[quote=Collier;2740840]

Originally posted by Sparko

Apparently you have not yet looked at a lexicon.
I am satisfied with the EXPLICIT statement of Jesus in John 17:3, echoed by Paul in 1 Corinthians 8:6 and in Ephesians 4:5-6, that the one God is the Father.
Christ Jesus is identified as the one MEDIATOR between the one God and mankind (1 Timothy 2:5). He is also identified as God's only Son; as God's anointed King; as God’s great high priest; as God’s heir; and much more. But he is never identified as the one God.
Only the Father is identified as the one God. Therefore, I believe that the one God is the Father.
If you prefer a post-biblical doctrine based on a faulty syllogism, that is your privilege.

---I think your logic is good, Collier. Of course, I am biased since it's the same logic I use...

I have been delighting in the sight of Jesus as described in Hebrews 2:9. By God’s grace he experienced death for everyone. For that purpose he became (for a little while) lower than the angels. But now I “see Jesus ... crowned with glory and honor.”

Philippians 2:6-11 gives us much the same picture. Paul wants the Philippians (and us!) to have the same attitude that Christ Jesus had. Even though he was by very nature God (divine), he took upon himself the form of a (human) slave, and in his obedience he humbled himself even to death on a cross.

So God has exalted him and given him a name above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord – to the glory of God the Father.

I do confess him (as Thomas did when he saw him in resurrection) as my Lord (Lord of lords) and my God (King of kings). And in doing that, I bring glory to HIS God, Yahweh, the Father.

That fills my heart with awe.

Originally posted by nrajeff

---I think your logic is good, Collier. Of course, I am biased since it's the same logic I use...

In what post? I'd like to read it.

My knowledge of Mormonism is almost nil, but what you are saying does not seem to fit the quotations given by jbgwatney in Post # 87 – particularly “Behold I am Jesus. I am the Father and the Son." (Ether 3:14).

Originally posted by Collier

Yahweh did not make Jesus INTO God.

True. He was God in the beginning. See John 1:1

Look at the way the word "made" is used in Acts 2:36: "God has made this same Jesus both Lord and Christ.” After raising Jesus from the dead, he anointed him as King.

Yes, Luke used the word "made" in Acts 2. Peter was explaining that Jesus returned to the glorious position that He had laid down before the incarnation. Notice what Jesus says in John 17:

John 17:5
"Now, Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was.

The word is used in a similar way in Exodus 7:1. “And Yahweh said unto Moses, ‘See, I have made you god [elohim] unto Pharaoh.’” Yahweh didn't make Moses INTO God. He gave Moses the role of Yahweh's spokesman; and the words of Moses to Pharaoh would not be his own words, but Yahweh's words.

No, this word immediately followed the quote of Psalm 110, which was a messianic text and was mistaken by the Pharisees of the time as advocating polytheism, and even earned the title "two power heresy" from them (see Gerald Sigal's Two Powers in Heaven). Why would they have had a problem like this if Jesus were only made a "god" after the manner of Moses? Did they accuse Moses of being a "second power in heaven"?

Rulers in Israel were called “gods”.

Actually, that's quite debatable. The semantic range of the word elohim is much more broad than the Greek theos.

They were supposed to represent Yahweh, the true God. They didn't make a very good job of it. But the Son loved righteousness and hated iniquity, so his God has given him a throne that is eternal. He has anointed him with the oil of joy above his fellows.

The throne and glory were His before the world began. (see John 17:5)

The word “Son” is used in different ways, too. In Hebrews 1:1, Jesus is the Son by eternal relationship. He is “the radiant light of God’s glory and the perfect copy of his nature” (v. 3, J.B.). He didn't have to be MADE that. He always WAS that.

Yes, and by that nature, He is God... not made, ascended, inherited, or anything else. Jesus is the true God as much as His Father is, as much as the Son is. There never was a time where any of the 3 persons in the trinity were not God. (notice I didn't say "gods")

But in v. 5 God says, “You are my Son, today I have become your Father.” This has to do with kingship – not with eternal relationship. And God’s words about Solomon (2 Samuel 7:14) are quoted: “I will be a father to him and he will be a son to me.” Son here is an official title, referring to the king who reigns on behalf of his Father.

Partly. As fully man, in order for Jesus to qualify to be the high priest of the New Covenant and receive the unique priesthood after the order of Melchizedek, He had to be both a Priest and a King. He is both. He is not God based on any of this. He is not God based on any action on anyone's part - including the Father. He is God based on the nature He has eternally, as the eternal Wisdom of God. He is also man and - as a result - able to be made "Lord of all" by the Father.

Originally posted by Bill the Cat

Yes, Luke used the word "made" in Acts 2. Peter was explaining that Jesus returned to the glorious position that He had laid down before the incarnation. Notice what Jesus says in John 17:

John 17:5
"Now, Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was. .

This is a good thought. Thank you. I think you are probably right.

Nevertheless, it was because he loved righteousness and hated iniquity that his God anointed him with the oil of gladness above his fellows. He had no “fellows” when it came to his deity. And whatever the Pharisees may have thought, the whole passage is Messianic.

Originally posted by Bill the Cat

Yes, and by that nature, He is God... not made, ascended, inherited, or anything else. Jesus is the true God as much as His Father is, as much as the Son is. There never was a time where any of the 3 persons in the trinity were not God. (notice I didn't say "gods")

Jesus is God. We have already agreed on that several times.

The word “God” (without the article) often has the force of an adjective. That is the way it is used in the last clause of John 1:1. Jesus is described as God. He is divine. He is the exact image of “the God” with whom he was and whom he revealed. The New Testament teaches that.

But the NT does NOT teach that Jesus is “the true God”. In fact, that contradicts what the New Testament DOES teach. It teaches, explicitly, that the only true God is the Father.

I believe the EXPLICIT teaching of the New Testament. With all due respect, I am not impressed with a post-biblical doctrine that is based on a faulty syllogism.

Originally posted by Collier

This is a good thought. Thank you. I think you are probably right.

Nevertheless, it was because he loved righteousness and hated iniquity that his God anointed him with the oil of gladness above his fellows. He had no “fellows” when it came to his deity. And whatever the Pharisees may have thought, the whole passage is Messianic.



Jesus is God. We have already agreed on that several times.

The word “God” (without the article) often has the force of an adjective. That is the way it is used in the last clause of John 1:1. Jesus is described as God. He is divine. He is the exact image of “the God” with whom he was and whom he revealed. The New Testament teaches that.

But the NT does NOT teach that Jesus is “the true God”. In fact, that contradicts what the New Testament DOES teach. It teaches, explicitly, that the only true God is the Father.

I believe the EXPLICIT teaching of the New Testament. With all due respect, I am not impressed with a post-biblical doctrine that is based on a faulty syllogism.

Is the Father your Master? (Jude4). Is the Father True Light? (John 1:9-10) . Was Jesus good? (Mark 10:18). Is Jesus the Savior? (Isaiah 43:11). Did Jesus work wonders? (Psalm 72:18). Did Jesus have a hand in creation? (Isaiah 44:24).

In the unique relationship of God (the trinity), Yahweh can make exclusive claims that do not contradict when one person of the Godhead makes them exclusively as well.

Originally posted by Collier

In what post? I'd like to read it.

--Well, in the friendly Basketball Court debate that some of us took part in, for one.
I just happen to have the same reasoning as you when you made these conclusions about:

"the EXPLICIT statement of Jesus in John 17:3, echoed by Paul in 1 Corinthians 8:6 and in Ephesians 4:5-6, that the one God is the Father.
Christ Jesus is identified as the one MEDIATOR between the one God and mankind (1 Timothy 2:5). He is also identified as God's only Son; as God's anointed King; as God’s great high priest; as God’s heir; and much more. But he is never identified as the one God.
Only the Father is identified as the one God. Therefore, I believe that the one God is the Father.

My knowledge of Mormonism is almost nil

---Feel free to ask any of us pro-LDS folks--or most of the "anti-" LDS ones, for that matter, since they are good folks--what you want answered.

but what you are saying does not seem to fit the quotations given by jbgwatney in Post # 87 – particularly “Behold I am Jesus. I am the Father and the Son." (Ether 3:14).

---Yep, verses like that seem pretty modalistic. I take them metaphorically, just like Jesus' statement, as quoted by John, that He and His Father are one.

*Still waits to see how Collier knows that every time the OT refers to God it means a unipersonal being.*

Originally posted by nrajeff

---I think your logic is good, Collier. Of course, I am biased since it's the same logic I use...

be careful of the quote tags Jeff! You made it look like I said that.

Collier, if Jesus is not the one TRUE God, then he must be a false one.

Originally posted by Sparko

Collier, if Jesus is not the one TRUE God, then he must be a false one.

Moses was not the only true God, but he was not a false one, either.

The men whom Jesus spoke of as being gods were not the only true God, but they were not false ones, either. It was the true God who SAID, “You are gods.” And John 10:34-35 is written in Greek, not Hebrew. The plural of theos is used to translate elohim, so there can’t be a great difference in meaning here.

Frankly, I am satisfied with the EXPLICIT and CONSISTENT teaching of the New Testament regarding the one God. I’ll tell you why.

I spent some twenty years of my life searching (off and on) for some scriptural evidence for tri-unity that did not fall apart when looked at carefully. I WANTED such evidence, because I was raised an Anglican and am still part of a congregation that teaches trinitarianism.

The evidence all turned out to be either very weak or downright spurious. So I finally gave up and asked God to show me, by his Spirit, what the Word of God actually teaches. I was ready to accept it, no matter what.

I discovered that the New Testament is quite clear on the subject, IF we are willing to accept what it says and stop trying to improve on it. That has resulted in a joyous freedom in reading the Bible that I will not lightly abandon.

I am grateful to you for some good thoughts that you have presented. That is the value of a free exchange of ideas. But the fact remains that the New Testament has NO direct evidence of a triune God, and has LOTS of direct evidence that the one God is the Father.

We do agree that there are three divine Persons; but in every trinitarian passage I have seen, God is ONE of those divine Persons, not three.

We can disagree on that point, and still be free to worship BOTH the Lamb AND the Lord God Almighty, as God intends us to do.

Originally posted by Sparko

be careful of the quote tags Jeff! You made it look like I said that.

---Really? Then you must have administratively gone ahead and fixed it, 'cause what I see looks like I am quoting Collier. But would it really be such a bad thing if I made it look like you'd said something so sensible as Collier's comments?

Originally posted by nrajeff

---Really? Then you must have administratively gone ahead and fixed it, 'cause what I see looks like I am quoting Collier. But would it really be such a bad thing if I made it look like you'd said something so sensible as Collier's comments?

looking at your post i see:

ScreenHunter_.jpg

Originally posted by Collier

Moses was not the only true God, but he was not a false one, either.

and Moses wasn't God either.

The men whom Jesus spoke of as being gods were not the only true God, but they were not false ones, either. It was the true God who SAID, “You are gods.” And John 10:34-35 is written in Greek, not Hebrew. The plural of theos is used to translate elohim, so there can’t be a great difference in meaning here.

They were JUDGES, and the verse that Jesus quotes shows God condemning them for being bad judges and says they will die like MEN.

Moses and this passage are in no way the same as Jesus being God. the Son is uncreated, in fact he IS the creator. You seem to have TWO Gods, but just CALL the Father "the one true God" - as if it were a title and not descriptive.

You need to think about that Collier, it is a big inconsistency in your doctrine. You can't have two Gods and merely dismiss the Son as not the One True God. If there is only ONE God then the Son must be the SAME God, or not a God at all. It seems kinda odd that a No-God is our creator.

Originally posted by Sparko

and Moses wasn't God either.

They were JUDGES, and the verse that Jesus quotes shows God condemning them for being bad judges and says they will die like MEN.

EXACTLY!! They were the Son’s “fellows” – the judges who did NOT love righteousness nor hate iniquity. So God has ordained his own Son as the Judge (Acts 17:31), and has anointed him with the oil of gladness ABOVE his unrighteous “fellows” (Hebrews 1:9).

God has given all judgment into the hands of his Son – made him the Judge – so that all men would honor the Son just as they honor the Father (John 5:22-23). Anyone who doesn’t honor God’s Son doesn’t honor God, either. So there is no inconsistency in worshipping BOTH the Lamb AND the Lord God Almighty at the same time (Revelation 5:13).

I am not worshipping two Gods. The Lamb is NOT the Lord God Almighty, and never claimed to be. He is the eternal Son OF GOD, "the exact representation of his being"; and therefore he is worthy to be worshipped ALONG WITH God.

You need to think about that Collier, it is a big inconsistency in your doctrine. You can't have two Gods and merely dismiss the Son as not the One True God. If there is only ONE God then the Son must be the SAME God, or not a God at all. It seems kinda odd that a No-God is our creator.

There is no inconsistency in believing that Jesus told the truth. He identified the Father as the [u]only/U] true God in John 17:3, and identified himself as being SENT BY the only true God. How can you believe he is the one true God when you don’t even believe what he said?

All I have to think about, Sparko, is the EXPLICIT and CONSISTENT teaching of the New Testament. I have no right to believe a post-biblical doctrine that contradicts that explicit and consistent teaching.

Originally posted by nrajeff

[color="Purple"]
---Yep, verses like that seem pretty modalistic. I take them metaphorically, just like Jesus' statement, as quoted by John, that He and His Father are one.

I don’t think the comparison is valid. “I am the Father and the Son” does not mean the same thing as “My Father and I are one.”

A husband and his wife are one; but that doesn’t equate with, “I am the husband and the wife.”

The Lord’s desire was that his own would be one, just as he and his Father are one (John 17:22-23). But none of them could say, “I am Peter and John and James and ...”

God and his Son are one in purpose; one in love; one in activity; one in all things. But Jesus is not “the Father and the Son,” and never claimed to be - at least, not in the Bible.