Believing Thomas

[barley]

It seems you are ignorant of the verb and noun forms of the 6 greek words translated judge.

Is that it? No scripture?

No answers to my questions?

[dale]

Indeed the Jews misunderstood Jesus when they said "you make yourself God", just as you misunderstand Jesus when he says he is the Son of God. Jesus cites Ps 82:6, where scripture calls the unrighteous rulers/judges of earth gods.


If you will read Psalm 82 more carefully, you would see that it is instructional. See verses 2-5. God makes it clear that they have missed the mark, and reminds them of what that mark is. Then God repeats in verse 6, their title from verse 1, in that He calls them gods. He reminds them that although they are gods, they are human and will die...So do your job according to My standards, My Word. Yes, they were unrighteous in those categories where God points out their errors, but God also gives them the instruction on how to correct their error. God did not give up on them.

Ps 82 is somewhat prophetic, notice vs1 "God...judgeth among the gods, then the criticism of these "gods" "


I will let this slide until you learn what I have given you above. When you see that this Psalm is instructional then it may not be necessary to correct your other thinking.

and the finale at vs8 "Arise, O God, judge the earth: for thou shalt inherit all nations

Who is God telling to arise and judge the earth? Is He telling Himself? Is He telling another God? Is He telling another god? Is He referring tto the meek which shall inherit the earth?

Once again I ask you: Who is it that the NT says is our judge,

Let's look some up. Are you ready? Are you sitting down? Do you have your cup of coffee?

Luke 12:14 Jesus Christ is not the judge here.

Matthew 12:27 and Luke 11:19 if you fit in the category given in the context, then your sons will judge you.

In Acts 10:42 we learn that God has ordained Jesus Christ to be the judge of the quick and the dead. This of course is the same Jesus Christ referred to in Acts 10:38 who God anointed with holy ghost and with power. God had to anoint him with holy spirit and with power because he did not have it for a long time. When did this anointing occur? At his baptism by John.
Until this anointing Jesus Christ did not have holy spirit or power, that is why God had to anoint him with it.

In II Timothy 4:8 Jesus Christ is the righteous judge. How? See John 5:30

In Hebrews 12:23 we learn that God is the judge of all. Jesus Christ was appointed to judge a few things, as we see above, but God is the judge of all. See John 5:30.

In I Corinthians 2:15, we learn that people who are spiritual judges all things. Wait a minute, Hebrews says God is the judge of all. but here we see that spiritual people judge all things.
How do you explain that?

I Corinthians 4:3 It says here that it is a little thing if I am judged of you. The lord is my judge.

I Corinthians 14:24 when prophecy is given in the church, then the unlearned is judged by all. Do you have people who manifest prophecy in your congregation?

I Corinthians 6:5 teaches that there is supposed to be believers mature enough to be able to judge between the brethren... I have many friends that can fill those requirements.

I Corinthians 11:31 exhorts us to judge ourselves. don't you think that the written word is the standard by which we should judge ourselves?

I Corinthians 14:29 prophets are to judge what other prophets speak forth by revelation. that is really cool. They help each other stay clear and sharp on scripture so that they can help others stay clear and sharp on scripture.

Why did Jesus Christ teach in the gospels to "judge not lest ye be judged"? It is very plain and clear that in the epistles we are required to judge. Was there some event or series of events between JC teaching that and the giving of the epistles?

there is a lot more scripture that could be searched out. I didn't go through half of them.

Who do you say that is our judge?

Or as the scriptures teach there are many who are qualified to judge?

Is that enough scripture for you? You had no idea. or you ignored it all, or you really don't care.


and who does the NT say will inherit all things?

May be you can do yourself the favor of grabbing a concordance and looking it up for yourself. I am sure that it would be very instructional for you to do so.

"For the Father judges no one, but has committed all judgement to the Son." (John 8:22) Therefore, the God who is the ultimate Judge, is Jesus. His Father will not be the one who will do the final judging, but Jesus will.

Your misuse of Psalms 82:1, 6 violates the clear monotheism of Scripture:

"I am the Lord, and there is no other; there is no God beside me." (Isaiah 45:5) This is a clear statement that there are no other gods beside him. You are misinterpreting Psalms 82 to mean that there are other gods, which would make Yahweh a liar. In fact, he also says there is no other Lord! Scripture teaches that just as there is only one God, there is only one Lord, and that one Lord, that one Lord who says there is no other Lord beside him, is Jesus. (1 Corinhians 8:6) When anti-trinitarians use this verse to point out that the Father alone is God and no one else, I always counter that this same verse says that only Jesus Christ is Lord. So if the Father and him alone is ultimately God; then Jesus and Jesus alone is ultimately Lord. Unless you are a trinitarian, you end up with two ultimate Lords, the Father and the Son. But as a trinitarian, we know that both the Son can claim that he alone is Lord because is not another Lord separate from the Father. He is the one Lord just as much as the Father is. In fact, he is the only Saviour. (Acts 4:12) If the trinity were not true, Acts 4:12 would exclude the Father from being Saviour, just as 1 Corinthians 8:6 would exclude him from being Lord.

Do you admit there is only one true God? If so, are the other gods false? I'd like to know if you consider Jesus a true God or a false god.

[apostoli]

It seems you are ignorant of the verb and noun forms of the 6 greek words translated judge.

Is that it? No scripture? No answers to my questions?

Barley, it is obvious you have no interest in scripture, but have great affection for your own whimsical ramblings.

There are numerous posts of mine, in numerous threads, where I cite scripture, all of which you seem to have avoided - I'm still awaiting your replies...

But assuming you are too busy doing your father's work (Jn 8:44), just answer me one question: A.Paul at Col 2:9 says of Jesus that he is theotes=the state of being God. In your opinion how is this so?

As I've noted in several posts this in direct contrast to 2 Pe 1:4, where Peter says we will have koinōnos theios physis (fellowship in the divine nature). And is unrelated to Eph 3:19 whereby we through the love of Christ are filled with plērōma theos (ie: mercies and loving kindness). The apostle John makes plain that "Beloved, now we are children of God; and it has not yet been revealed what we shall be..." (1 Jn 3:2) so it is plain that we do not achieve theotes but A.Paul makes plain that Jesus is theotes.

[Sparko]

I know. Since God is spirit and God is invisible. It would certainly be within God''s right to have a son that is also spirit and invisible. However, God's love to man was the deciding factor to have a son that is human. Would I want a son that is a chimp? No. Neither would you. God, out of His love for us, had a perfect human son, that would redeem mankind. Philippians 2:5-11, especially verses 6-8 speak loudly of this.

And then not only so, but God gave humankind the opportunity to become sons of God. I John 3:1-2.

John 3:16, God so loved the world.

And John also says that Jesus is the Word, who is God and who created all things, and existed before the incarnation.



John 1
1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2He was with God in the beginning. 3Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4In him was life, and that life was the light of men. 5The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood[a] it.


10He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. 11He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. 12Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God— 13children born not of natural descent,[c] nor of human decision or a husband's will, but born of God.
14The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us.

[barley]

And John also says that Jesus is the Word, who is God and who created all things, and existed before the incarnation.



John 1
1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2He was with God in the beginning. 3Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4In him was life, and that life was the light of men. 5The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood[a] it.


10He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. 11He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. 12Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God— 13children born not of natural descent,[c] nor of human decision or a husband's will, but born of God.
14The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us.

Grace and peace to you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

Thank you listing John 1:1-14 for my benefit.

One key word in understanding John 1:1 is the word with.

Pros in the Greek, it is used in Mark 9:19. "O faithless generation, how long shall I be with you?" Being with is not any indication that their are similarities in character or substance. Was Jesus Christ one of the faithless generation? No, he is the only one who truly always believed in his generation. Jesus Christ had no resemblance at all to that faithlessness.

Likewise, in John 1:1, the word was with God, what word was with God? Whatever word was with God, does not of necessity have to be God, but was with Him.

Is your Bible the word of God? Was it with God in the beginning? Your Bible was not, however, everything it would contain was with God in His foreknowledge, it had not yet become flesh, ie, evident to the senses.

Likewise, Jesus Christ. He was with God, but not God, not in living existence, but in the foreknowledge of God. God knew man would need a redeemer before man knew he would need a redeemer. God knew man would need a redeemer before Genesis 1:1. How do I know this? Either God is all knowing and has foreknowledge, or He doesn't.

God knew man would need a redeemer, so He planned ahead. He planned to have a perfect son even as Adam was perfect. He planned out the heavens and the earth and the scriptures that Jesus Christ would need to have all the knowledge, wisdom and understanding to accomplish what had been impossible before. A perfect life before God. God planned it all out for the benefit of mankind, knowing that Jesus Christ would successfully redeem man. He gave JC every possible legally available advantage so that JC would be successful. God created the worlds by Jesus Christ.

Yet, when it came down to the nuts and bolts, it was by the choice of Jesus Christ and his choice alone that He fulfilled the legal requirements to be the redeemer of all mankind.

God made it possible, Jesus Christ did the works.

What a man!

[barley]

Barley, it is obvious you have no interest in scripture, but have great affection for your own whimsical ramblings.

There are numerous posts of mine, in numerous threads, where I cite scripture, all of which you seem to have avoided - I'm still awaiting your replies...

But assuming you are too busy doing your father's work (Jn 8:44), just answer me one question: A.Paul at Col 2:9 says of Jesus that he is theotes=the state of being God. In your opinion how is this so?

As I've noted in several posts this in direct contrast to 2 Pe 1:4, where Peter says we will have koinōnos theios physis (fellowship in the divine nature). And is unrelated to Eph 3:19 whereby we through the love of Christ are filled with plērōma theos (ie: mercies and loving kindness). The apostle John makes plain that "Beloved, now we are children of God; and it has not yet been revealed what we shall be..." (1 Jn 3:2) so it is plain that we do not achieve theotes but A.Paul makes plain that Jesus is theotes.

Barley, it is obvious you have no interest in scripture, but have great affection for your own whimsical ramblings.

Really? You have free will, it is your right to exercise it. You certainly may have opinions.

There are numerous posts of mine, in numerous threads, where I cite scripture, all of which you seem to have avoided - I'm still awaiting your replies...

I am glad you cite scripture, I may seem to have avoided, but I have not. Please give the name of the thread and the post number that you wish for me to reply to. I will do my best to get to it. However, I do want to respect the rules of this website. I do not wish to double post or post where I am not welcome, not even accidentally. I enjoy sharing scripture with those who are hungry and thirsting after righteousness.

But assuming you are too busy doing your father's work (Jn 8:44)

Wow, I must really be getting to you. I suppose I should reply with John 8:45-47. However, since I believe that you are a Christian, I will not.
I do not believe that you have ever doubted the doctrine of the trinity. I learned to doubt the trinity when my older brother told me that, "No man can be God" many, many years ago. Why not? If one man could claim to be God, then any man could claim to be God. God is spirit. John 4:24. God is spirit, he communicates to us in terms that humans understand. We can understand Jesus Christ because he is the prime example of a man living by obedience to God's logos, His written word. He lived so truly to the written logos of God that he exemplified the written word of God in every jot and tittle that applied to him. God is not man, God is spirit.

just answer me one question: A.Paul at Col 2:9 says of Jesus that he is theotes=the state of being God. In your opinion how is this so?


My opinion is irrelevant. My interpretation of the words of God are of no value. What I am interested in is what God intended for us to know. I am not interested in your opinion or mine, at least when it comes to understanding scripture.

What does the KJV version say? "For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the God head bodily."

I am not that good at Greek, but I can read English. In him, JC, dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead. does that say that JC is God? no. It does not.
The word for dwell here is the word, katoikeo according to Young's C.. Let us look at Matthew 2:23, where that word is used. It informs us that Joseph went to Nazareth to dwell with Mary his wife and with JC. May I ask? Is God dwelling in JC make JC God? Does Joseph and Mary and Jesus Christ dwelling in Nazareth make Nazareth Joseph, Mary and Jesus? I think not. Right? How stupid of a question is that? Did God dwell in the temple that Solomon built? God is everywhere? He seems to think so. How is God, who inhabits all eternity, going to fit into a temple? He is not. Heaven is His throne and earth is his footstool. Jesus Christ is not that big. When you see Mary after the resurrection of the just, ask her if there was room for someone who has heaven for a throne and the earth for a footstool in her womb. I trust you can figure that one out for yourself. God certainly focused his heart, love, intensity in the life of Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ was willing and able to do all the will of God concerning his life. God dwelt there, He did not just come around to check on him once in a while. God did not visit there, he lived there. The entire plan of God for the redemption of mankind rested on the obedience of one man, the man Jesus Christ. God was going to make sure that Jesus Christ had everything he needed to complete his mission. with the result that we are complete in him. Colossians 2:10.

As I've noted in several posts this in direct contrast to 2 Pe 1:4, where Peter says we will have koinōnos theios physis (fellowship in the divine nature).

we share in the divine nature. We have divine nature when we got born again, ie, born from above, that is how we share in the divine nature. John 7:39, I have, with all believers, received the spirit because we have believed on him... You have believed on him, haven't you? Then you have divine nature. God is spirit. You have received spirit. That is divine nature. What an incredible gift we have received from God!

And is unrelated to Eph 3:19 whereby we through the love of Christ are filled with plērōma theos (ie: mercies and loving kindness).

Surely, it has to be related somehow to the our divine nature. God knows what He is talking about. It is God's will that we likewise be filled with all the fulness of God. God is not rejecting us, He loves us so much that He filled us with His divine nature, so that we, like Jesus Christ could have and live out the fulness of God in our lives. What a God! What a heavenly Father!

The apostle John makes plain that "Beloved, now we are children of God; and it has not yet been revealed what we shall be..." (1 Jn 3:2) so it is plain that we do not achieve theotes but A.Paul makes plain that Jesus is theotes.

Has anyone of us so walked with God that we did not need a saviour? Do we have the same vision of ourselves that God has for us? Ephesians 2:5-6 God says we are seated in the heavenlies alongside Jesus Christ. Do you or I have that vision of ourselves at all times? From that vantage point, earthly troubles seem rather small, wouldn't you say? Being seated in the heavenlies, (spiritually, not physically) gives us ready access to God. Jesus Christ was not kidding when he said that he is the way, the truth and the life. He made available to us this ready and immediate access to God, See Ephesians 3:12. We can are expected to go to the throne of God boldly, because we are sons of God. See Hebrews 4:16 and I John 3:1-2. Can we really expect with our crude minds to see ourselves as God sees us at all times? No, it will take the return of Christ when we receive our new bodies, that we will know even as we are known... What a God! What a redeemer we have in Christ Jesus!

Have a wonderful day!

[barley]

And John also says that Jesus is the Word, who is God and who created all things, and existed before the incarnation.



John 1
1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2He was with God in the beginning. 3Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4In him was life, and that life was the light of men. 5The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood[a] it.


10He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. 11He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. 12Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God— 13children born not of natural descent,[c] nor of human decision or a husband's will, but born of God.
14The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us.

You might want to read John 1:1 more closely, it does not say the the word is God, it say that the word was God. Who or more accurately, whatever the word is was with God, ie, separate from, yet with. Truth certainly could fit that description. God is truth. The truth of God was with God. God lighted the life of men with his truth, God gave truth to mankind. The truth that God is was with God, since He had no one to give it to. With the beginning of mankind, God could now give his truth to others. The truth was made evident in the material world most evidently in the form of scripture, and also in the form of the son of God, Jesus Christ.

[apostoli]

Oh barley,

You might want to read John 1:1 more closely, it does not say the the word is God, it say that the word was God.

Actually it doesn't - as any Kione Greek grammarian will readily demonstrate to you. You really should study John 1:1 with some substantial facts rather than rely on your imagination. To assist you be aware that A.John wrote "theos ēn o logos", ēn" often rendered in English as "was" is not past tense, but the imperfect of "eimi" = to exist (ie: A.John's terminology is saying the Logos was and continues to be qualitatively theos).

FYI.

Phillip B. Harner's in his study on "Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns: Mark 15:39 and John 1:1." (Journal of Biblical Literature, 1973, v92, p. 75-87) demonstrates what A.John could have said as opposed to what he did say...Harner stresses that when considering whether a pre-verbal predicate noun is definite, indefinite, or qualitative, it is important to consider how the writer might have expressed his intentions using another, and possibly less ambiguous syntax. Thus, with John 1:1c, Harner notes the following possibilities:

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


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

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

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

Clauses B and C, with an anarthrous predicate preceding the verb, are primarily qualitative in meaning. They indicate that the logos has the nature of theos. There is no basis for regarding the predicate theos as definite - to do so would make B and C equivalent to A, and like A they would then contradict the preceding clause [John 1:1b].

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

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

Who or more accurately, whatever the word is was with God, ie, separate from, yet with. Truth certainly could fit that description. God is truth.

If so, then you would require A.John to have written "o theos ēn o logos", which he didn't, but if he had you would have interchangable propositions. eg: Truth is God.

The truth of God was with God.

According to Proverbs 8, Sophia (Wisdom) was with God before anything was made.

God lighted the life of men with his truth,

According to John 1:9-12 the light was an individual who was in the world of whom John the Baptist did bear witness (vs7) "That was the true Light which gives light to every man coming into the world. He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him. He came to His own, and His own did not receive Him. But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name" Particularly note the last verse where the instruction is not for belief in God, but belief in the name of the one who was in the world and people received.

Peace

[barley]

Oh barley,



Actually it doesn't - as any Kione Greek grammarian will readily demonstrate to you. You really should study John 1:1 with some substantial facts rather than rely on your imagination. To assist you be aware that A.John wrote "theos ēn o logos", ēn" often rendered in English as "was" is not past tense, but the imperfect of "eimi" = to exist (ie: A.John's terminology is saying the Logos was and continues to be qualitatively theos).

FYI.

Phillip B. Harner's in his study on "Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns: Mark 15:39 and John 1:1." (Journal of Biblical Literature, 1973, v92, p. 75-87) demonstrates what A.John could have said as opposed to what he did say...Harner stresses that when considering whether a pre-verbal predicate noun is definite, indefinite, or qualitative, it is important to consider how the writer might have expressed his intentions using another, and possibly less ambiguous syntax. Thus, with John 1:1c, Harner notes the following possibilities:

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


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

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

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

Clauses B and C, with an anarthrous predicate preceding the verb, are primarily qualitative in meaning. They indicate that the logos has the nature of theos. There is no basis for regarding the predicate theos as definite - to do so would make B and C equivalent to A, and like A they would then contradict the preceding clause [John 1:1b].

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

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

If so, then you would require A.John to have written "o theos ēn o logos", which he didn't, but if he had you would have interchangable propositions. eg: Truth is God.

According to Proverbs 8, Sophia (Wisdom) was with God before anything was made.

According to John 1:9-12 the light was an individual who was in the world of whom John the Baptist did bear witness (vs7) "That was the true Light which gives light to every man coming into the world. He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him. He came to His own, and His own did not receive Him. But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name" Particularly note the last verse where the instruction is not for belief in God, but belief in the name of the one who was in the world and people received.

Peace

Well, you better tell all that to the KJV people, the Amplified Bible people, the NAS people and the NIV people.

[OneSizeFit]

When I was fighting against the trinity it came to a point that I finally realized if Jesus was not God he was either 1. A blasphemer, 2. Some sort of New Ager/ Buddhist, or 3. legally insane/bi-polar.

Honestly, if Jesus is not God what is the point of incorporating him into your religion, just buy a Deepak Chopra book and call it a day.

Even the first heretics more or less agreed he embodied deity in one way or another.

[apostoli]

Well, you better tell all that to the KJV people, the Amplified Bible people, the NAS people and the NIV people.

They already know, pity you don't!

To have the qualities & attributes of God is to be as God! John 12:45, 14:9; Heb 1:2-3; Phil 2:6; Col 1:11-17, 2:9; 1 Tim 3:16

Jesus is the very Son of God, whom the Father sent for our salvation! Not some hybrid that the pagans imagined and you imagine (your proposal that God caused the Son using his (God's) sperm)...

[barley]

They already know, pity you don't!

To have the qualities & attributes of God is to be as God! John 12:45, 14:9; Heb 1:2-3; Phil 2:6; Col 1:11-17, 2:9; 1 Tim 3:16

Jesus is the very Son of God, whom the Father sent for our salvation! Not some hybrid that the pagans imagined and you imagine (your proposal that God caused the Son using his (God's) sperm)...

I glad you pointed that out. The word is God. God's word is God! God's Word is theopneustos, God breathed. When we live up to the standard's of the God-breathed word. What do people see?
Do they truth in living color? Do they see the God-breathed word becoming flesh? Yes, indeed, they do. They get the opportunity to see a sermon, not just hear one. When people believe the black on white words of the written word, they are fleshed out, the word becomes flesh, something they can see in living color, not just read in black and white.

The word, logos, is used over 200 times in the NT. Except in John 1, it is always used in its basic definition, a message, a communication, the ideas or thoughts behind the actual words used. Why in John 1 only do people force it to be a who, instead of a what?

Regarding your post of Harner's work, "The Word had the same nature as God". He is absolutely correct. The truth of God, the message of the written logos, has the same nature as God. To the degree and proportion that we, as believers, live according to the standards of the written logos we show the Father. We also put on and demonstrate the nature of God. God is love, we love, people see God, or more technically, the nature of God. Jesus Christ fully demonstrated all the nature of God that he had access to. How much access do we have to the nature, the truth of God? All of the written logos and everything it says we have access to. Ie, the scripture is not the throne of God, but the scripture says we are to go boldly to the throne of grace, that we might obtain mercy and find grace to help in time of need. Hebrews 4:16. The written logos tells us to do that. How do we go boldly to the throne of grace, we go boldly to the written logos, and we go boldly to God in prayer. We have boldness and access to God because of the works of JC.

Likewise, the NEB says, "what God was the Word was". Does Harner agree with that translation? Do you? Obviously you don't. Shouldn't it have said, what God is the Word is? If Harner has no problem with it, some one should tell Harner to get that right, is he alive ? You could tell him, just like you told me. "They already know, pity you don't!"


To have the qualities & attributes of God is to be as God! John 12:45, 14:9; Heb 1:2-3; Phil 2:6; Col 1:11-17, 2:9; 1 Tim 3:16

You are catching on! We are to have the qualities and attributes God. We go to the written logos and from what we learn we endeavor to change our thinking, our habits or lifestyles to line up with the wriiten word, just like JC did. See Luke 2:40. Jesus Christ grew, we should take his example. We are to imitate God, Ephesians 5:1. Does that mean we are to create another heavens and earth? Obviously not, however we can be loving, merciful, full of grace and truth, Jesus Christ did it, so can we. Moses was certainly as God, God told him to be as God to Pharoah! When the prophets of old, said" thus saith the Lord." Were they saying that they were the Lord God?
Or were they simply and boldly with all conviction relaying what God had told them to say? That sounds a lot like what Jesus Christ claimed to be doing. Was he right or was he wrong. God told Jesus Christ what he should say and what he should do, just like God told the prophets of old. Jesus Christ did it all, he did it perfectly. He perfectly communicated God's will to us. at least to those who have ears to hear and eyes to see.

Jesus is the very Son of God, whom the Father sent for our salvation!

Indeed he is!


Not some hybrid that the pagans imagined and you imagine (your proposal that God caused the Son using his (God's) sperm)..

You will need to read my post more carefully next time. I do not and did not suggest that he is a hybrid. Genesis 1, everything after its kind makes that clear. Jesus is human because of Mary's contribution. How do you suggest that she got pregnant? How could Jesus Christ lay claim to the throne of David if Mary was only a surrogate? Which is what she would have to be if Mary's genetics were not half of JC's genetics. Where did the other half of JC's genetics come from? Of course they came from God?. But how? God is spirit. John 4:24. Does God have sperm? No Was there a heavens and earth before God created them? No. God created the heavens and the earth, how would you suggest that the egg in Mary's womb was impregnated? And with what was it impregnated with?

Take your time to think about the scripture. Not tradition.

You need not be afraid of the truth. Truth will set you free. We are humans who want ot live lives that glorify God. We have like passions as all men do. James 5:17. The godly ones we keep, the ungodly ones we discard.

Please forgive my impatience with you at times. What I have learned decades ago and had plenty of time to think about, I am dumping on you kind of cold turkey.

I rarely get replies to the many questions that I ask. Most of the questions that I ask in my posts are not rhetorical. I expect answers. I choose not to be demanding of answers from you for a variety of reasons. One of which is the fact that I despise trinitarian doctrine, not people who seek to love and please God. You will need to answer these questions in your heart before God. You do not need to answer them to me.

[barley]

"For the Father judges no one, but has committed all judgement to the Son." (John 8:22) Therefore, the God who is the ultimate Judge, is Jesus. His Father will not be the one who will do the final judging, but Jesus will.

Your misuse of Psalms 82:1, 6 violates the clear monotheism of Scripture:

"I am the Lord, and there is no other; there is no God beside me." (Isaiah 45:5) This is a clear statement that there are no other gods beside him. You are misinterpreting Psalms 82 to mean that there are other gods, which would make Yahweh a liar. In fact, he also says there is no other Lord! Scripture teaches that just as there is only one God, there is only one Lord, and that one Lord, that one Lord who says there is no other Lord beside him, is Jesus. (1 Corinhians 8:6) When anti-trinitarians use this verse to point out that the Father alone is God and no one else, I always counter that this same verse says that only Jesus Christ is Lord. So if the Father and him alone is ultimately God; then Jesus and Jesus alone is ultimately Lord. Unless you are a trinitarian, you end up with two ultimate Lords, the Father and the Son. But as a trinitarian, we know that both the Son can claim that he alone is Lord because is not another Lord separate from the Father. He is the one Lord just as much as the Father is. In fact, he is the only Saviour. (Acts 4:12) If the trinity were not true, Acts 4:12 would exclude the Father from being Saviour, just as 1 Corinthians 8:6 would exclude him from being Lord.

Do you admit there is only one true God? If so, are the other gods false? I'd like to know if you consider Jesus a true God or a false god.

"For the Father judges no one, but has committed all judgement to the Son." (John 8:22) Therefore, the God who is the ultimate Judge, is Jesus. His Father will not be the one who will do the final judging, but Jesus will.

The verse explains itself. Who or what does the Father not judge? people. Why not? all judgement is committed to the son, all judgment pertaining to people.

Did the son have this authority to judge before it was given to him? Nope. Why didn't the son have it before? Wasn't he up to the task? If he is one of three in one in three in one in three in one in three in one in three in one in three, oops, sorry, I was beginning to sound like a trinitarian. If he was one in three why did he not already have that authority, Are not the three equal?

II Corinthians 5:19 says that God was in Christ reconciling the world unto Himself.

Yet now we have the ministry of reconciliation. II Corinthians 5:18. Does that make me equal to God?

Actually, yes!

What God did in Christ, I now have the responsibility to do. Wow! God trusts me with reconciling the world back to God! What an incredible honor, responsibility and privilege!

And God has given us the word of reconciliation to do this ministry of reconciliation with. II Corinthians 5:19.

Do you see a parallel between Jesus Christ having been given all authority to judge man by God, and me having been given the authority of reconciling men back to God, like God was doing in Christ?

I would really like to think so, but I believe if you ask God to help your understanding, you will see the parallel.

Your misuse of Psalms 82:1, 6 violates the clear monotheism of Scripture:


Tell God that, I am simply telling you what God has said and had written down for us.

God judges among the gods. God appointed men to act in His behalf, men like Moses and all the other prophets and God calls them gods. You have a problem with that, take that up with God, not me.

Your tunnel vision is made plain.

[dale]

You might want to read John 1:1 more closely, it does not say the the word is God, it say that the word was God. Who or more accurately, whatever the word is was with God, ie, separate from, yet with. Truth certainly could fit that description. God is truth. The truth of God was with God. God lighted the life of men with his truth, God gave truth to mankind. The truth that God is was with God, since He had no one to give it to. With the beginning of mankind, God could now give his truth to others. The truth was made evident in the material world most evidently in the form of scripture, and also in the form of the son of God, Jesus Christ.

"Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life."(John 14:6) If the truth was God at John 1:1, then it was jesus who was God at John 1:1, because Jesus himself is the truth! So who is the Word that was God at John 1:1? Revelation 19:13 says of Jesus: "And he was clothed in a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God."

[dale]

The verse explains itself. Who or what does the Father not judge? people. Why not? all judgement is committed to the son, all judgment pertaining to people.

Did the son have this authority to judge before it was given to him? Nope. Why didn't the son have it before? Wasn't he up to the task? If he is one of three in one in three in one in three in one in three in one in three in one in three, oops, sorry, I was beginning to sound like a trinitarian. If he was one in three why did he not already have that authority, Are not the three equal?

Members of the trinity are not equal in authority, only in nature. A man’s manager at work has more authority than he does, but they are both men, they have the same nature. So too, even while the Father has authority over the Son, that does not make him less in nature than God – he is the same nature. Philippians 2:6 says that Jesus was “in the form of God.” In this context, “form of a servant” shows his true humanity, while “form of God” shows his true Deity. He was fully man, fully God. Also, Hebrews 1:3 shows the same connection that he was of the same nature as the Father.

We can illustrate this by looking at 1 Corinthians 11:3. Here, the head of woman is the man, just as the head of Christ is God. Now, just because man has authority over woman does that make her less human than her husband? Of course not! She has the same nature as the man even though he has authority over her. So too, the Father may have authority to do things the Son does not, and still both possess the same nature. Levels of authority are irrelevant to one’s nature. So the Son having, or not having certain privileges does not argue against his nature as God.

QUOTE]
II Corinthians 5:19 says that God was in Christ reconciling the world unto Himself.

Yet now we have the ministry of reconciliation. II Corinthians 5:18. Does that make me equal to God? [/QUOTE]

Maybe you were reading these two verses with your eyes closed again. God being in Christ does not prove Jesus is God anymore than God being in us makes us God. I never used 2 Corinthians 5:19 to prove the deity of Christ. This is another example of you arguing against points I never made. Further, verse 18 doesn’t even parallel verse 19; for we have in this verse, not God in us, but rather, a ministry that has been given to us. On top of that, I never argued that reconciling the world is what makes Jesus God. So you are trying to dispute arguments I didn’t make. This is just another one of your sly tactics to avoid dealing with the issue.

Actually, yes!

What God did in Christ, I now have the responsibility to do. Wow! God trusts me with reconciling the world back to God! What an incredible honor, responsibility and privilege!

And God has given us the word of reconciliation to do this ministry of reconciliation with. II Corinthians 5:19.

Do you see a parallel between Jesus Christ having been given all authority to judge man by God, and me having been given the authority of reconciling men back to God, like God was doing in Christ?

I would really like to think so, but I believe if you ask God to help your understanding, you will see the parallel.

Actually, there is no parallel. Where is the verse that says “the Father reconciles no one at all, but has committed all reconciliation to barley”? I maintain though, that the Bible clearly teaches that (1) God is the judge, and (2) it is not the Father, but the Son who ultimately judges us. Therefore (3) Jesus is ‘God the judge of all” at Hebrew 10:23). Now my argument is based on two premises mentioned above. Which one will you deny? That God is the judge of all? Of that the Father will not judge us since he has committed that duty to the Son?

Tell God that, I am simply telling you what God has said and had written down for us.

God judges among the gods. God appointed men to act in His behalf, men like Moses and all the other prophets and God calls them gods. You have a problem with that, take that up with God, not me.

Your tunnel vision is made plain.

Moses was never called God. He was like God, but not god, and not a god. Compare translations and look at the Hebrew. Also, the context of Psalms 82 shows these judges were wicked, and thus, like Satan who is also wicked, they were false gods. No true god would judge with partiality like they did! Jehovah also goes on to show them they are not real gods by saying how they will die like men. These were mere men, not gods.

Do you agree that there is only one true God? If so, all others are false. Even a child can see that.