- This topic has 25,992 replies, 117 voices, and was last updated 2 hours ago by
.
- Posts
Quote (jammin @ Oct. 21 2012,02:47) did you study greek mike??
talk to me when you have formal studies in greek
Why not just ask your friend Kathi? Are you AFRAID of what her answer will be? 
Oh, and when are you going to answer Kathi's question with a NUMBER?
jammin, how many GODS are required for our eternal salvation?
Here are your choices:
1. ONE GOD.
2. TWO GODS.
3. MORE THAN TWO GODS.
Answer the question scaredy-cat. (That goes for you too, Charles.)
Charles,
I'm sorry but I'm lost in your explanation. Does the Father and the Son and the Spirit each have a will? Are you saying that the Spirit of the Father and the Spirit of the Son are the same Spirit? Is this Spirit a person?Bear with me Charles. I'm confused
Charles,
you said:Quote ALL THAT MY FATHER HAS ARE MINE!!! Look at the context for that and tell me what you think it is referring to.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Oct. 22 2012,07:27) Quote (jammin @ Oct. 21 2012,02:47) did you study greek mike??
talk to me when you have formal studies in greek Why not just ask your friend Kathi? Are you AFRAID of what her answer will be? Oh, and when are you going to answer Kathi's question with a NUMBER?
jammin, how many GODS are required for our eternal salvation?
Here are your choices:
1. ONE GOD.
2. TWO GODS.
3. MORE THAN TWO GODS.
Answer the question scaredy-cat. (That goes for you too, Charles.)
i already answered that mike
there is one GOD THE FATHER
one GOD THE ONLY SONtwo persons but one in nature, GOD
my example will always be you and your father. you are two persons but one in nature, HUMAN
now can you give your version?
you said form of his God
where can i read that in phil 2.6?you also said uniquely generated
where can i read that in john 1.18??you still have time to search for your imagination mike LOL
Quote (Lightenup @ Oct. 20 2012,20:16) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Oct. 20 2012,16:09) Quote (jammin @ Oct. 19 2012,03:36) the greek word says monogenes theos.
it also means GOD THE ONLY SON.
Not even in your wildest dreams does “monogenes theos” mean “God the only Son”.Ask your friend Kathi about it, jammin. She'll confirm what I'm telling you.
Mike,
I heard a scholar talk about this and he explained how it can mean 'only unique kind' which an only begotten God would be. He mentioned something about the 'genes' of monogenes being from a different Greek word that means unique kind. If I come across it, I will let you know. It was on a video.*I found it on the video about at the 1 hour point:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v….list=UL
Mike,
Did you watch this video??Quote (Ed J @ Oct. 21 2012,14:42) Hi Dennison, What is your view on this verse than?
“Choose you this day whom ye will serve;
whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood,
or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house,
we will serve the LORD.” (Josh 24:15)God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
Ed JDoes Choose, and Freewill mean the same thing?
If you say yes, than you need a dictionary.
Quote (Ed J @ Oct. 21 2012,14:49) Quote (SimplyForgiven @ Oct. 21 2012,19:30) Charles, There is no such thing as freewill.
Hi Dennison, shall we rip this verse out of our bibles then?“I make a decree, that all they of the people of Israel, and of his priests and Levites, in my realm,
which are minded of their own freewill to go up to Jerusalem,
go with thee.” (Ezra 7:13)God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
Netbible: Ezra 7:13 I have now issued a decree that anyone in my kingdom from the people of Israel – even the priests and Levites – who wishes to do so may go up with you to Jerusalem.mmmmmmmmmMMMMmmmm ITs funny how you quote the only text in the KJV that has “free-will” yet ignore the other texts that mention free-will along with offerings.
Quote (SimplyForgiven @ Oct. 21 2012,19:30) Charles, I was just about to go to sleep, when I bumped into your speculatoins about temptation but I don't know why?
Ill tell you what, If Mike wants me to make a sperate thread about it, than Ill respond. but until than no thanks.
by the way let me correct you on some of your speculations.
Quote So Jesus while He was in the desert was a normal human being left in His free will to do what He Himself felt to do,but since he was sinless, sin didn't have power over Jesus.
1.There is no such thing as freewill.
2. Jesus felt like fasting.Quote The most difficult task for God to Achieve
There isn't a task that is difficult for God.Quote SATAN WAS ONLY AWARE THAT JESUS WAS GOD IN FLESH , WHEN JESUS WAS TAKEN BY SATAN DOWN TO HELL UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT HE WAS A CRIMINAL AND WAS STUNNED TO SE JESUS IN FLESH TESTED BY THE HOTTEST FIRE OF HELL WHICH SATAN HIMSELF,WHICH WAS HIS ABODE COULDN'T RESIST EVEN AS A SPIRIT.
Everything you said here is unbiblical and only conjectures on your part. You made all that up sir, I know your going to hate more for saying it but its true.
Jesus wasn't taken by Satan to Hell. No where does the bible say that Satan runs hell in the first place. Actually God is the one run's hell, did you know that?
Satan was under no impression that Jesus was a criminal, go look for the word in the bible where it states so. What is the hottest fire of hell? You see what i mean, this is all a religious fanatasy that your trying to use as conviction to what your saying.It holds no truth to it.
So its either your porpously lying or your just deluded.Quote SYMBOLIZED IN THE BURNING BUSH OF MOSES 2 Samuel 22:31 God, his way is immaculate, the word of the Lord is tried by fire: he is the shield of all that trust in him
Psalm 17:3 3 Thou hast proved my heart, and visited it by night,
THOU HAST TRIED ME BY FIRE :
and iniquity hath not been found in me.
ONLY JESUS HAD NO INQUITY!!!
THEY ALL HAVE SINNED AND FALL SHORT OF THE GLORY OF GOD
Peace and love in Jesus
Charles
Ok.. so now you think Jesus was tested by fire?
What If I told you that God is hell than what?
What If I told you that God is the hottest fire there is?based on this scripture
Hebrews 12:29
For our God is a consuming fire.What say you?
Quote Everything you said here is unbiblical and only conjectures on your part. SIMPLYFORGIVEN,
I LIKE EVERY WORD IN YOUR POST.!!!
I WILL PROVE THAT ALL I STATED IS:
SCRIPTURAL!!!
But the way you reasoned is enough evidence that you are not in the position to substantiate your own seemed to me vague arguments in every rather antagonistic opinions instead contradict me through scriptures.
Quote by the way let me correct you on some of your speculations. Humbly speaking all my seemed eccentric, matured points were not SPECULATIONS,
THEY ARE ALL SCRIPTURALY DERIVED. The reason to post them is ONE and that is to be discussed and contradicted ONLY using scriptures and this is only with the hope of establishing the truths concerning our own origin, purpose, and our destination.Quote There is no such thing as freewill. I RESPECT YOR MENTALITY.
Please respect others as a Christian and substantiate and impart onto others what you believe RIGHT and the THRUTH!!!
More to come !!!
Peace and love in Jesus
Charles
Charles,
Quote
I LIKE EVERY WORD IN YOUR POST.!!!
I WILL PROVE THAT ALL I STATED IS:
SCRIPTURAL!!!
You like every word in my post? Is that a good thing?
No, not all that you stated is scriptural.Quote But the way you reasoned is enough evidence that you are not in the position to substantiate your own seemed to me vague arguments in every rather antagonistic opinions instead contradict me through scriptures.
I can substantiate my points, but im negating the points you provided and that YOU presented to me. You decided to chime in, and presented your “thoughts” without any substance. So the burden is on YOU to substantiate your claims.
I can substantiate my claims, and I even mentioned that im not going to get too much into it because I perfer to make a seperate thread, which I will when I find the time to.Your previous explaination about Jesus temptation and how He went to hell and back is in fact VAGUE, which is why I called you out on it.
Quote Humbly speaking all my seemed eccentric, matured points were not SPECULATIONS,
THEY ARE ALL SCRIPTURALY DERIVED. The reason to post them is ONE and that is to be discussed and contradicted ONLY using scriptures and this is only with the hope of establishing the truths concerning our own origin, purpose, and our destination.
You do not need to say your being humble, in order to be humble sir.
The fact that your stating so is presenting the idea that your attempting to be “humble” in your response. In my opinion I believe your just saying that so you can seem humble, and give the impression that im being “antagonistic”.
A humble person has no need to say he is humble, he simply is. A point is not mature if its incomplete or wrong, which that is the case here.
The reason why I say they are speculatoins because you provided no scripture to substantiate your points.
If its scriptrualy derived than show me.
You haven't done so.Truth is already established, the issue is discerning between what is true or false.
Quote I RESPECT YOR MENTALITY. Please respect others as a Christian and substantiate and impart onto others what you believe RIGHT and the THRUTH!!!
I have not direspecetd you, in fact because I respect you I'm willing to tell you the truth about your assertions. Not that I'm stating I'm in the position to correct others, but I care enough to say something when I see that there is something wrong.
Up until now, you still haven't shown me any substance for your claims, yet you have stated that, “that you will prove your all you stated”, and that “its scriptural derived”. You still haven't done so. Hopefully when you say there is more to come, its because you plan on presenting your substance.Dennison
Quote (SimplyForgiven @ Oct. 23 2012,15:56) Quote (Ed J @ Oct. 21 2012,14:49) Quote (SimplyForgiven @ Oct. 21 2012,19:30) Charles, There is no such thing as freewill.
Hi Dennison, shall we rip this verse out of our bibles then?“I make a decree, that all they of the people of Israel, and of his priests and Levites, in my realm,
which are minded of their own freewill to go up to Jerusalem,
go with thee.” (Ezra 7:13)God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
Netbible: Ezra 7:13 I have now issued a decree that anyone in my kingdom from the people of Israel – even the priests and Levites – who wishes to do so may go up with you to Jerusalem.mmmmmmmmmMMMMmmmm ITs funny how you quote the only text in the KJV that has “free-will” yet ignore the other texts that mention free-will along with offerings.
Hi Dennison,Yes, I did that purposefully for you.
…or should I say I used my “Free Will” to do it that away.God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgDennison[/quote]
Quote No, not all that you stated is scriptural Simplyforgiven,
I posted m y first post:
You without any scriptural proof you denied that Jesus
WAS TAKEN TO HELL BY SATAN.
ANSWER THIS :
WERE HUMANS TAKEN BY SATAN TO HELL???
Peace and love in Jesus
Charles
Quote (jammin @ Oct. 22 2012,10:51) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Oct. 22 2012,07:27) Quote (jammin @ Oct. 21 2012,02:47) did you study greek mike??
talk to me when you have formal studies in greek Why not just ask your friend Kathi? Are you AFRAID of what her answer will be? Oh, and when are you going to answer Kathi's question with a NUMBER?
jammin, how many GODS are required for our eternal salvation?
Here are your choices:
1. ONE GOD.
2. TWO GODS.
3. MORE THAN TWO GODS.
Answer the question scaredy-cat. (That goes for you too, Charles.)
i already answered that mike
there is one GOD THE FATHER
one GOD THE ONLY SONtwo persons but one in nature, GOD
But my question is: How many GODS does that add up to? ONE God? TWO Gods? MORE THAN TWO Gods?Please answer the question, jammin.
Also, please ask your friend Kathi about the “monogenes theos” point. Ask her on this site, so we can all see the question, and her answer.
Quote (Lightenup @ Oct. 22 2012,17:19) Mike,
Did you watch this video?
No. Not yet. I may watch it at some time, but I'm not really too interested in the teachings of men, Kathi. If there are good, scriptural points made in that video, then post those points along with the scriptures that support them.I will address the points if they are based on scripture. I have no interest in listening to the “schmoozings” of men who are trying to force their doctrines into the scriptures.
Quote (carmel @ Oct. 23 2012,15:05) Dennison[/quote] Quote No, not all that you stated is scriptural Simplyforgiven,
I posted m y first post:
You without any scriptural proof you denied that Jesus
WAS TAKEN TO HELL BY SATAN.
ANSWER THIS :
WERE HUMANS TAKEN BY SATAN TO HELL???
Peace and love in Jesus
Charles
Charles I do need to prove to you that you wrong,you have to prove to me that your right, because it was YOU who brought up the point that I in turned negated.
Im asking for your substance, you provided none, so than the burden on proof is on you!
1.Matthew 10:28
And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.2.Luke 12:5
But I will forewarn you whom ye shall fear: Fear him, which after he hath killed hath power to cast into hell; yea, I say unto you, Fear him.Its God who puts souls in hell, even as we live.
Satan has nothing to do with hell other than making people's life into a living hell such as Job.
Why don't you answer my questions? Why haven't you brought out any substance?
Dennison
Charles,
I too would like to see the scriptural support of many of the things you promote on this site.
But I would like to read it in a short, to the point, coherent manner – not as huge manifestos of many eccentric teachings jumbled together – teachings that no one here has a clue where you came up with them.
Just sayin'
[quote=Lightenup,Oct. 22 2012,16:43][/quote]
Quote I'm sorry but I'm lost in your explanation. Does the Father and the Son and the Spirit each have a will? LIGHTENUP,
THERE'S ONLY ONE SPIRIT OF GOD.
The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, have ONLY one will of GOD!!!
THEY ACT ALWAYS IN FULL HARMONY.
WHETHER THEY FUNCTION DISTINCT, IN UNION, AND BOTH IN THE SAME TIME.
JESUS HIMSLEF WHILE ON EARTH WAS THE PERFECT IMAGE OF GOD:
THEREFORE HE WAS THE TRIUNE GOD IN FLESH.
IN HIS SPIRIT, BODY, AND SOUL.
AND THE FATHER IN HIS FULL DEITY IN THE SAME TIME REMAINED IN HEAVEN.
Colossians 2:9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead corporeally;
Quote Are you saying that the Spirit of the Father and the Spirit of the Son are the same Spirit? Is this Spirit a person? No, there are ONLY THREE PERSONS IN THE GODHEAD.
THE THREE ARE ONE GOD.
ONE SAME SPIRIT.
ALSO:
Rev:3:1……….These things saith he, that hath the SEVEN SPIRITS of God,……….
So through the above we could conclude that GOD HAS SEVEN SPIRITS, AND ALL THESE WHERE IN JESUS CHRIST. Since in Him dwelled the fullness of the GODHEAD!!!
Did you ever read the ATHANASIAN CREED???
IT IS DETAILED PURPOSELY IN ORDER TO HAVE A BETTER AWARENESS OF A TRIUNE GOD.
Peace and love in Jesus
Charles
John 1:1 says the Word was God. Does that mean that Jesus is God because he is the Word?
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.a) In the beginning was the Word, (en arch hn o logoV)
b) and the Word was with God, (kai o logoV hn proV ton qeon)
c) and the Word was God. (kai qeoV hn o logoV).John 1:1b says that the Word was with God and John 1:1c says that the Word was God, so how can the Word be God and be with God at the same time? Well part of the answer to discovering the meaning of this verse is found in 1 John 1:1-2
“That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon and touched with our hands, concerning the word of life and the life was manifested, and we saw it, and testify to it, and proclaim to you the eternal life that was with the Father and was made manifest to us”.
First when we read 1John 1:2, it suggests to us that the God in John1:1b is the Father himself.
Secondly, we see In John 1:1c, the last word God is missing the definite article, (THE). The definite article is before all other instances of the word ‘God’ and ‘Logos’ in John 1:1. (e.g., the Word, The God.), yet is absent in the last mention of God. Read on because this can be significant as you are about to find out.
Greek sentence construction affirms that if a noun doesn’t have a preceding article, (THE) it can be read as an adjective (a predicate adjective); and if such a noun does have a preceding article it should be considered a noun (a predicate nominative). Understanding this is a game changer. Scholars see the benefit of the rule for affirming the deity of Christ in John 1:1, but haven’t made the difference clear regarding the difference between identity and nature or definite and qualitative. Don’t worry if this makes no sense to you. It will.
Look at the difference between these two sentences.
1) You are an angel
2) You are THE angel.Notice how the first one is using the word angel in a qualitative way while the second is definite. Hence the term ‘definite article’.
In John 1:1, all instances of the word ‘God” are preceded by the definite article ‘THE’, except the last one.
So it literally says:
John1:1
a) In the beginning was THE God.
b) THE Word was with THE God
c) And THE Word was god.Why is the last word not capitalised? Where Greek uses the definite article in English we capitalise the word. e.g., the god = God.
So it is grammatically correct to read John 1:1c with a qualitative sense rather reading it as identifying the Word as God himself. It is not only grammatically correct to read it this way, it is also theologically correct because if we read it as THE Theos, then that would be saying that the Logos is exclusively God even to the exclusion of the Father. Now we have two good reasons for reading the last word ‘god/theos’ as qualitative and not as THE God or God.
In rebuttal to this, some say that God in the New Testament doesn’t always have a preceding definite article which is true, however looking at the verse contextually, we understand that there is clearly two being spoken of, i.e., one God and one called the Word with is clearly another who is next to God and is not that God he is with.
Let’s look at Adam and Eve as an example of two beings that were with each other. Before I give an example, it is important for you at this point to understand that the Hebrew word for ‘man’ is ‘adam’. This means that qualitatively, Adam and Eve are both adam. This is similar to the word theos which is translated as the ‘God’ & god. The absence of the definite article can qualify just as the word adam qualifies. As I said before, in English we use capitals to denote when being definite. So the difference between ‘Adam’ and ‘adam’ is that Adam refers to a specific man called Adam while the latter could refer to him as well as Eve and any other member of mankind. This is clearly stated in scripture in Genesis 1:27:
So God created man (adam) in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.
The word for man is adam, so it says: God created ‘adam’ male and female. So saying that ‘Eve is adam’ is a true saying.
In English, If I said “John is the man”, then I am identifying John as a definite and particular person of the human race. But if I omit the definite article and say “John is man,” then I do not identify him, I classify him. I say “John is human; he belongs to the sphere/nature of man.” Can you see the difference now?
To understand how the article can make a big difference to a piece of text, look at this example. Have a guess as to which one is correct.
a) In the beginning was THE woman
b) and THE woman was with THE man
c) and THE Woman was THE mana) In the beginning was THE woman
b) and THE woman was with THE man
c) and THE Woman was manThe correct one is the second example because it is saying that the woman belongs to mankind or man. Look at the next example:
a) Tools were used by man.
b) Tools were used by the man.See how the first example is talking about mankind whereas the second example is talking of a specific man.
In other words the word ‘man’ can be used as an attribute or to describe one’s nature. It is not always used to identify a particular person and it can even refer to more than one person.
Now let’s have a look at the above example, but using Adam and Eve instead. Notice in English that we do not have the definite article preceding Adam or Eve, because capitalising both Adam and Eve leads us to view these words in a definite sense, the same way that Greek requires the definite article. Essentially THE adam/man in Greek is the same as Adam in English.
a) In the beginning was Eve,
b) and Eve was with Adam
c) and Eve was Adama) In the beginning was Eve,
b) and Eve was with Adam
c) and Eve was adamNotice that the second example is still the correct one.
To further understand the important difference between identity and nature, take a look at John 6:70. When speaking of his betrayer Judas Iscariot, Jesus said, “One of you is a devil.” Did Jesus mean that Judas is actually Satan the Devil? No! He merely meant to say that Judas is like (class) a devil, or that he had the qualities or nature of a/the devil. The word “devil” here has no article in the Greek as you have probably guessed, but most translators deem it necessary to add the indefinite article “a” to complete the thought in English even though it is not present in Greek or any Greek. Greek has no indefinite articles, (a,an).
So Judas wasn’t Satan himself, rather he was diabolical, like the Devil. He had the qualities of the Devil. But that doesn’t rule out the fact that Satan is the Devil because it is not actually saying that Judas was the Devil himself. Rather Judas thought as the Devil; and acted as the Devil. He was not the Devil (definite), (Satan is); he was not an actual devil or demon, he was a devil (qualitative). He was one who had the mental disposition, the nature, of the Devil, who is Satan. So it is with John 1:1c.
The Logos was God has no definite article. It is really saying, The Logos was god. This is why the New English Bible and the Revised English Bible translate John 1:1 as “what God was, the Word was.” The TEV (1976) translates it, “the Word was the same as God.” Goodspeed translates this, “the Word was divine.” And Moffatt translates this, “the logos was divine.”
So what kind of being is Jesus then if the Word was theos (without the definite article)? The answer according to John 1:1 is that he must be a divine being if Jesus is the Word of God that was with God. In other words he is a being with God’s nature. A son possessing the nature of his Father. Not just an image, but THE image of God. He is the prototype, the firstborn. He is the mystery that was hidden but has been revealed in our time. He is all these things, but he is not THE God that he is the son of. That God is exclusively the Father and there are many scriptures to prove that which we will look at later in this page.
Many think that the word ‘theos’ and ‘elohim’ always refer to YHWH. They take instances of their choosing to try and prove that Christ is YHWH. In their ignorance they cannot see that there are indeed many god (theos) and many lords, but for true believers there is one God (theos) the Father.
In fact, the word ‘theos’ and ‘elohim’ in scripture are used in reference to God (YHWH), Christ, Man, angels, Satan and idols. So when we see the word ‘theos’ or ‘elohim’, we should ask ourselves what kind of god is being referenced. The god of this age? The Most High God? The Almighty God? The mighty god? A false god? A human? An angel? We must also understand that the word ‘theos’ proceeded by the article (the) is talking of a noun and without the article, it can be an adjective or used to describe or qualify.
Let us now look at some quotes from scholars and writers that understand this. NOTE: this is not an endorsement with all that these authors have written, rather I am appealing to their view regarding John 1:1.
One prominent scholar called Origen is sometimes quoted by Trinitarians who appeal to his wisdom for other purposes. However, they avoid this particular quotation for obvious reasons. Origen wrote in the early 200’s A.D and was a noted expert in Koine Greek.
“We next notice John’s use of the article [“the”] in these sentences. He does not write without care in this respect, nor is he unfamiliar with the niceties of the Greek tongue. In some cases he uses the article, and in some he omits it. He adds the article to the Word, but to the name of theos he adds it sometimes only. He uses the article, when the name of theos refers to the uncreated cause of all things, and omits it when the Word is named theos. Does the same difference which we observe between theos with the article and theos without it prevail also between the Word with it and without it? We must enquire into this. As the theos who is over all is theos with the article not without it, so the Word is the source of that reason (Logos) which dwells in every reasonable creature; the reason which is in each creature is not, like the former called par excellence the Word. Now there are many who are sincerely concerned about religion, and who fall here into great perplexity. They are afraid that they may be proclaiming two theos [gods] and their fear drives them into doctrines which are false and wicked. Either they deny that the Son has a distinct nature of His own besides that of the Father, and make Him whom they call the Son to be theos all but the name, or they deny divinity of the Son, giving Him a separate existence of His own, and making His sphere of essence fall outside that of the Father, so that they are separable from each other. To such persons we have to say that “the theos” on the one hand is Autotheos [God of himself] and so the Saviour says in His prayer to the Father, “That they may know Thee the only true theos [God]; “but that all beyond the theos [God] is made theos by participation in His deity, and is not to be called simply “theos” but rather “the theos “. And thus the first-born of all creation, who is the first to be with the theos , and to attract to Himself deity, is a being of more exalted rank than the other theos [gods] beside Him, of which theos is the theos [God], as it is written, “The theos [God] of theos [gods], the Lord, hath spoken and called the earth.” It was by the offices of the first-born that they became theos [gods], for He drew from the theos [God] in generous measure that they should be made theos [gods], and He communicated it to them according to His own bounty. The true theos [God], then, is “the theos ,” [“the God” as opposed to “god”] and those who are formed after Him are theos [such as the Son of God], images, as it were, of Him the prototype. But the archetypal image, again, of all these images is the word of the theos [God], who was in the beginning, and who by being with the theos [God] is at all times deity, not possessing that of Himself, but by His being with the Father, and not continuing to be theos , if we should think of this, except by remaining always in uninterrupted contemplation of the depths of the Father.”
(Origen’s Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book II, 2)“Irenaeus [in the second century] could still interpret MK. Xiii, 32 in the following manner: the Son confessed not to know that which only the Father knew; hence ‘ we learn from himself that the Father is over all’, as he who is greater also than the Son. But the Nicene theologians had now suddenly to deny that Jesus could have said such a thing about the Son. In the long-recognized scriptural testimony for the Logos-doctrine provided by Prov. Viii, 22 ff. The exegetes of the second and third centuries had found the creation of the preexistent Logos-Christ set forth without dispute and equivocation. But now, when the Arians also interpreted the passage in this way, the interpretation was suddenly reckoned as false…. A theologian such as Tertullian by virtue of his Subordinationist manner of thinking, could confidently on occasion maintain that, before all creation, God the Father had been originally ‘alone’, and thus there was a time when ‘the Son was not’. When he did so, within the Church of his day such a statement did not inevitably provoke a controversy, and indeed there was none about it. But now, when Arius said the same thing in almost the same words, he raised thereby in the Church a mighty uproar, and such a view was condemned as heresy in the anathemas of Nicaea.” e.a.]
-pp. 155-8. The Formation of Christian Dogma, by Martin Werner, D.D.When the writers of the New Testament speak of God they mean the God and Father of Our Lord Jesus Christ. When they speak of Jesus Christ, they do not speak of him, nor think of him as God. He is God’s Christ, God’s Son, God’s Wisdom, God’s Word. Even the prologue to St. John {John 1:1-18} which comes nearest to the Nicene Doctrine, must be read in the light of the pronounced subordinationism of the Gospel as a whole; and the Prologue is less explicit in Greek with the anarthrous theos [the word “god” at John 1:1c without the article] than it appears in English… The adoring exclamation of St. Thomas “my Lord and my god” (Joh. xx. 28) is still not quite the same as an address to Christ as being without qualification [limitation] God, and it must be balanced by the words of the risen Christ himself to Mary Magdalene (verse. 17) “Go unto my brethren and say to them, I ascend unto my Father and your Father, and my God and your God.” Jesus Christ is frequently spoken of in the Ignation Epistles as “our God”, “my God”, but probably never as “God” without qualification.
– John Martin Creed in The Divinity of Jesus Christ.The word for “god” in Greek is QEOS. In John 1:1 the last occurrence of QEOS is called “a predicate noun” or, “a predicate nominative”. Such a noun tells us something about the subject, instead of telling what the subject is doing. This use of QEOS has reference to the subject, the Word, and does not have the article preceding it; it is anarthrous. This indicates that it is not definite. That is to say, it does not tell what position or office or rank the subject (the Word) occupies. The verb HN “was” follows the predicate noun QEOS; this is another factor in identifying QEOS here as qualitative. This discloses the quality or character of the Word. Of course, the gentleman up above disagrees with me, and he has used Moulton and Colwell to buttress his argument. But what have other Grammarians said about this same type of construction? There is no basis for regarding the predicate theos as definite. In John 1:1 I think that the qualitative force of the predicate [noun] is so prominent that the noun cannot be regarded as definite.
-Philip Harner, Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 92:1, 1973, pp. 85, 7.We must, then take Theos, without the article, in the indefinite [“qualitative” would have been a better word choice] sense of a divine nature or a divine being, as distinguished from the definite absolute God [the Father], ho Theos, the authotheos [selfgod] of Origen. Thus the Theos of John [1:1c] answers to “the image of God” of Paul, Col. 1:15.
-G. Lucke, “Dissertation on the Logos”, quoted by John Wilson in, Unitarian Principles Confirmed by Trinitarian Testimonies, p. 428.As mentioned in the Note on 1c, the Prologue’s “The Word was God” offers a difficulty because there is no article before theos. Does this imply that “god” means less when predicated of the Word than it does when used as a name for the Father? Once again the reader must divest himself of a post-Nicene understanding of the vocabulary involved.
-Raymond E. Brown, The Anchor Bible, p. 25.The most natural reading of John 1:1 shows that there are two being mentioned (not three): God and a second who was ‘theos’. They are not presented as two coequal persons in a Binity or Trinity. What we really have is one with the character of THEOS who is with TON THEOS (the God), thus he cannot be the God he is with! The LOGOS is unique however. He/it is identified further in the gospel as “a son from a father, begotten, as a visible being verses the unseen God, Now, without redefining the word THEOS we need to explain how we can have two who are both referred to as “theos.” Either there were two equal Gods or persons called God, or it is talking about a godlike one that is with the Almighty God. When we read all the scriptures we see that the scriptures including the Book of John backs up the last view, that the Father is greater than the Son; that the Father is the only God and the Son is the image of The God.
So what conclusion are we to draw from John 1:1 and the Book of John? In John’s own words he explains the conclusion for his Book. This conclusion is not the Trinity Doctrine. Read the verse below to see what the conclusion is.
John 20:30-31.
30 And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book:
31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name. “So John wrote this gospel so that we may come to the conclusion that Jesus is truly the Christ and the Son of God. In addition to this important truth we are also told that we may receive life through his name. The Trinity Doctrine is not the conclusion that one should draw from this writing. Belief that Jesus is the Christ and the Son is the foundation of true faith and Jesus built his Church on this truth. The Trinity Doctrine is not that foundation, rather it is another foundation.
So why don’t translations of the bible translate John 1:1 as the Word was divine. Well first of all it is not incorrect to say that the Word was god, but Trinitarians translators say the Word was God which makes readers think that Jesus is the God (the person). However, in order to bring out the true meaning, some translations actually use the word ‘divine’. See below:
“In the beginning the Word existed. The Word was with God, and the Word was divine.”
An American Translation, Edgar Goodspeed and J. M. Powis Smith, The University of Chicago Press, p. 173“The Logos (word) existed in the very beginning, and the Logos was with God, the Logos was divine”
by Dr. James MoffattSo the idea that Jesus Christ is God is often and supposedly supported by John 1:1. However the rest of John’s Gospel makes careful distinctions between Jesus and his Father as well as Jesus and God. This same distinction and separation is found throughout the rest of the New Testament too. The New Testament actually goes much further than merely distinguishing and separating the two. In John 17:3 Jesus, in prayer to his Father, refers to him as “the only true God”. In John 20:17 the resurrected Jesus refers to his Father as “my Father, and your Father; and… my God, and your God.” In I Corinthians 8:6 the Apostle Paul says of Christians, “to us there is but one God, the Father.” In I Timothy 2:5 Paul states, “For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.” In Ephesians 1:17 Paul refers to the Father as “the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory.” And in Revelation 3:12 the resurrected and glorified Jesus says, “Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and I will write upon him my new name.”
We must also remember that the judges of Israel were called gods/theos. This doesn’t mean that they were part of God or part of the Trinity, it just means that they had authority given to them by God. It is also written that we can partake of divine nature, so that could also make us divine just as partaking in flesh makes us man. It must be noted though, that being divine or partaking in divine nature is different to actually being the Divine himself.
Also see John 10:34-35:
34 Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, I have said you are gods” (theos).
35 If he called them gods (theos), to whom the word of God (ho theos) came, and the Scripture cannot be broken,2 Peter 1:4
Through these he has given us his very great and precious promises, so that through them you may participate in the divine nature and escape the corruption in the world caused by evil desires.Also Jesus said that he was one with his Father and he also prayed that we would be one with them. See John 17:21
that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me.We humans were intended to share in the divine nature too, yet we are not the God. John 1:1 shows us that the Word was god (divine), not (the Word was/is the God, Yahweh) which many seem to think it says. The Word came from God, is of God, is like God, and this is consistent with the scriptures we have looked at thus far. 1 Corinthians 11:3 reinforces this statement because the word “head” in the Greek is translated “from”, source or authority. Remember that the woman came from Man and Man came from Christ and Christ came from God. This is the divine order.
Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.
Jesus Christ is the Word of God, Jesus wasn’t created, rather the Word was born from God in eternity and that is why Jesus is called the Only Begotten of the Father. (John 1:14) (John 1:18) (John 3:16 ) (John 3:18 ) (1 John 4:9 ). The word begotten means (only child, single of its kind). Notice that our spirits are born from God, but through his Word, and our spirits will go back to God who gave it (Ecclesiastes 12:7) . But Jesus was not begotten through the Word because he is the Word, this is why Jesus is unique because he is the only one begotten of the Father and therefore he is the image of his Father. That is why he is called the Image of God and the Firstborn of all creation (Colossians 1:15) and it is also why the Bible says in (Hebrews 1:5) For to which of the angels did God ever say, “You are my Son; today I have become your Father” Or again, “I will be his Father, and he will be my Son”
Unlike his Father who is the invisible Spirit, Jesus does have a body and is visible. Jesus was born from God. We must remember that although his Father is greater than himself, he is also not just a man like us. Yes he partook of flesh and came as a man like us, but he also existed in the form of God as the Word or Logos. We are told that he resides between God and Man and as a man he is our mediator to God. It was indeed the Word that became flesh. God did not become flesh, instead God resided in Christ who came in the flesh. So just like us, God can be in us who are made of flesh, but God himself did not become flesh. God is not a man and never will be a man. It was the Word who came to us as a man and it was the Word that all things were created though. See John 1:3.
Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.And to compliment the fact that God made all things through his Word, and that Jesus is the Word of God, even ignoring the fact that Jesus wears a title, “The Word of God” as recorded in the Book of Revelation, we are specifically told, that God created everything through Jesus Christ. See :Hebrews 1:2
but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe.So Jesus was begotten not created and again, this is why he is called God’s only begotten Son and this is why he is unique. He is seated at the right hand of God and situated between God & Man. This is also why he is the only mediator between God & Man and the only name under heaven whereby Man can be saved. God made creation through him and for him and God redeemed creation through him too. God cannot fellowship with sin that is why he sent his Son into the world, so he could bring us back to himself through his mediator. Jesus came from God and he was in the beginning with God. So what does it mean when it says ‘beginning’? The Greek word for beginning, in John 1:1 “In the beginning was the Word” is ‘arche’ and this word means the following:
1) beginning, origin
2) the person or thing that commences, the first person or thing in a series, the leader
3) that by which anything begins to be, the origin, the active cause
4) the extremity of a thing
4a) of the corners of a sail
5) the first place, principality, rule, magistracy
5a) of angels and demonsBelow I will show you a verse where the word “beginning” or ‘arche’ is also mentioned and I think you will agree that it is rather obvious from this verse that it does not mean eternity or eternal. The verse is John 8:44
You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desire. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him.Just for good measure, I will also throw in the first verse in the bible, which also uses the word beginning (note that this a Hebrew word). I am sure we can all agree that the earth has not been in existence for all of eternity.
Genesis 1:1
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.Certainly if we read John 1:1 correctly and in context with all scripture, we see that it is not teaching that God is a Trinity.
← Go back to ‘Supporting the Trinity Doctrine‘.
Discussion
Hi Charles, I have a question for you.
Do you 'think' that the spirit of Christ is a separate “PERSON” from Jesus?
God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (mikeboll64 @ Oct. 24 2012,05:20) Quote (jammin @ Oct. 22 2012,10:51) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Oct. 22 2012,07:27) Quote (jammin @ Oct. 21 2012,02:47) did you study greek mike??
talk to me when you have formal studies in greek Why not just ask your friend Kathi? Are you AFRAID of what her answer will be? Oh, and when are you going to answer Kathi's question with a NUMBER?
jammin, how many GODS are required for our eternal salvation?
Here are your choices:
1. ONE GOD.
2. TWO GODS.
3. MORE THAN TWO GODS.
Answer the question scaredy-cat. (That goes for you too, Charles.)
i already answered that mike
there is one GOD THE FATHER
one GOD THE ONLY SONtwo persons but one in nature, GOD
But my question is: How many GODS does that add up to? ONE God? TWO Gods? MORE THAN TWO Gods?Please answer the question, jammin.
Also, please ask your friend Kathi about the “monogenes theos” point. Ask her on this site, so we can all see the question, and her answer.
i told you that scholars believe also that GOD THE ONLY SON is the meaning of monogenes theos.
i have no problem if the meaning is begotten God bec monogenes could also mean ONLY SONstudy mike before talking
btw i already answered your questions. one GOD!
the bible says ONE GOD!
the father and the son have the same nature, GOD!
if i say TWO GODS then it will mean that they have TWO NATURES.the bible is not teaching that kind of doctrine. the bible said that they have the same nature and that is nature GOd. PHIL 2.6
just like you and your father mike. you only have ONE HUMAN nature. you cant have TWO natures mike. are you an alien?? LOL
before i forgot, where is your version of FORM OF HIS GOD in phil 2.6 and uniquely generated in john 1.18? im still waiting boy LOL
[quote=SimplyForgiven,Oct. 21 2012,19:32][/quote]
Quote Good one, I didn't see that.
another correction, Jesus wasn't forced.Simplyforgiven,/ EDJ
read Mark 1:12 KJV
IT SAYS:
12And immediately the Spirit DRIVETH him into the wilderness.
REFERING TO STRONGS:
to cast out; to drive out; to send out;
1. with the included notion of more or less violence;
WHAT ARE YOUR COMMENTS?
?Peace and love in Jesus
Charles
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
