Is Jesus God or a god?

[jahrule84]

Good day to you Vivian,

You sound like a practicer of Sanatha Dharma, who accept the teachings of Paramhansa Yogananda. Are you, or am I mistaken?

You stated: "The same traits that exist in God's Spirit exists in the Spirit he breathed into us.

That Spirit is omnipotent, omnipresent, eternal, etc.

But as shared, for most all they know of this Spirit is the inner discourse and suffering they experience."

God's spirit is perfect and CANNOT sin. Adam sinned.
It seems strange that an eternal, sinless, omnipotent, omnipresent spirit, inside and in control of the flesh (Adam's body) was unable to control to get it to obey God.

A human body rebelling against a sinless, allpowerful spirit? Is it not the spirit that animates the body? How is it the body becomes independent of the very spirit it needs to live?

As for REMEMBERING, God FORGOT HIMSELF? God does not and cannot forget. If we have the same attributes as God on the spirit level, and yet (as the Bible says, there is only one true God) then what you are teaching is a form of pantheism! That we are all God, that we are merely different manifestations of God; that all the wars in our history are merely physical manifestations of God fighting himself.

I would ask you to consider: "as a spirit, am I equal with God?" If your answer is yes, then you have a deeper issue to deal with than this particular thread covers. If your answer is no, then you, as a spirit, do not possess the same exact attributes as the Almighty!

If God created you, then you are not eternal as God is, and thus do not share this nature. If your spirit was not creatred, then you are claiming to be as eternal as God; that either you are God, or that you always existed with God. That would mean that stemming back into eternity, they were many Gods!

[Vivian]

Good day to you Vivian,

Good day to you jahrule84.

You sound like a practicer of Sanatha Dharma, who accept the teachings of Paramhansa Yogananda. Are you, or am I mistaken?

I have not heard of Sanatha, but I have heard of Paramhansa.

From what I have read, he seems to have done excellent job in reconciling Christianity and Hinduism, showing that the two religions at the root are actually very much the same.

Ha that Christians don't have a monopoly on God or Christ is blasphemy, I know!

You stated: "The same traits that exist in God's Spirit exists in the Spirit he breathed into us.

That Spirit is omnipotent, omnipresent, eternal, etc.

But as shared, for most all they know of this Spirit is the inner discourse and suffering they experience."

God's spirit is perfect and CANNOT sin. Adam sinned.
It seems strange that an eternal, sinless, omnipotent, omnipresent spirit, inside and in control of the flesh (Adam's body) was unable to control to get it to obey God.

Yes, it is. Read Romans 7, where Paul describes this battle inside of him.

And remember Jesus saying the flesh is weak but the Spirit is willing?

A human body rebelling against a sinless, allpowerful spirit? Is it not the spirit that animates the body? How is it the body becomes independent of the very spirit it needs to live?

This is the crux of it all - the spirit being 'dead' inside the personality. This is what we refer to as being 'spiritually dead' - the personality becoming independent of the very spirit it needs to live, hence the personality eventually dies. Yes? Isn't this what salvation or redemption is all about? Getting the body, flesh, personality to be dependent or subject to, or perhaps a temple for, the spirit of God within them? And if we cannot do that, if we cannot make that connection, when the body dies, the personality will die too.

As for REMEMBERING, God FORGOT HIMSELF? God does not and cannot forget. If we have the same attributes as God on the spirit level, and yet (as the Bible says, there is only one true God) then what you are teaching is a form of pantheism! That we are all God, that we are merely different manifestations of God; that all the wars in our history are merely physical manifestations of God fighting himself.

Instead of manifestations of God, the Bible gives the analogy of temples for God - the outer part of us being a temple for the Spirit within. And again the Spirit does not forget, but the process of what is known within coming to life in the outer man is being born again of spirit, Christ being born within, our flesh being made anew by the indwelling Christ.

I would ask you to consider: "as a spirit, am I equal with God?" If your answer is yes, then you have a deeper issue to deal with than this particular thread covers. If your answer is no, then you, as a spirit, do not possess the same exact attributes as the Almighty!

Jesus answered your question...

For I say to you, among those born of women there is not a greater prophet than John the Baptist; but he who is least in the kingdom of God is greater than he.

And...

20 “I do not pray for these alone, but also for those who will believe in Me through their word; 21 that they all may be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You; that they also may be one in Us, that the world may believe that You sent Me. 22 And the glory which You gave Me I have given them, that they may be one just as We are one: 23 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.



The way that creation is put together, not only are we in God, but God is in us.

But that which is in God is greater than that which has God in it. That is why we as temples of God bow down before that which is in Heaven - that which is in God being greater than we.

If God created you, then you are not eternal as God is, and thus do not share this nature. If your spirit was not creatred, then you are claiming to be as eternal as God; that either you are God, or that you always existed with God. That would mean that stemming back into eternity, they were many Gods!

Right, that which is created is not greater or even the same as that which creates. But that which creates put a little of himself in all that he created. There is an eternal piece of me, that according to scripture, will return to God, from which it came, if the personality/flesh is not redeemed, not made one with that which comes from God.

If that which has been created is not One with what is within which comes from God, when it dies, it will not be able to 'see' Christ, to follow the shepherd to eternal life, and the personality will simply sleep, returning to dust, while the Spirit alone returns to God.

If we do not become spiritually alive, united and driven by the Spirit within [one sign of remembering or becoming spiritually awake is being able to see into the spiritual realms, developing ears that hear and eyes that see], we will perish as our Spirit returns to God.

I wish you well, jahrule84 and pray that you and all of humanity remember.

Peace to you and yours,

Viv

[jahrule84]

You say Paramhansa did a good job of reconciling Hinduism with Christianity; what he really did, was reconcile hinduism with his own version of Christianity, be it the right or wrong interpretation of the Bible.

He, for example, does not believe that the serpent was a real person, but rather, some coiled energy in the spine. He also thinks that Adam and Eve were symbolic of the first groups of humans, as opposed to being one literal man, and one literal woman.

Paul tells us that Adam was a man, one man. The Genesis story, as well as the rest of the Bible shows the serpent to be a real living person, the devil; not just some emotions inside us that we battle mentally.

Anyway, I conceed that you have good grounds for believing as you do, and that the way the Scriptures that you cite are worded could easily lead one to the conclusions you have reached; just as certain passages sound like they teach hellfire, and others sound like there is no consciousness at all after death.

Passages all over the Bible are worded in ways that SEEM to lend support to many conflicting beliefs systems. Adventists can find verses in support of the sabbath, others can find some against it; JWs can find verses against blood transfusion and infant baptism, others can find vss for them.

I'm not saying that we cannot know truth, or that the Bible is wrong. I am saying that while I disagree with your interpretation, I see now your basis for beliving in it, and do not wish to try to pursuade you otherwise any longer. I really do not think we will agree on this at all.

But all my best wishes to you, and I pray that if you are wrong, that you will see the light, and that if I am wrong, that I am the one who will.

God knows who have done their best to find him, and he will not forsake them entirely.

Good day.

[fm93]

well, I haven't posted on this thread in some time, so...

IncRus replied to one of my posts several pages back that "anyone who is annoyed at the sayings of Christ will suffer the second death" or something like that.

I did not say I was annoyed at what Jesus said. I said I was annoyed at how you kept replying with those wrong interpretations of what Jesus said.

And Jn 20:28...look, the Greek words (and this is a direct English to Greek transliteration of "My Lord and my God") read "mou kyrios kai mou theos", which translates to "the Lord of me and God of me." Thomas is calling Jesus God. At other places in the Bible, when men try to bow down to angels, they are immediately corrected. Jesus does not do that; instead, He says "Because you have seen me, you believe..." He does not even hint or suggest correction.

About Jn 8:40...Hebrews 2:9 says Jesus was "made a little lower than the angels." Philippians 2:6-11 says that Jesus took the nature of a servant and was found in appearance as a man. In those passages, we see the theme of humility. Thus, Jesus saying He was a man does not negate His deity. Because God the Son took on humanity, He was somewhat limited while on Earth, but still divine. Also, the Son and Holy Spirit are equal to the Father in terms of powers and abilities, but there are different roles of authority. That's why Jesus said He didn't know the date of His return, and why He said the Father told Him to do things. You could technically try to find an alternate interpretation, but basically, Jn 8:40 does not negate Jesus' deity.

As for Jn 17:3...consider this. Jn 1:4, 1:9, 8:12, 12:35-36, to name a few, say that Jesus is light. But in 1 Jn 5:7, it says that God the Father is light. Your logic for the Jn 17:3 verse seems to be that since Jesus says about the Father "...you, the only true God...", it negates the deity of Christ. But in those passages I listed, John is basically saying to Jesus "You are the light", and to the Father "You are the light." Now, Jesus is certainly NOT the Father! At least we can agree on that! So, using your logic, we would have to conclude that Jesus being the light negates the Father being the light. But we know that if that is so, there are some serious problems.

So, Jn 8:40 and 17:3 do not negate the deity of Christ. And also please consider: would it really make sense that

a. To see Jesus is like see the Father (Jn 14:9)
b. To hate Jesus is to hate the Father (Jn 15:23)
c. Our eternal destiny hinges on whether we accept or reject Jesus
d. Jesus' words will never pass away
e. Jesus fixes the separation between man and God
f. Loyalty to Jesus is of utmost importance
g. Angels worship Jesus (Hebrews 1:6- speaking about the Son!)
h. Jesus sets people free
i. Jesus gives people peace
j. Jesus sustains the universe (Hebrews 1:3)
k. Jesus made the universe (Colossians 1:16)
l. God is our Savior (1 Timothy 1:1) and Jesus is our Savior
m. Jesus will always be with the disciples (Matthew 28:19)
n. Whoever places their faith in Jesus has eternal life

if Jesus is NOT God? If you ask me, it would be pretty blasphemous and just plain weird for the above to be true and IncRus' beliefs to be true at the same time.

Finally, I leave you with this: in Acts 4:24, God is called Sovereign Lord. But in Jude 4, Jesus is called Sovereign Lord.

So, please consider. Which seems more likely: that a created being can be omnipresent, omniscient, save others, be associated with titles that belong to God, be worshipped, be given all those priviledges, etc? Or that Jesus receives those things that should belong to God alone because He IS God? I, for one, have no trouble at all assessing those options.

[spitndirt]

well, I haven't posted on this thread in some time, so...

IncRus replied to one of my posts several pages back that "anyone who is annoyed at the sayings of Christ will suffer the second death" or something like that.

I did not say I was annoyed at what Jesus said. I said I was annoyed at how you kept replying with those wrong interpretations of what Jesus said.

And Jn 20:28...look, the Greek words (and this is a direct English to Greek transliteration of "My Lord and my God") read "mou kyrios kai mou theos", which translates to "the Lord of me and God of me." Thomas is calling Jesus God. At other places in the Bible, when men try to bow down to angels, they are immediately corrected. Jesus does not do that; instead, He says "Because you have seen me, you believe..." He does not even hint or suggest correction.

About Jn 8:40...Hebrews 2:9 says Jesus was "made a little lower than the angels." Philippians 2:6-11 says that Jesus took the nature of a servant and was found in appearance as a man. In those passages, we see the theme of humility. Thus, Jesus saying He was a man does not negate His deity. Because God the Son took on humanity, He was somewhat limited while on Earth, but still divine. Also, the Son and Holy Spirit are equal to the Father in terms of powers and abilities, but there are different roles of authority. That's why Jesus said He didn't know the date of His return, and why He said the Father told Him to do things. You could technically try to find an alternate interpretation, but basically, Jn 8:40 does not negate Jesus' deity.

As for Jn 17:3...consider this. Jn 1:4, 1:9, 8:12, 12:35-36, to name a few, say that Jesus is light. But in 1 Jn 5:7, it says that God the Father is light. Your logic for the Jn 17:3 verse seems to be that since Jesus says about the Father "...you, the only true God...", it negates the deity of Christ. But in those passages I listed, John is basically saying to Jesus "You are the light", and to the Father "You are the light." Now, Jesus is certainly NOT the Father! At least we can agree on that! So, using your logic, we would have to conclude that Jesus being the light negates the Father being the light. But we know that if that is so, there are some serious problems.

So, Jn 8:40 and 17:3 do not negate the deity of Christ. And also please consider: would it really make sense that

a. To see Jesus is like see the Father (Jn 14:9)
b. To hate Jesus is to hate the Father (Jn 15:23)
c. Our eternal destiny hinges on whether we accept or reject Jesus
d. Jesus' words will never pass away
e. Jesus fixes the separation between man and God
f. Loyalty to Jesus is of utmost importance
g. Angels worship Jesus (Hebrews 1:6- speaking about the Son!)
h. Jesus sets people free
i. Jesus gives people peace
j. Jesus sustains the universe (Hebrews 1:3)
k. Jesus made the universe (Colossians 1:16)
l. God is our Savior (1 Timothy 1:1) and Jesus is our Savior
m. Jesus will always be with the disciples (Matthew 28:19)
n. Whoever places their faith in Jesus has eternal life

if Jesus is NOT God? If you ask me, it would be pretty blasphemous and just plain weird for the above to be true and IncRus' beliefs to be true at the same time.

Finally, I leave you with this: in Acts 4:24, God is called Sovereign Lord. But in Jude 4, Jesus is called Sovereign Lord.

So, please consider. Which seems more likely: that a created being can be omnipresent, omniscient, save others, be associated with titles that belong to God, be worshipped, be given all those priviledges, etc? Or that Jesus receives those things that should belong to God alone because He IS God? I, for one, have no trouble at all assessing those options.

Jesus was *a man* (begotten not made) in whom the fullness of *God* dwelt bodily. Jesus is Divine by virtue of his literal union with *the Father* - the Son in the Father and the Father in the Son. Jesus is all that you say he is because *the Father* has made it to be so.

None of what you have written proves that *a son* existed in eternity past....or that God existed there as *a Father*. These things belong *exclusively* to in the beginning (and thereafter). The term *in* signifies placement (a "space" for) while the terms *the beginning* signify primarily God and secondarily time. The Father and the Son exist as they exist *in God in time*. True God alone transcends the notions of *space and time*.

This is the view that does NOT go beyond what is actually written.

[fm93]

My reason for that post was to try to show the two verses in John dont' negate Jesus' deity. And if the "Son of God" is indeed divine, wouldn't that automatically mean He existed in eternity past?

Also, I find this very interesting: Jn 7:38-39 says that the Holy Spirit is the "living water." And if you look at Jeremiah 2:13 and Jeremiah 17:13, it says that God is the "living water." Hmm...maybe this implies there's something about the Holy Spirit...like divinity, perhaps?

[IncRus]

well, I haven't posted on this thread in some time, so...

IncRus replied to one of my posts several pages back that "anyone who is annoyed at the sayings of Christ will suffer the second death" or something like that.

I did not say I was annoyed at what Jesus said. I said I was annoyed at how you kept replying with those wrong interpretations of what Jesus said.

How was I wrong in my interpretation of John 8:40 concerning WHAT Jesus is, and John 17:3 concerning WHO the ONLY true God is? John 8:40 and John 17:3 mean EXACTLY what they say, don't they?

And Jn 20:28...look, the Greek words (and this is a direct English to Greek transliteration of "My Lord and my God") read "mou kyrios kai mou theos", which translates to "the Lord of me and God of me." Thomas is calling Jesus God. At other places in the Bible, when men try to bow down to angels, they are immediately corrected. Jesus does not do that; instead, He says "Because you have seen me, you believe..." He does not even hint or suggest correction.

First, Thomas is a disciple of Jesus. Hence, anything he says CANNOT override what Jesus says. If Jesus says he is a MAN, Thomas MUST NOT say he is God. If Jesus says the Father is the ONLY true God, Thomas MUST NOT say Jesus is ALSO God. If Thomas does that, he is DISOBEYING Jesus, plain and simple and MUST NOT be emulated or believed.

Second, whether Jesus corrected those who worship him or not does NOT matter. NOT correcting them does NOT invalidate John 8:40 and John 17:3. Unless Jesus himself says he is God or he is ALSO God IN ADDITION to the Father, what he said in John 8:40 and John 17:3 stands. What Jesus said is LAW because whatever Jesus said or spoke is a COMMAND from God (John 12:49).

About Jn 8:40...Hebrews 2:9 says Jesus was "made a little lower than the angels." Philippians 2:6-11 says that Jesus took the nature of a servant and was found in appearance as a man. In those passages, we see the theme of humility. Thus, Jesus saying He was a man does not negate His deity. Because God the Son took on humanity, He was somewhat limited while on Earth, but still divine. Also, the Son and Holy Spirit are equal to the Father in terms of powers and abilities, but there are different roles of authority. That's why Jesus said He didn't know the date of His return, and why He said the Father told Him to do things. You could technically try to find an alternate interpretation, but basically, Jn 8:40 does not negate Jesus' deity.

Hebrews 2:9 and Phil. 2:6-11 are words of Jesus' apostles. And these verses do NOT explicitly tell us that Jesus is God. It's only your INTERPRETATION of these verses that tells us that Jesus is God. On the other hand, John 8:40 is Jesus' own words.

Between your INTERPRETATION of what the apostles meant by what they wrote and Jesus' own words that "he is a MAN" as recorded in John 8:40, John 8:40 is the HIGHER authority. Thus, Jesus is a MAN - not God.

As for Jn 17:3...consider this. Jn 1:4, 1:9, 8:12, 12:35-36, to name a few, say that Jesus is light. But in 1 Jn 5:7, it says that God the Father is light. Your logic for the Jn 17:3 verse seems to be that since Jesus says about the Father "...you, the only true God...", it negates the deity of Christ. But in those passages I listed, John is basically saying to Jesus "You are the light", and to the Father "You are the light." Now, Jesus is certainly NOT the Father! At least we can agree on that! So, using your logic, we would have to conclude that Jesus being the light negates the Father being the light. But we know that if that is so, there are some serious problems.

John 1:4, 1:9. 8:12. 12:35-36 do NOT explicitly tell us that Jesus is God. It's only your CONCLUSION that since Jesus is "light" and God is ALSO "Light," therefore Jesus is ALSO God. On the other hand, John 17:3 is Jesus' own words.

Between your INTERPRETATION of what these verses MEAN and Jesus' own words that "the Father is the ONLY true God," Jesus' own words as recorded in John 17:3, is the HIGHER authority. Thus, there is NO OTHER God but the Father.

So, Jn 8:40 and 17:3 do not negate the deity of Christ.

This is a WRONG conclusion based on your MISINTERPRETATION of Heb. 2:9 and Phil. 2:6-11 and based on an INCORRECT concluion that since the Father is "light" and Jesus is ALSO "light," they must be BOTH God.

As I said, John 8:40 and John 17:3 are words of the SAVIOR himself and these are COMMANDS from God (John 12:49). Anyone who does NOT obey God's WILL (commands) will NOT enter the kingdom of heaven (Matt. 7:21).

And also please consider: would it really make sense that

a. To see Jesus is like see the Father (Jn 14:9)
b. To hate Jesus is to hate the Father (Jn 15:23)
c. Our eternal destiny hinges on whether we accept or reject Jesus
d. Jesus' words will never pass away
e. Jesus fixes the separation between man and God
f. Loyalty to Jesus is of utmost importance
g. Angels worship Jesus (Hebrews 1:6- speaking about the Son!)
h. Jesus sets people free
i. Jesus gives people peace
j. Jesus sustains the universe (Hebrews 1:3)
k. Jesus made the universe (Colossians 1:16)
l. God is our Savior (1 Timothy 1:1) and Jesus is our Savior
m. Jesus will always be with the disciples (Matthew 28:19)
n. Whoever places their faith in Jesus has eternal life

if Jesus is NOT God? If you ask me, it would be pretty blasphemous and just plain weird for the above to be true and IncRus' beliefs to be true at the same time.

Except for Heb. 1:6 which is SPURIOUS because the verses from which this verse was supposed to have been LIFTED (Psalm 102:25-27) do NOT say the same thing, all the others are true. However, your INTERPRETATION of Heb. 1:3 and Col. 1:16, CONTRADICT Old Testament verses which tell us that the Father ALONE created the heavens and the earth and everything in them (Isaiah 44:24; Nerh. 9:6; Jer. 10:10, 12; Isaiah 63:16; Isaiah 64:8; Mal. 2:10).

Finally, I leave you with this: in Acts 4:24, God is called Sovereign Lord. But in Jude 4, Jesus is called Sovereign Lord.

Again, you are jumping to the WRONG conclusion. While it is true that the Jews called God, Lord it is also true that for the first-century Christians, there is ONLY ONE Lord, Jesus Christ (1 Cor. 8:6). However, this does NOT make Jesus ALSO God because as Jesus said in his own words that he is a MAN and the Father is the ONLY true God.

As I said, Jesus' own words is the HIGHER authority.

So, please consider. Which seems more likely: that a created being can be omnipresent, omniscient, save others, be associated with titles that belong to God, be worshipped, be given all those priviledges, etc? Or that Jesus receives those things that should belong to God alone because He IS God? I, for one, have no trouble at all assessing those options.

You have your set of values mixed up.

Jesus is the "supreme Lord over all things to the church which is his body" (Eph. 1:21-22). Jesus is the HEAD of his BODY, the church (Col. 1:18). Every professing Christian MUST SUBMT to him (Eph. 5:22) as the church is SUBJECT to him (Eph. 5:24).

[xcav8tor]

Hi spitndirt,

Sorry for the delay in getting back to you.

Premise: it is always *God/Father* being revealed to men....in the beginning via Logos, now via Jesus, Logos made flesh. This accounts for the difference in the "two" Greek terms.

I agree with you that ULTIMATELY it is God the Father who is being revealed to men, but wouldn't you agree that unless Jesus is revealed to us FIRST, that He cannot reveal the Father to us? (Luke 10:22 NASB / John 10:14 NASB / John 14:9 NASB / John 14:21 NASB) Doesn't the Father ALSO reveal the Son? (Mat. 16:15-17 NASB / Luke 3:22 NASB / Luke 9:35 NASB / John 5:31-37 NASB / 1 John 5:9-10 NASB)

As I cannot accept your premise without qualification, I cannot necessarily accept your conclusions which flow from it.

Thought 1: Logos = God in a state of revelation. This is to say, Logos does not = Logos in a state of revelation. As I stated in my previous post - Logos is a silent medium. In Logos is comprehended *only* the One who "...continues to be...".

Thought 2 (simultaneously running parallel to thought 1): Logos - as a silent medium - is always a direct reference to *a son*. In the beginning "...Son of Dawn..." (or, Son of the Morning / Morning Star), and in the end, Jesus.... the only *begotten* Son of God (Morning Star restored to an intended place).

Conclusion 1: Logos itself = Son ... + flesh = Son of God.

It is my understanding, in accordance with the creeds, that Jesus is eternally-begotten by the Father, and so existed as "Son of God" in eternity past, just as the Father has always been the Father in eternity past. I think I understand the distinction you are suggesting, but cannot agree with the implication that the Father only became the Father when Jesus took upon Himself a human nature "in time."

Conclusion 2 (simultaneously running parallel to conclusion 1): Logos / Logos + flesh always = a direct revelation of *God/Father*....but never a direct revelation of *a son*.

I agree that it is not the Son's focus to reveal Himself, but only the Father. Is that close enough?

Conclusions 1 and 2 fused together and made "one" = The Father (God) is in the Son (Jesus) and the Son is in the Father. These are *one Christ".....or, the man Jesus is "Christ of God" by virtue of the fullness of the Father dwelling bodily *in him*.

In spite of the reasoning you offer, I cannot see the Father and Son being "one Christ" (I am unaware of a single scripture you can offer that calls the Father "Christ") although it can be said that Jesus IS the Christ by virtue of the fullness of DEITY @ (Col. 2:9 NASB) residing in Him, AND that it is a fact that the Father resides within the Son (John 10:38 NASB / John 14:10 NASB).

[ @ Thayer's Lexicon, pg 288 theotetos: deity i.e. the state of being God... Theot, deity differs from Theiot, divinity, as essence differs from quality or attribute. ]

This accounts for Jesus' own testimony in the matter. That he said and did *nothing* on his own.....that he came to reveal the Father *only*....the very One who taught Jesus what to say and how to say it....who also did many miraculous works through him...and who raised him from the dead and appointed him Lord of all the earth.

Yes, the Father IS THE INITIATOR - Jesus did NOTHING INDEPENDENTLY. He could ONLY DO WHAT GOD COULD DO (John 5:17-21 NASB) and ONLY DOES WHAT GOD DOES (For instance, when Jesus participated in RAISING HIMSELF FROM THE DEAD. Note the "I WILL" in John 2:19 NASB / just as He was COMMANDED to John 10:17-18 NASB).

This also accounts for the *ONE* speaker throughout the OT......even when the speaker begins by saying "...let us...". There is never a response from *the other*....right? Not until the speaker's Son (Jesus) comes into the world. Concerning this it is written "...In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways...BUT in these last days He (God) has spoken to us by His son...".

Of course you realize this is an argument... "from silence." Sorry. Couldn't resist.

But excav8tor....God is not known via any language. Jesus reveals the Father....the Father, in turn, reveals the Son... Where has Jesus instructed us to trust in these men? Is it not written "...we are taught of God and need no man to teach us..." (for *the anointing* we have received teaches us all things)? So is it the Greek scholars....or is it the anointing we have received ???

Ultimately you are right. Only through God's spirit can we come to know God in Christ. NEVERTHELESS, it is the written scriptures through which the Holy Spirit speaks to us, informing us about Christ who in turn introduces us to the Father (2 Tim. 3:14-15 NASB). The very fact we are referring back to the scriptures to make our points indicates their value in determining God's POV.

Making personal appearances and speaking audibly to people IS NOT God's TYPICAL method of communication, and I for one am not so confident about what I hear by God's "still, small voice" (1 Kings 19:12) to dogmatically declare "Thus saith the Lord." He has committed His Word to writing via the Hebrew and Greeks scriptures, and the nuances of these languages are not always adequately communicated into other languages. It's not as if the English translations are no good or that they are untrustworthy, but when you get down to the fine details, it doesn't hurt to check lexicons and word studies of the ORIGINAL language. After all, it is the autographs which were directly inspired by God, not the translations.

Do you REALLY feel we are better off ignoring them? I don't see how cutting ourselves off from available and relevant knowledge can aid us in finding the truth. (Prov. 11:14)

I am not saying that we should stake our eternal lives on the words of fallible men, only that what scholars have to say should be taken into account, especially when we are discussing specifics. Like when we go to a doctor, we have to determine for ourselves whether or not we will take certain medications or submit to surgery, but it is in our best interests to avail ourselves of the tests he can run and the expert advice he can provide so we can make an informed decision.

If, however, we apply the term in question to Logos/Jesus (as John is doing) then "...continues to be..." is not signifying one who is eternal (as in, existed in eternity past), rather it is signifying a preeminent positioning relative to all things (the way I am leaning). Bear in mind that John is speaking in the fullness of time concerning an arrangement of things in the beginning and also concerning what is being added to the arrangement in his own day (flesh/man). This is to say....the man Jesus who *was* in the fullness of time is a continuance of Logos who *was* in the beginning.

Perhaps I am being a bit "thick" but to me, if something exists and is "continuing" to exist BEFORE "the beginning" has even started, how can it NOT be viewed as existing in ETERNITY PAST? ("in the beginning WAS the Word" - an exact parallel to Genesis "In the beginning, GOD." God didn't START TO EXIST "in the beginning" - He was ALREADY THERE.)

Note that I am still applying an aspect of *becoming* to the term in question. There is no form of "was" that does not contain this aspect. This considered it can be said that He who continues to be in Logos continues to be in the man Jesus. Bottom line....there is no Jesus until *flesh (man)* is added to the mix. We can speak of what signifies a man's personal identity if you like.....

I take you to mean that you don't believe the term "Logos" refers to a "person" until "it" took on "flesh" as Jesus Christ. As I said above, I understand the Logos to be the Divine Person of the pre-incarnate Son of God prior to creation.

Fair enough. Have you considered what John goes on to say in verse 4 - "...in him was life, and that life was the light of men...". Note the two times *was* is used. Are these translated from the same Greek word? If so you have a problem. If in both cases the Greek signifies *came to be* then Logos is not of the same essence (life) as God. The scripture would read, then.....In Logos *came to be* life....and that life *came to be* the light of men. This would resemble my line of reasoning. If the scripture reads .... in him *continues to be* life....and that life *continues to be* the light of men - then it seems we must attribute eternal existence to man. This would resemble neither of our lines of reasoning.

Yes. The same in the Greek - 'hn (from eimi, implying "continuing to be"). I don't agree with your conclusion, however. To me this simply says that eternal life that "continues to be" in the Logos "continues to be" THE LIGHT for men. It is not man who "continues to be" in this context, but the LIGHT from the LOGOS which continues.

Now verse 5 - "...The light shines in the darkness and the darkness has not understood it...". This phenomenon is signified in Genesis by *the first day* of creation. First note that God calls this light "good" but says nothing of the darkness....yet the whole day is considered "good" as part of God's creation. Now apply the following scriptures to Genesis - "...God is light and there is no darkness in him at all..." and "...God alone is good...". So...*first day light* (called Day) is shown to be light of eternal God sent ***there*** to shine in the Gen. 1:2 darkness (hence, Logos = let ***there*** be light). Now we have *two* places that are occupied by light (God) so that here is "...light shining in the darkness..." signifying ONE DAY (the first day) and there is Light eternal....or, God / Father, from whom the light *came to be* sent.

The light is a created "thing" while darkness isn't. Darkness IN THIS CONTEXT is the absence of light, not a "thing" in itself (ie. no photons), hence it does not affect the "goodness" of the creation. Right? However, when the scriptures say of God that "there is no darkness in him at all," it is using the term "darkness" in the sense of "moral evil," which though also as intangible as the absence of light, is nonetheless "real."

Just as there is an inseparable continuity between the sun and the light rays that shine from it, it is my understanding that the Son is the inseparable radiance of the glory of God the Father. Though each is distinct from the other, they are indivisible in nature.

Conclusion: Light *continues to be* eternal whether it shines in the darkness or not...an yet the first day *came to be* made ONE. Signified by this day is "...Day / Morning Star, Son of Dawn...".

It is my view that everything from eternal God to the conclusion of the first day = Elohim. And that Elohim created ALL THINGS out of *the waters* beginning on day 2. It is also my view that the first day depicts darkness as a womb impregnated with *light of God* via the *seed* that is His Word (i.e., "...let there be light...").

Of course, I would prefer to say that Elohim (the Triune God in my view) created ALL THINGS ex nihilo - INCLUDING the waters from which everything else was made, and that while the Father is the source and designer of creation, that the Son/Word/Logos/Second Person of the Trinity is the direct, hands-on creator of the universe, which of course necessitates His prior and eternal existence.

I am not stripping Jesus of his divinity....only saying that Jesus is divine by virtue of his union with *the One* who dwells in him bodily (another aspect that is depicted in the first day)

While qualifying Christ's "Divinity" as tied to His union with the Father (which I have no problem with) are you yet denying Him full eternal Deity as one EQUAL IN NATURE to God the Father (not in "rank" but in "essence" - ie of the same "stuff" as the Father) due to His being the Father's ONLY BEGOTTEN? If not, allowing Jesus to "keep" a watered-down divinity seems besides the point. OTOH you agree that Jesus wasn't created (aside from His physical body) so we have that much in common. I guess I would have to say that while I would describe a JW and I as being on opposite sides of the fence, I picture you as straddling it.

We can go down *the Holy Spirit* road if you wish....one of my stronger cases actually!!! Clue - the spirit of God moving on the face of the waters is not *yet another* eternally existing person.

While not wanting to open up yet another can of worms, perhaps you could just outline your POV for me - including how "old" you think the Holy Spirit is. Of course, being a Trinitarian, you already know I believe the Holy Ghost to be a person. Clue - when was the last time you attempted to deceive an electric current, or tried to insult a chair?

xcav8tor - Disagree. Gen. 1:1. The "stuff" was created in verse one. It was not "uncreated."

Where in verse 1 do you find God saying "...let there be darkness...let it cover the deep....let there be waters for my spirit to move upon..."??? All things were created by / through Logos....right?

As I said above, darkness in this context is not a "thing" but the absence of light, so it doesn't need to be "created." While verse 1 does not mention water, it says that "the earth" was created. Verse two simply tells us in what form the earth was initially created - a massive ball of water (in keeping with what 2 Pet. 3:5 NASB says). And yes, this "thing" by definition belongs to the set of "all things" and was therefore created by/through the Logos.

...for clarification. Logos is set between God and the first day. Because it is a medium - touching both God and His creation - both of the ideas "continues to be" and "came to be" can be applied. One idea is applied backward...the other forward. Therefore, the "either/or" presented in my above post.... is truly a "both/and".

Gotcha.

Regards,
xcav8tor

PS - while I look forward to your reply, I have others to catch up on before I can return to you again.

[xcav8tor]

Hi Incrus,

I am posting this here so as to not interrupt the flow of your discussion with apostoli in the other thread.

You continue to be unable to see that Jesus being a man IS NOT INCOMPATIBLE with Him ALSO being Deity. Perhaps this analogy might help you understand what Trinitarians mean by the INCARNATION of Christ.

Think of a newspaper. It is composed of BOTH PAPER AND INK.
WITHOUT BOTH IT IS NOT A NEWSPAPER.

A newspaper BY DEFINITION is an ink image INSEPARABLY UNITED with the paper which holds the image, the viscous ink being ABSORBED into the paper fibers so that they constitute ONE OBJECT.

NOTICE that the presence of the ink DOES NOT NEGATE the existence of the paper.

IOW, we have THE NATURE OF INK ADDED TO THE NATURE OF PAPER WITHOUT CHANGING THE NATURE OF THE PAPER. It is the COMBINATION of the TWO COMPONENTS - paper and ink - which result in THE HYBRID - the NEWSPAPER ITSELF.

Now let's apply this analogy to the INCARNATION.

Trinitarians ARE NOT SAYING that Jesus Christ is ONLY God, but that (like the newspaper) HE TOO IS A HYBRID - the GOD-MAN, possessing in His ONE PERSON the natures of BOTH GOD AND MAN.

Just as the NEWSPAPER consists of PAPER PLUS INK, Jesus as the GOD-MAN consists of DEITY (SPIRIT) PLUS HUMANITY (FLESH AND BLOOD).

Just as the INK on the NEWSPAPER has an INSEPARABLE bond with the PAPER, so does Christ's HUMAN NATURE experience an INSEPARABLE relationship with His DIVINE NATURE.

Just as the PRESENCE of the INK on a newspaper DOES NOT CONTRADICT the PAPER that supports the image (after all, you can't deny the existence of newspapers), NEITHER DOES the FACT of Christ's ADDED HUMAN NATURE CONTRADICT the DIVINE NATURE it has been "IMPRINTED" ON.

Arguing that "because the Bible declares JESUS IS A MAN this 'PROVES' that He CANNOT AT THE SAME TIME BE GOD" would be the same as arguing that "because a NEWSPAPER INCORPORATES INK this 'PROVES' it CANNOT AT THE SAME TIME INCORPORATE PAPER." Not only does the tangible reality of the newspaper industry undermine your argument, It is a non-sequitor (it doesn't logically follow).

The ubiquitous presence of newspaper boxes demonstrate the flaw of your line of reasoning. While I do not expect you to accept the truth of the Trinity, can you at least see how your argument fails? It is NOT AN EITHER/OR SITUATION, despite your countless protests to the contrary.

Regards,
xcav8tor

[IncRus]

Hi Incrus,

I am posting this here so as to not interrupt the flow of your discussion with apostoli in the other thread.

You continue to be unable to see that Jesus being a man IS NOT INCOMPATIBLE with Him ALSO being Deity.

That's because I continue to hold on to my belief that the words that Jesus SPOKE 2009 years ago, identifying himsef as a MAN and declaring the Father as the ONLY true God and recorded in John 8:40 and John 17:3, remain TRUE to this day and age. Therefore, as long as these verses remain recorded in the Holy Bible, and as long as I consider the Holy Bible as the word of God, I will REJECT the FALSE belief that "Jesus being a man IS NOT INCOMPATIBLE with him ALSO being God."

Perhaps this analogy might help you understand what Trinitarians mean by the INCARNATION of Christ.

Think of a newspaper. It is composed of BOTH PAPER AND INK.
WITHOUT BOTH IT IS NOT A NEWSPAPER.

A newspaper BY DEFINITION is an ink image INSEPARABLY UNITED with the paper which holds the image, the viscous ink being ABSORBED into the paper fibers so that they constitute ONE OBJECT.

NOTICE that the presence of the ink DOES NOT NEGATE the existence of the paper.

IOW, we have THE NATURE OF INK ADDED TO THE NATURE OF PAPER WITHOUT CHANGING THE NATURE OF THE PAPER. It is the COMBINATION of the TWO COMPONENTS - paper and ink - which result in THE HYBRID - the NEWSPAPER ITSELF.

I have heard a lot of analogies used by Trinitarians todefend their FALSE Trinity belief. One more analogy does NOT make any bit of difference because what God has SPOKEN through Jesus (Heb. 1:2; John 12:48) CANNOT be altered, amended or negated by anyone. In fact, adding to or subtracting from the word of God is a serious violation of God's law (Deut. 12:32; Rev. 22:18-19).

Now let's apply this analogy to the INCARNATION.

Trinitarians ARE NOT SAYING that Jesus Christ is ONLY God, but that (like the newspaper) HE TOO IS A HYBRID - the GOD-MAN, possessing in His ONE PERSON the natures of BOTH GOD AND MAN.

Just as the NEWSPAPER consists of PAPER PLUS INK, Jesus as the GOD-MAN consists of DEITY (SPIRIT) PLUS HUMANITY (FLESH AND BLOOD).

That's my problem with Trinitarians. In their zeal to defend their FALSE belief that Jesus is God/Man, they forget that all these analogies are like comparing apples with oranges. Whereas, we know for certain that a newspaper is composed of paper and ink and without these two, there would be no newspaper, we DON'T know for certain whether Jesus is God, God/Man, or simply man, OUTSIDE what the Bible teaches.

As it is, these analogies CONTRADICT what we find WRITTEN in the Bible, which, by the way, Trinitarians ALSO profess to believe as the word of God.

Jesus said that he is a MAN (John 8:40) and the Father is the ONLY true God (John 17:3). Therefore, this analogy CANNOT make Jesus a "God/man" because it CONTRADICTS what Jesus himself PREACHED about himself and about the Father.

Arguing that "because the Bible declares JESUS IS A MAN this 'PROVES' that He CANNOT AT THE SAME TIME BE GOD" would be the same as arguing that "because a NEWSPAPER INCORPORATES INK this 'PROVES' it CANNOT AT THE SAME TIME INCORPORATE PAPER." Not only does the tangible reality of the newspaper industry undermine your argument, It is a non-sequitor (it doesn't logically follow).

On the other hand, it is "non-sequitor" (it does NOT logically follow) that because a newspaper can incorporate BOTH paper and ink at the SAME time, Jesus can also be God and man at the SAME time. The former is a tangible reality that can proven by sight, while the latter is only SPECULATION that can only be proven true or false by what is written in the Bible.

The ubiquitous presence of newspaper boxes demonstrate the flaw of your line of reasoning. While I do not expect you to accept the truth of the Trinity, can you at least see how your argument fails? It is NOT AN EITHER/OR SITUATION, despite your countless protests to the contrary.

I'm sorry, but I CAN'T see how my argument fails. While it is true that a newspaper CAN incorporate paper and ink at the SAME time (that we can verify by sight), it is NOT true that Jesus CAN be God and Man at the SAME time because the Bible teaches that Jesus is a MAN (John 8:40) with flesh and bones (Luke 24:39), while the Father is the ONLY true God (John 17:3) who is Spirit (John 4:24) and has NO flesh and bones (Luke 24:39) that NO MAN has ever SEEN (John 1:18; 1 Tim. 1:17; 1 Tim. 6:16).

[xcav8tor]

I'm sorry, but I CAN'T see how my argument fails.

And I fear you never will Incrus. That's the sad part.

Regards,
xcav8tor