flesh" or MAN that the "word" BECAME was CONCEIVED and FORMED inside the womb of a woman by God.

To me, this does NOT look like "incarnation" or "embodiment of DEITY in human form" but a description of the FULFILLMENT of God's "promise, intent, or plan" through the CONCEPTION of Jesus in the womb of Mary

As usual you contradict yourself. One moment you say that the word became man, then you deny it. (?)

As usual you build a strawman to attack. You seem to think it's easier that way, don't you?

The "word" that BECAME "flesh" or MAN was NOT a "god" NOR the ACTUAL God

The church (RCC etc) and I agree!

Agree to what?

but the "promise, intent, or plan" of God that was FULFILED with the CONCEPTION and BIRTH of Jesus, the only begotten Son of God.

Actually, the promise to Eve was not fulfilled until the resurrection - once Christ had conquered death! And fulfillment of the promise to David is not complete until the kingdom come. As Jesus plainly said "the flesh profiteth nothing"

What promise to Eve and to David are you talking about?.

Scripture plainly reveals that the "promise, intent, or plan" was not fulfilled by Jesus' conception or birth. This was the start of fulfillment!

What "promise, intent or plan" are you talking about?

I must have missed the part where Jesus taught about his being "genetically" the son of God or about whether his relationship with the Father is "real" or "filial."

From your posts it seems you do not read the scriptures but only mine them. So it is not remarkable that you miss Jesus' overall message. The real bit can be found in 1 John. The fillial relationship part is found throughout the Gospels but John 17:1 should do.

Please specify the verse - NOT your interpretation or opinion of what these verses seem to say.

I already did elsewhere. But as you are not a student of scripture the "real" occurs at 1 John 5:20. Click here for the lexicon explanation of the Greek alēthinos = often translated "real" or "true", which is used at John 17:3 and 1 John 5:20.

I don't see how "real" or "true" or "filial" relationship of Jesus with the Father is shown in 1 John 5:20. You must be imagining things!

Since you seem to know what Jesus was thinking, I would appreciate your showing me the verses where I could learn "that his filial relationship with the Father was the whole basis of his teaching."

I know not what Jesus was thinking, only what he taught! There are many texts, John 6:37-40 is one example.

I don't see any "filial" relationship in these verses.

Which demonstrates one of two things: either you don't understand what a filial relationship is, or John 8:43-44.

I don't have to undertand what "filial" relationship means. I can always look it up in the dictionary. Nevertheless, regardless of what you mean by it, the TRUTH remains that Jesus is a MAN (John 8:40 and the Father is the ONLY true God (John 17:3).

All I read is that Jesus was SENT by the Father to do His will and that everyone who comes to him and believes in him may have everlasting life and will be raised in the last day.

Reread John 6:37-40 it tells you a lot more eg: "All that the Father giveth me shall come to me"

It says, "all that the Father GIVETH me..." If Jesus were God, why would ANOTHER God GIVE something to him? Nonsense!

The whole basis of his teaching, as I see it, is that Jesus came to do His Father's will to save His people from their sin (Matt. 1:21; John 3:17) and everyone who HEARS him and BELIEVES in him ( his gospel or message of salvation) shall not perish but shall have everlasting life (John 3:16).

Reread John 6:37-40 it tells you a lot more eg: "And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day." Note: though A.Paul was inspired to tell us that the Father raised Jesus from the dead, Jesus tells us that it is he who will raise those who follow him.

I see that you have BLINDED to the TRUTH that someone of HIGHER authority SENT Jesus. You CAN'T see that IF Jesus were God, NOBODY would have a HIGHER authority than his, can't you?

Apostle Paul said it was the Father who RAISED Jesus from the dead. That means that Jesus was saying the TRUTH when he said that he could of himself do NOTHING (John 5:19). Therefore, Jesus was saying the TRUTH when he declared the Father as the ONLY true God (John 17:3).

Read the full text, it starts in verse 17:1 = "Father, the hour has come; glorify thy Son that the Son may glorify thee, since thou hast given him power over all flesh, to give eternal life to all whom thou hast given him. And this is eternal life, that they know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent." The addressee is the Father. It is the Father who sent Jesus Christ. And it is the Father of Jesus Christ that is applauded (see vs2) as being the only true God.

Bravo! You finally got it! The Father of Jesus Christ is the ONLY true God.

It has never escaped my, nor the Church's (RCC etc) attention. However, you missed the teaching "it is the Father of Jesus Christ that is applauded". If Jesus is truely, and uniquely, the Son of the Father, and whatever can be said of the Father, is said of the Son (1 Jn 5:20, Jn 17:3, Jn 1:1; Heb 1:3; Phil 2:6 etc) then what does that make the Son?

Jesus was not applauding the Father. You are making the son of God what he is not, using human standards. No matter how highly we regard Jesus, the TRUTH remains that Jesus IDENTIFIED the Father as the ONLY true God nd he IDENTIFIED himself as a MAN.

[IncRus]

Hi Incrus!

The words of God TRANSCENDS even the highest laws of man or nature. This means that whatever God says takes precedence over what anyone says. For Christians or those who profess to be Christians, the words of God are found ONLY in the canonized Holy Bible.

I do not disagree that the Holy Scriptures are a living revelation - with the Spirit of God existing behind them, but we have to be careful not to make an idol of them. For while the Spirit beyond the scriptures is perfect, the language in which they are expressed is not.

The language in which scriptures are expressed are perfect. It is in the process of TRANSLATION that the scriptures are MANIPULATED.

The word of God is HIDDEN in mystery (1 Cor. 2:7). That's what makes it hard to understand. That's why a messenger from God is needed to guide us in the study of God's word just as Philip was SENT by the Spirit to overtake the chariot (Acts 8:29) wherein sat the Ethiopian eunuch who was in charge of the queen's treasury, reading Isaiah the prophet (Acts 8:27-28).

Philip asked the eunuch if he UNDERSTOOD what he was reading (Acts 8:30) and the eunuch answered: "How can I, UNLESS someone GUIDES me? And he asked Philip to come up and sit with him" (Acts 8:31).

This is why one can read the Bible and, imo, not have a clue of anything, unless they make contact with the Word that is behind the scriptures. Jesus himself pointing this out to the Pharisees.

How can one "make contact with the Word that is behind the scriptures?" Nobody can do that, can you?

And so just because we see something in scripture with our intellect, does not mean we are understanding correctly, or rather fully or perfectly.

As I said, the wisdom of God is HIDDEN in mystery (1 Cor. 2:7) and UNLESS someone SENT from God GUIDES one in the study of God's word, one will only end up "always learning and NEVER able to come to the knowledge of the truth" (2 Tim. 3:7).

Thus, whether Jesus had "real" or "filial" relationship with God the Father or whatever the understanding of the Jews is of the term "son of God," the word of God says, Jesus is a MAN (John 8:40) and the Father (John 17:1) is the ONLY true God (John 17:3).

Excuse this bluntness, but a group of people looking at the same words will each come up with a different meaning. Yes? And so when we see something in scripture, to understand fully, we have to do more than apply our singular intellect.

I don't believe it takes a rocket scientist to understand what John 8:40 is telling us concerning WHAT Jesus is and what John 17:3 is telling us concerning the IDENTITY of the ONLY true God. One does not have to be a rocket scientist to understand what the word "ONLY" means, NEITHER does one have to be a rocket scientist to understand that when Jesus said, "YOU" he was referring to the Father (John 17:1) and nobody else..

That said, I do not disagree with you that Jesus was a physical man. But more importantly, Jesus was and is also a soul and a spirit, just as we are. What is more important about his soul and spirit is that they were born again in his flesh. The physical flesh then being fully saved, liberated, aware of his soul and spirit and their unity with the Father, making Jesus a perfected temple or vehicle for Christ.

You make it sound as if Jesus and Christ are NOT one and the same. That Jesus is a perfected temple or vehicle for Christ is FALSE. Christ is the name that God GAVE Jesus (Phil. 2:9). God MADE Jesus both Lord and Christ (Acts 2:36). That's why Jesus is called Jesus Christ, Christ Jesus or simply Christ.

We have to understand that God cannot appear directly in the physical world, for God has no physical form, or form that we would recognize or be able to perceive. God can only appear in and through perfected vehicles. With Moses, God appeared as a burning bush. And for us, God appeared as Jesus.

God performed miracles through Moses to manifest Himself. In the same manner, God performed miracles, signs and wonders through the MAN Jesus (Acts 2:22).

But God did NOT appear for us as Jesus.

When Jesus was baptized, a voice from heaven said, "This is my beloved son in whom I am well pleased" (Matt. 3:17). God the Father was in heaven while Jesus was on earth.

Therefore, your statement that "God appeared for us as Jesus" is FALSE.

Again, I agree. Imu Jesus was not God. Jesus was flesh born of flesh, with a soul and spirit that was united as One with the Father, in and through Christ (the hows being the mystery of which Paul speaks.)

Jesus thus became the Body of Christ, a form in and through which Christ was able to appear in this world.

You are correct in saying that Jesus is NOT God. However, as I said earlier, Jesus and Christ are one and the same. Thus, your statement that Jesus was united with the Father in and through Christ is FALSE.

And your statement that Jesus BECAME the Body of Christ is also FALSE. The TRUTH is, Christ (Jesus) is the HEAD of the BODY, the church (Col. 1:18). The Body is the Church (Eph. 1:21-22). All members of the Church of Corinth (1 Cor. 1:2) and those in Rome (Rom. 1:7) are the "body of Christ and members individually" (1 Cor. 12:27; Rom. 12:4-5).

To understand how, imo, both you and apostoli are correct, we have to first understand how man exists in three parts: body-soul-spirit. Jesus was one with the Father at the spirit level - there being no differentiation between his spirit or consciousness at that level, and the Father's. Jesus, spiritually, was thus God.

But this spirit was clothed in flesh, which was not God, but as we are taught again and again, being a temple or vehicle for God.

It is the same with the burning bush and Moses. The burning bush declared I am God. But we know that the burning bush itself was not God, it was just a vehicle through which God manifested in this world - the Spirit of God uniting with the Spirit of the bush at a high level.

In other words, the bush became a perfected vehicle submitting itself to the Spirit revealing Itself through it.

This is why Jesus spoke of himself and the Father as separate beings. For at the physical level of consciousness, he was merely a vehicle for the Spirit of Christ. But then, again, at a very high spiritual level of consciousness, he and Christ were one and the same. Jesus, as a fully liberated soul, able to move between consciousness, saying I am separate from God, yet I am the same.

I don't see how the above makes both apostoli and I correct. In fact, what you are saying is FALSE because it is NOT supported by the Bible, which Jesus said is the TRUTH (John 17:17).

I have no problem with calling Moses, "LIKE a God" to the Egyptians. And I would have no problem with you calling Jesus, "LIKE a God" as well.

Yes, Moses was a vehicle for God, just as Jesus was. Although Jesus was a perfected vehicle, and Moses obviously was not. He had a lesser spirit or anointing working through him. (Remember Elisha asking for double the anointing that Elijah had?)

Ir does not matter whether Jesus was a perfected vehicle and Moses was not. Both Moses and Jesus being "like God" are NOT actually God.

However, I take issue with anyone who calls or considers Jesus "God" BECAUSE God says, there is NO OTHER God beside Him (Isaiah 45:6; 46:9) and Jesus himself says that the Father is the ONLY true God. Thus, to make Jesus "God" makes Jesus, the SON of God a FALSE God.

I understand why you are troubled by this, for indeed saying that Jesus is God - period, does not coincide with all of scripture.

I'm glad you agree that saying Jesus is God does not coincide with all scripture.

Doing so makes Jesus look like some sort of idiot in talking of and to himself as though he were not himself? It would be like me talking about Viv as though she and I were separate beings. If I did that, I would certainly be locked up.

And a key here in that the Jews did not consider Jesus crazy for talking this way, but blaspemous, for they understood fully the separate from God, yet united with God concept fully.

How does the "separate from God, yet united with God concept" make Jesus "blasphemous" instead of crazy for saying that he is a man and the Father is the ONLY true God, "as though he were not himself?"

This is the danger of calling Jesus "God." It allows the mind to wander BEYOND what is written in the Holy Bible resulting in CIRCULAR reasoning that TWISTS the TRUTH to make Jesus BECOME the "word embodied in flesh."

Anytime we limit our understanding to the literal, there is great danger! Jesus called us to look at Spirit and Truth, which the literal points to, but is much much greater than the literal iteself.

Anytime we look to the literal in scripture, we are going to have to twist words to get them to fit together. Because, simply put, the literal of the Bible contains inconsistancies and contradictions! Human language is imperfect in describing the things of God. It is limited - linear, one dimensional, etc - which God is not. See, the problem with the looking at the literal of scripture alone for our understanding of God, is that God then has to be defined in the limited image of man.

I don't believe that anytime we look to the literal in scripture, we are going to twist words to get them to fit together. In fact, it is when we read BEYOND what is written that we TWIST God's words to make them fit our pre-conceived beliefs.

I am not saying that everything in the scripture is to be taken literally. However, in the case of John 8:40 where Jesus said he is a man, and John 17:3 where Jesus IDENTIFIED the Father as the ONLY true God, I don't see any other way, except LITERALLY, that we could understand what these verses are telling us.

How one can INSIST that Jesus is God despite his LITERALLY saying to the Father (John 17:1), "that they may know YOU, the ONLY true God..." is beyond rational thinking.

The Bible tells us that the "word BECAME (not embodied in)" flesh. When the "word" BECAME flesh, the "word" DISAPPEARED like an egg that disappears AFTER it BECOMES a chick or sperm that disappears AFTER it BECOMES a human being.

The word became flesh, just like our souls become flesh. Where does your soul end and your flesh begin? This is something that we indeed do learn in the spiritual journey. (see Romans 7)

And imu the Word did not disappear, any more than your soul and spirit disappear when you became flesh.

Where did you get the idea that "our souls BECOME flesh?" Your idea is FALSE!

God FORMS us humans in the womb of our mothers (Isaiah 44:2; 44:24; 49:5) through the union of our father's sperm and our mother's egg. Then God breaths the breath of life into our nostrils and we become a living soul (Gen. 2:7).

God's "word" or "logos" BECAME "flesh" when God FORMED Jesus in the womb of Mary through the power of the Holy Spirit. The "word" or "logos" was fully FULFILLED (disappeared) when Jesus was born.

This is one issue that Trinitarians FAIL to recognize. Thus, when Jesus said "I and the Father are one," Jesus was NOT telling us that he is a part of the so-called Trinity. Jesus was simply telling us that he and the Father are ONE in caring for the sheep or ONE in judgment, or ONE in spirit just as he prayed that his DISCIPLES may be ONE in spirit, ONE in judgment, or ONE in caring for one another.

Such an idea comes from a literal interpretaion, yes?

I said earlier that I am not saying that everything is to be taken literally. In the case of John 10:30 where Jesus said, "I and the Father are ONE," or in John 17:14 where Jesus prayed that his disciples may be ONE just as he and the Father are ONE, the word "ONE" could be taken LITERALLY to mean "one and the same" or figuratively to mean "united" or one in something or everything as in spirit, mind, judgment, caring, or "one in the body of Christ."

We know for a fact that Jesus and the Father CANNOT be "one and the same." That rules out the LITERAL meaning of "ONE." Therefore, the ONLY way to take the word "ONE" is to take it figuratively to mean "united" in something.

As said above, being united with the Father is, imu, referring to the spirit - Jesus being fully aware of his consciousness or spirit-unity with the Father - knowing a place within himself where he and the Father are one and the same.

His flesh or outer body being a temple for this God-united spirit.

Jesus and the Father will NEVER be "one and the same."

As I stated in the preceeding paragraphs, Jesus and Christ are one and the same. Christ is the name that God gave Jesus (Phil. 2:9; Acts 2:36). That's the reason why Jesus is called Jesus Christ, Christ Jesus or simply Christ.

The ONLY way whereby anyone can be ONE with God is to OBEY all the commands of God or DO His will. Jesus is ONE with the Father because he OBEYED all the commands of God. And that's how his disciples can be ONE with the Father and with him. They all OBEY God's and Christ's commands.