- This topic has 18,300 replies, 268 voices, and was last updated 1 year, 1 month ago by
.
- Posts
Quote Quote: from GJG on 2:36 am on Aug. 23, 2003
To the Globster,Thx 4 that reply,
Regarding the One substance:
Could it be that this One invisible, eternal, omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient, spirit, known as God, is also the very same substance that is known as the Holy Ghost. The same Holy Ghost that Jesus also claims to be (His Divine nature). Maybe?
Hi GJG
The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are of one substance, but Jesus is not the Holy Spirit (and doesn’t claim to be) he clearly distinguishes himself from the Holy spirit by the word "another" –
16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;
and as you pointed out –
Interestingly enough, in this chapter Jesus says that the Father will send the Comforter, yet in the following two chapters Jesus tells them that He Himself will send the Comforter.
We cannot interpret this as Jesus sending himself, so he is a seperate person from the Holy Spirit.
(Edited by global at 5:37 pm on Aug. 24, 2003)
Quote Quote: from GJG on 4:38 am on Aug. 23, 2003
To all,Who does the ‘works’ (miracles), Jesus or God?
Hi GJG,
I believe Jesus is God.
Quote Quote: from global on 5:41 pm on Aug. 24, 2003 Quote Quote: from GJG on 4:38 am on Aug. 23, 2003
To all,Who does the ‘works’ (miracles), Jesus or God?
Hi GJG,
I believe Jesus is God.
Thx again Globmeister:)
I also beleive this, but only in that the ‘Divinity of God’ or ‘Spirit of God’, dwelt within Jesus’ mortal flesh while on earth: "Divinity clothed in humanity". This same flesh has now put on immortality to become glorified flesh.
I also agree that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are one and the same substance. This one substance being the One Spirit that is the omnipresent God.
How can the Holy Spirit be a seperate substance to the One Spirit that is everywhere in existence?
Does the Bible not teach that the Holy Spirit is the very same Spirit of God?
The Spirit-filled believer is filled with God, Christ and the Holy Ghost. Are there three Spirits that fill believers? certainly not, as the Bible is clear that there is only One Spirit. We must then always keep clearly in mind that whether we are speaking of the Spirit in creation, the incarnation or at Pentecost, we are speaking of the same Spirit. God is Spirit and there is one God.
Gimme ur thorts dude!
To Global (from loser).
Your quotes are in gray.
I will also try and make this as simple as possible.It is not up to Man to classify God.
1 Corinthians 2:11
<font color=red>For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the man’s spirit within him? In the same way no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God.</font>1 Corinthians 2:14
<font color=red>The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.</font>Your Quote: <font color=gray>What is Jehovah? (HINT: the answer will tell what type of being he is.)</font>
I am not sure if God is a being. I can accept what you are saying with the word God being a class. God (theos) can be used to describe authority. We are gods, Satan is a God. However when we refer to the Most High God, I do not think that we should think class, because he is the Most High and he is not a type. He is the source of all things. He is ONE. In the language we can think class, but in the person of God, we shouldn’t think class in my opinion. He is a person.Your Quote: <font color=gray>Do you think Jesus could be God in the past but not now?</font>
I haven’t got around to reading all your rebuttals yet and hence the reason that i have not answered them. It takes time as you know and I will answer them in time.I think that there was a time when there was just God. (Not sure if the word ‘time’ should be used here). God first thought us all and then created us by speaking us into existence. Our souls are perhaps the thoughts of God that he has set free from himself to be their own person by the gift of free will. It is up to us if we choose him or reject him. Eternal life sits on this decision. Now Christ was the first, but he was not created like us. He was born of the father and he is the Word. He is a person, he has his own will and God has his will. We can exist forever just like Christ. We are no different to Christ in the sense that he was born of God and he definitely has his own will. Except Christ is the firstborn Son and we are the Sons to follow. He has first place in all things and sits with his Father on his throne ruling all of creation and authorities. Therefore before Christ was his own person, there was God and his thoughts. So however way we view that, we could perhaps say that he was part of God or there was only God. But the Son hasn’t existed forever. God created all things through his Word except for Christ himself who was born of God directly. Therefore he is like his Father because he is his son. We have been born through the Word, so we should be like Christ who is like God and therefore we are also born in the image of God. Jesus will continue forever and therefore so will we, who are saved in his name.
John 8:34-36
<font color=red>Truly, truly, I say to you, every one who commits sin is a slave to sin. The slave does not continue in the house for ever; the son continues for ever. So if the Son makes you free, you will be free indeed. </font>Your Quote: <font color=gray>If you are using the past tense in Jn 1.1 to say he isn’t God now, how does applying the same argument to your interpretation of Jn 1.1 affect your idea of Jesus now? Do you believe that Jesus had the divine nature in the past but not now?</font>
What I am saying is that John 1:1 doesn’t say that Jesus is God. It says that the Word was WITH God and WAS God.
If I said that I was WITH the Word in the beginning, would you assume that I was the Word or someone else. If I said I was divine, would you assume that I was THE DIVINE or had the divine nature?
As I pointed out before, it is quite clear from John’s Gospel that he is trying to demonstrate that Jesus is the Christ and the Son of God. I accept this, therefore I accept John’s Gospel.
Your quote: <font color=gray>Make up your mind T8, before you were arguing that the Word is not God because the theos lacked the article, now you are saying that the presence of the article doesn’t necessarily mean God, so which one is it?</font>
When the article is present we know that it is God being spoken of. In the case of Satan, he is called "the God of this Age". So the description of what kind of God he is rules out that he is the Most High God. However the point is that the article shows that God or a god is being spoken of, rather than a Godly quality. Again the difference between The Divine and divine.
Your Quote: <font color=gray>I am glad you find it amusing, but perhaps you should save your laughter until you have answered all of the Biblical arguments I – IX I have posted previously, don’t forget to answer these important questions about John 1.1 </font>
It’s laughable in the sense that Trinity believers have to ignore an incredible amount of scriptures to believe the Trinity Doctrine. You also have to come to a different conclusion that John came to in his Gospel. It certainly is hard to argue the Trinity doctrine with many of the scriptures saying the opposite. The scriptures are clear that Jesus has a God and is subject to him in all things. This is clearly taught in the New Testament. This is why I am confident that the Truth will prevail. It is easier to argue truth, than make a sound case pushing error. But you do have the advantage of hundreds of years of writings based on the Trinity and in a lot of cases you can copy and paste from a lot of information. But I have the scriptures at my disposal and from scripture I will show you that there is One God the Father and one Lord Jesus Christ, who is subject in all things to the Father, who is his God.
Your Quote: <font color=gray>1. Why is your interpretation of Jn 1.1 not supported by any reputable Greek SCHOLARS? </font>
1 Corinthians 1:20
<font color=red>Where is the wise man? Where is the SCHOLAR? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?</font>1 Corinthians 1:27
<font color=red>But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. </font>Remember you called me a loser. I agree. I am a loser for the truth and hundreds of years ago I would have lost my life for preaching what I preach. An Organisation can kill all those who do not follow her doctrines, but death is no final solution. The Truth will always prevail in the end and I am willing to give up my life for the truth because the truth is greater than myself.
1 Corinthians 3:19
<font color=red>For the wisdom of this world is foolishness in God’s sight.
As it is written: "He catches the wise in their craftiness"[ 3:19 Job 5:13] ; </font>James 4:6
<font color=red>But he gives us more grace. That is why Scripture says: "God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble."[ 4:6 Prov. 3:34]</font>Your quote: <font color=gray>2. Why don’t you accept the interpretation of the many world renowned scholars of Greek which I have posted? </font>
Same reason as above. I have the scriptures and the Spirit to lead me into truth. I do not need Greek Scholars, scientists, men with high IQs. I need revelation from God himself. Not revelation from Men. Revelation from man comes from the spirit of Man.
Your quote: <font color=gray>3. If John wanted to convey that Jesus had divine qualities, why didn’t he use the adjective for "divine" [theos] as in Acts 17:29 and 2 Pe 1:3.? </font>
If I want to say that something is good, I can choose the word divine or the word godly or many other similar words.
John 20
<font color=red>28 Thomas said to him, "My Lord and my God!"</font>Titus 2
<font color=red>13 while we wait for the blessed hope, the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ, </font>2 Peter 1<font color=red>1 Simon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who through the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ have received a faith as precious as ours:</font>
1 John 5
<font color=red>20 We know also that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding, so that we may know him who is true. And we are in him who is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. He is the true God and eternal life. </font>As mentioned before, there are many Gods and many Lords. But we are to consider that the Father is the One God above all other Gods. Now we are gods too, but Jesus is above us, just as God the Father is above Christ. This is what I teach and I believe the scriptures teach this comprehensively. We need to read scripture with scripture and if read together we can see the true picture. If we take scriptures on their own, we can believe many things that were not intended.
Now these scriptures you quoted above can be seen in different ways.
One way is to see them as talking about 2 different people. Another is to say that Jesus is certainlty a God and our God, just as the father is God and Jesus God and our God. After all Jesus did say that He is the Way and the truth and we certainly know that he is a Theos. But he is the way to God, he is the truth of God and he gives life through God to all he chooses.
Yes I could say that Jesus is my God. But he is not the God of all. Jesus is in authority to me and The Father is in authority to Jesus and myself. This is why I disagree with the Trinity doctrine. Paul warned us of the great falling away and now we see a doctrine that is not taught in scripture as a so called foundational doctrine. This is very suspicious.
You can believe what you want to believe, but I will put my trust in the Spirit of God and the scriptures. I am not taking any chances with my soul. Therefore I will not put my life on a doctrine formulated by scholars. I believe that God doesn’t want me to do that.
God -> Christ -> Man -> Animals. Each one is the God of the one/s below.
Your quote: <font color=gray>5. How do you explain that Jehovah is called ‘a God". </font>
He is a God. What kind of God? The Most Hight God. The God of Gods.
Your quote: <font color=gray>6. How do you explain that the word ‘Logos’ (Memra) for the Jews appears to be simply a euphemism for God? </font>
This is something I am trying to understand now. Is the Word a person or a thought of God? Did the Word become a person when he was given a will, or when he was born into this world. Or when was he given his own will? I know that we who are saved, are born through the Word of God. I am still trying to understanding this.
Your quote: <font color=gray>OK I’ll be more specific, there is no basis for claiming that Rev 3.14 shows Jesus had a beginning and is not eternal </font>
I agree.
Your quote: <font color=gray>If the Trinity doctrine is proved to be true, then by definition you are not a true believer if you do not accept it.</font>
Then I could say that if you believe that Jesus is God, then you how can you believe that he is the Son of God and the Messiah in its true sense. I mean to have a Son, is to have made a life after your own image. Even in our understanding of a son, we never say that the Son or daughter is the actual parent. Therefore I say that you, me, all of us, need to believe that Jesus Christ
is the Son. This is the true foundation. Don’t let the Trinity doctrine or any doctrine lead you away from simple truth that God has a Son whose name is Jesus Christ. (Yeshua). I repeat, that a true believer believes that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God. I believe this, so please show me proof that I am not saved because I do not believe in Jesus being one part of a Trinity God.I have proved to you from scripture what the true belief is and I cannot see how you can believe the truth and the Trinity at the same time. Now you show me how those who do not believe in the Trinity are condemned. Please use scripture, not tradition or creed.
Your quote: <font color=gray>Also you cannot substitute Trinity for God (theos) as you have done above because the Trinity is a description of God, it does not have the same meaning as the word God. </font>
OK so the word God doesn’t mean Trinity. But that seems strange because you are saying to me that God is a Trinity. So when we read the word God we shouldn’t be thinking Trinity. I AGREE. When we read the word God we must understand that there are many Gods. Next we need to determine which God, God of this Age, Most High God etc. Then we have to understand that God is referring to a person, unless it is a false God. If one denies that God is a person, then such a person is no better off than those who believe in some impersonal universal spirit or force.
Your Quote: <font color=gray> said that in YOUR example of In the beginning was Eve, and Eve was with Adam etc etc.. that it was a false argument because the word God is not a proper name like Adam (the proper name of God is Jehovah). </font>
This was used to perhaps gain some understanding of the structure of the sentence. I don’t see a problem with it. It has no correlation to names. If you thought that, then you got the wrong idea. Just structure. Nothing more, nothing less. If I say "in the beginning was the man and the woman was with the man and the woman was man," then that still brings out the point.
Quote Quote: from GJG on 5:35 am on Aug. 25, 2003
To the Globalizer:)Quick qestion:
Who sent the Comforter, the Father, Son or Holy Ghost?
Is this a trick question?
You said previously –
"Interestingly enough, in this chapter Jesus says that the Father will send the Comforter, yet in the following two chapters Jesus tells them that He Himself will send the Comforter. This again lines up with the scripture: “I and my Father are one”
Yes it is interesting that at times certain actions are attributed to more than one person of the Trinity indistinctly, i.e the example you gave above about who sends the Comforter.
I posted previously how the actions of Justification and Sanctification were in some passages attributed to Jesus and in others to the Holy Spirit.
In some passages it says the Father raises Jesus to life after the crucifixion, in others it says Jesus raises himself.
We also see that both the Father and Jesus share the divine titles.
And yet they are obviously all spoken of as being seperate persons, this is the mystery of the Trinity, three persons, one substance, all the one God.
You said –
"I also beleive this, but only in that the ‘Divinity of God’ or ‘Spirit of God’, dwelt within Jesus’ mortal flesh while on earth: "Divinity clothed in humanity". "
But do you believe Jesus existed before he became a man? and do you believe Jesus was God, both before and after becoming a man?
Be Well.
Hi T8,
You said –
“To Global (from loser)”
Don’t get upset T8, I didn’t say you were a loser, I said your argument is a loser, sorry if I gave any other impression.
You said –
“It is not up to Man to classify God.”
But God has revealed himself to us, and he has also given us our natural reason and intelligence to discover things and look for the truth.
Acts 17:2
And according to Paul’s custom, he went to them, and for three Sabbaths reasoned with them from the Scriptures,1 John 4:1
Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.Revelation 2:2
‘I know your deeds and your toil and perseverance, and that you cannot tolerate evil men, and you put to the test those who call themselves apostles, and they are not, and you found them to be false;You said –
“What I am saying is that John 1:1 doesn’t say that Jesus is God. It says that the Word was WITH God and WAS God.
If I said that I was WITH the Word in the beginning, would you assume that I was the Word or someone else. If I said I was divine, would you assume that I was THE DIVINE or had the divine nature?”
So do you now accept that the use of the past tense here has no bearing?
I’m not sure because you still don’t say what effect the past tense has on your position about the divine nature.
If Jn. 1.1 says the Word was God, then that is what I believe, I don’t need to make any assumptions.
The fact is that it doesn’t say “divine nature” and that is your problem.
You said –
“However the point is that the article shows that God or a god is being spoken of, rather than a Godly quality. Again the difference between The Divine and divine.”
But before you were saying that the absence of the article made it an adjective i.e a quality, I think you should set out definitively your position on this because it seems that even you are not sure.
What do you mean by “the point is that the article shows that God or a god is being spoken of”? I have shown that Jehovah is called “a God” and Jesus is called “the God” so there is no difference between these terms.
Also, I do not in any way accept this distinction between The Divine and divine, nor is it one found in the Bible.
One is either divine or not, God or not God. That is the meaning of the word divine. If the Bible says that someone is divine then it means by definition, they are the one true God.
We know that there can be only one true God –
Isaiah 43:10
Ye [are] my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I [am] he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.Isaiah 43:11
I, [even] I, [am] the LORD; and beside me [there is] no saviour.There cannot be a true “lesser” God.
It is true that the Bible uses the word “god” in relation to Satan, and others, but it is always quite clear that these persons are not actually divine.
You said –
“As I pointed out before, it is quite clear from John’s Gospel that he is trying to demonstrate that Jesus is the Christ and the Son of God. I accept this”
I also accept this, but it seems to me that you are going to extraordinary lengths to avoid what he also says in Jn1.1, why can’t you accept it all?
You said –
“It’s laughable in the sense that Trinity believers have to ignore an incredible amount of scriptures to believe the Trinity Doctrine.”
I don’t think I have ignored any of the scriptures you have used as arguments, I am trying to answer all of your points.
You said –
“The scriptures are clear that Jesus has a God and is subject to him in all things.”
Can you accept that IF the Trinity WAS true, that Jesus the MAN would have the Father as his God?
You said –
“Your quote: 2. Why don’t you accept the interpretation of the many world renowned scholars of Greek which I have posted?
Same reason as above. I have the scriptures and the Spirit to lead me into truth. I do not need Greek Scholars, scientists, men with high IQs. I need revelation from God himself. Not revelation from Men. Revelation from man comes from the spirit of Man.”
But it was you yourself who resorted to explanations of the original Greek to “explain” the scriptures, but now you do not accept the explanation of people who obviously know much more about Greek than you.
You said –
“Your quote: 3. If John wanted to convey that Jesus had divine qualities, why didn’t he use the adjective for "divine" [theos] as in Acts 17:29 and 2 Pe 1:3.?
If I want to say that something is good, I can choose the word divine or the word godly or many other similar words.”
But none of those words are used in Jn 1.1, it says he was “God”.
You said –
“John 20
28 Thomas said to him, "My Lord and my God!"Titus 2
13 while we wait for the blessed hope, the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ,2 Peter 1
1 Simon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who through the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ have received a faith as precious as ours:1 John 5
20 We know also that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding, so that we may know him who is true. And we are in him who is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. He is the true God and eternal life.As mentioned before, there are many Gods and many Lords. But we are to consider that the Father is the One God above all other Gods.”
No, there is one God and one Lord –
1 Corinthians 8:6
yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom are all things and we exist for Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we exist through Him.There are many “gods” and “lords” but the Father is not the One God above all other Gods, he is the ONLY God.
Isaiah 44:8
‘Do not tremble and do not be afraid;
Have I not long since announced it to you and declared it?
And you are My witnesses.
Is there any God besides Me,
Or is there any other Rock?
I know of none.’ "You said –
“Then I could say that if you believe that Jesus is God, then you how can you believe that he is the Son of God and the Messiah in its true sense. I mean to have a Son, is to have made a life after your own image. Even in our understanding of a son, we never say that the Son or daughter is the actual parent.”
Please try and understand that Jesus is not the Father, they are different people.
It is hard to understand how they can both be God, but don’t let your human limitations lead you to reject the revelation of scripture.
You said –
“Now you show me how those who do not believe in the Trinity are condemned.”
I never said you were condemned, the Catholic church does not teach that non believers are definitely condemned, only God can say this.
Be Well.
Quote Quote: from global on 12:22 pm on Aug. 27, 2003 Quote Quote: from GJG on 5:35 am on Aug. 25, 2003
To the Globalizer:)Quick qestion:
Who sent the Comforter, the Father, Son or Holy Ghost?
Is this a trick question?
You said previously –
"Interestingly enough, in this chapter Jesus says that the Father will send the Comforter, yet in the following two chapters Jesus tells them that He Himself will send the Comforter. This again lines up with the scripture: “I and my Father are one”
Yes it is interesting that at times certain actions are attributed to more than one person of the Trinity indistinctly, i.e the example you gave above about who sends the Comforter.
I posted previously how the actions of Justification and Sanctification were in some passages attributed to Jesus and in others to the Holy Spirit.
In some passages it says the Father raises Jesus to life after the crucifixion, in others it says Jesus raises himself.
We also see that both the Father and Jesus share the divine titles.
And yet they are obviously all spoken of as being seperate persons, this is the mystery of the Trinity, three persons, one substance, all the one God.
You said –
"I also beleive this, but only in that the ‘Divinity of God’ or ‘Spirit of God’, dwelt within Jesus’ mortal flesh while on earth: "Divinity clothed in humanity". "
But do you believe Jesus existed before he became a man? and do you believe Jesus was God, both before and after becoming a man?
Be Well.
hehe…:)
I’ll try not to be so obvious next time.
Yes indeed, the similarities are quite evident.
Try this on for size Global:
Could it possibly be, due to the above mentioned points, that the Holy Ghost (Spirit of God), the Spirit of Christ, and the eternal omnipresent Spirit God; BE ONE AND THE SAME SPIRIT? THE ONE ETERNAL SPIRIT THAT IS GOD.
To the Globmeister:)
You asked:
But do you believe Jesus existed before he became a man? and do you believe Jesus was God, both before and after becoming a man?
I answer:
The substance within this unique person (Jesus) is the very same substance that is the one eternal Spirit; God.
Jesus did pre-exist only within the mind and plan of God (logos).
The ‘name’ Jesus came into actual being only when the ‘perfect vessel’ was made of a woman, so that the ‘God within’ became a Father to that which He conceived, hence:"God with us".
As you rightly put it; the flesh is not the true ‘self’ of a man, but rather the spirit within. Thus, this many-titled Spirit (God), that was within a truly pure vessel, took unto Himself this "Personal Name": Jesus.
This vessel of God has now been glorified into heaven in a totally different form. The same form that manifested Himself to Saul (Paul), on the way to Damascus, as a supernaturally bright and intense light. The past vessel is no more, until the time He desires to come back.
Therefore, there is a truth to the fact that Jesus was and is the Immutable Eternal Spirit: God.
Bring it on Globalizer:) lookin 4ward 2 ur thorts.
To Global,
Your quotes are in gray.
About being a loser or my argument being a loser. I am truly not upset. It actually brings a smile to my face. If God told me I was a loser, then I would surely be concerned.
<font color=gray><i>1 John 4:1
Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.Revelation 2:2
‘I know your deeds and your toil and perseverance, and that you cannot tolerate evil men, and you put to the test those who call themselves apostles, and they are not, and you found them to be false; </i></font>What are you saying with the above scriptures? Are you pointing them to me?
<font color=gray><i>But before you were saying that the absence of the article made it an adjective i.e a quality, I think you should set out definitively your position on this because it seems that even you are not sure. </i></font>
I gave it as one option among others. You tell me why the article is used in every instance of God in John 1:1 except the part that says "the Word was God?" I only repeated what I heard from some Jewish people. Yes I am searching for the meaning of this verse.
<font color=gray><i>What do you mean by “the point is that the article shows that God or a god is being spoken of”? I have shown that Jehovah is called “a God” and Jesus is called “the God” so there is no difference between these terms. </i></font>
A God, the God, in English ‘A’ and ‘the’ are both articles. Not sure of your point here. In John 1:1 "The Word was God" has no article".
<font color=gray><i>I also accept this, but it seems to me that you are going to extraordinary lengths to avoid what he also says in Jn 1.1, why can’t you accept it all? </i></font>
Not at all. I am reading scripture with scripture to understand the truth. If I accept your view of John 1:1, then I have to throw away a huge chunk of the New Testament, including John, Paul and Peter’s teachings on God and Christ. Really clear and specific teaching at that. Anyway you say that you believe that Jesus is the Son of God and at the same time GOD. This is weird to any clear thinking mind. To be the Son of yourself. No biblical writer is trying to convince people that Jesus is the son of himself.
<font color=gray><i>Can you accept that IF the Trinity WAS true, that Jesus the MAN would have the Father as his God?</i></font>
Yes. Can you accept that the glorified Jesus in Heaven now (the same glory that he had before the worlds were made) has a God? Your belief in the Trinity will not allow it.
Revelation 3:12 (English-NIV)
<font color=red>Him who overcomes I will make a pillar in the temple of my God.
Never again will he leave it.
I will write on him the name of my God and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem, which is coming down out of heaven from my God; and I will also write on him my new name. </font><font color=gray><i>But it was you yourself who resorted to explanations of the original Greek to “explain” the scriptures, but now you do not accept the explanation of people who obviously know much more about Greek than you.</i></font>
No problem with resorting to the Greek. The point is that you are asking me to trust Scholars who believe in the Trinity. You are wondering why I don’t trust their conclusions. I gave you my reason why. Simple. If I am to determine what is true, cannot the Spirit and the scriptures together show me the truth. God resists proud people. There are a lot of proud people. Many of them are scholars. Did these scholars love God. How do we know? Truth cannot be determined by intelligence, if so then intelligent people would have more chance at knowing the truth. Not so though, God gives us all a chance and usually it is children that do better than the learned because children are innocent, humble and teachable. I don’t have a problem with scholars that preach the truth. But there are many learned people in the areas of science, religion and philosophy that talk crap.
Luke 10:21
<font color=red>At that time Jesus, full of joy through the Holy Spirit, said, "I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children. Yes, Father, for this was your good pleasure. </font><font color=gray><i>If I want to say that something is good, I can choose the word divine or the word godly or many other similar words.”
But none of those words are used in Jn 1.1, it says he was “God”. </i></font>Lets look at some other translations:
"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 Moffatt
John 1:1
The Word already was, way back before anything began to be. The Word and God were together. The Word was God. (WE)First of all, it is quite obvious from simply reading John 1:1 that even in the very best case, this verse speaks only of a "Duality" not a "Trinity." One is "the GOD" and one is "the WORD". It doesn’t say 3 persons 1 GOD. If it did however, then I would believe the Trinity. But it doesn’t.
So all translations distinguish between The Word and The God, but some seem to say the Word was the God before they were together or the Word was God/divine. Either view doesn’t promote a Trinity and either view compliments what I am saying. To be with someone makes 2, correct? God + the Word =2. I am sure that there was only one before that, just GOD.
I also read this from another web site:
"In the "original" Greek manuscripts (Did the disciple John speak Greek?), "The Word" is only described as being "ton theos"(divine/a god) and not as being "ho theos" (The Divine/The God). A more faithful and correct translation of this verse would thus read: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was divine".The point is that I am reading all the scriptures and it is obvious that there is a
distinction between God and Jesus Christ. We are not talking about 1 or 2 verses, rather hundreds perhaps thousands.<font color=gray><i>“Then I could say that if you believe that Jesus is God, then you how can you believe that he is the Son of God and the Messiah in its true sense. I mean to have a Son, is to have made a life after your own image. Even in our understanding of a son, we never say that the Son or daughter is the actual parent.”
Please try and understand that Jesus is not the Father, they are different people.</i></font>The problem with your answer is that Jesus is called the "Son of GOD", not the Son of the Father as far as I know. (although he is the Son of his Father). God became a father when he begat a Son. This is what I believe and this is what I teach.
How can Jesus be the Son of God and God at the same time. This is very strange. The Son of himself.
<font color=gray><i>It is hard to understand how they can both be God, but don’t let your human limitations lead you to reject the revelation of scripture.</i></font>
I think the opposite. I actually believed in the Trinity once. When I was a young and a vulnerable believer and when I had very little understanding of the scriptures. I just believed the religious doctrine that the churches were pushing. As I got older, I simply saw through it, by the leading of God’s own Spirit. Besides God is not the author of confusion and most if not all Trinity believers cannot fully understand their own doctri
ne. They came up with a doctrine that no one fully understands. Silly Scholars.Acts 17:2
<font color=red>And according to Paul’s custom, he went to them, and for three Sabbaths REASONED with them from the Scriptures, </font>The Trinity doctrine is unreasonable. You cannot reason it. 3 is 1, yet 1 is not one third of 3 and all are co equal. No way. The scriptures are clear that the Father is greater than Christ. I believe the scriptures over the cleverly devised fables of men any day.
<font color=gray><i>“Now you show me how those who do not believe in the Trinity are condemned.”
I never said you were condemned, the Catholic church does not teach that non believers are definitely condemned, only God can say this. </i></font>
LOL. I have been demoted to a non-believer by the Catholic Mind. Well try telling God that. He has worked in my life in a powerful way. Your view is different to God’s view. You know what! I hate your religion just as I would have hated the Pharasees religion before you. In fact I hate all the religions of men. They are so boring with all their traditions and stuck in the mud doctrines. So do children. They hate going to church and listening to all that tradition. Those who are saved are the Church anyway. We cannot go to Church in the true sense of the word Church. The truth is dynamic and awesome. Better than anything man can come up with.
I have a real faith that your carnal mind cannot label. The religious today are like the religious of yesterday. Jesus condemned their leaven just as I do.
<font color=gray><i>I don’t think I have ignored any of the scriptures you have used as arguments, I am trying to answer all of your points. </i></font>
I haven’t read all your rebuttals yet. But once I have replied to them, I am looking forward to seeing how your religion can explain clear biblical teaching that Jesus has a God and that God is our God too. That Jesus is subject to God. That Jesus and God are mentioned together but as different people. That Jesus is the SON OF GOD and GOD is the Father. It will be interesting to see what you say at least.
You are both correct to a certain extent:
There is much Biblical evidence that teaches Jesus as being one and the same Spirit that is God: Dual-nature of the man-Christ.
There is also just as much Biblical evidence that teaches Jesus as being the Son of the Spirit that is God: Divine conception of a pure vessel.
The way in which you both put across the two differing reasonings, seems to be getting your aims further and further from the target.
May I suggest you both search out the obvious common ground: JESUS!
You both earlier on, agreed on what is the true "self" of a person. Go back to that particular common ground, regarding the man-Jesus, and then nut it out from there:)
Is that an appropriate suggestion?
this is addressed to (T8)
dear t8
I can see that you have done much studying. and you do know the word of God.
you have enlightened my search for GODS truth.Thank you and God Bless you.
brojoeHi T8,
I’m glad you are not really offended by the loser comment, I really don’t want to upset anyone
I think we can make some progress on the meaning of Jn 1.1, particularly as you do seem to admit that you are not completely sure how to explain it.
I don’t think that everything you have said about Jesus is wrong, I also agree with everything you say about him being the Son of God etc. but although I don’t think what you say is wrong I do think it is incomplete.
Jn 1.1 is a problem for you because you have difficulty with reconciling what it says about Jesus being God with the other statements about him being a Son, and having the Father as his God etc.
But the explanation you have constructed to resolve this creates just as many problems as it solves and cannot therefore be said to resolve the problem better than the Trinity.
Jesus is clearly called God in many passages apart from Jn 1.1 and I cannot see how you reconcile this with the clear statements in the Bible that there is only one God, if Jesus is divine, then he must be the same God as the Father.
You cannot justify this by saying that the Bible talks of many gods, because as I have pointed out before it is always clear that those people are not divine, but Jesus is clearly identified as divine.
Now I will answer some of your questions, you said –
“What are you saying with the above scriptures? Are you pointing them to me?”
I am saying that it is legitimate for me to test ideas and doctrines using my God given reason and the scriptures, even to discover the nature of God.
However I do agree with you that it is not for us to explain God, but only because we are not able, the Church recognises that the Trinity is a mystery beyond human understanding.
You said –
“I gave it as one option among others. You tell me why the article is used in every instance of God in John 1:1 except the part that says "the Word was God?"
I have already answered this in depth in my Biblical arguments part V, I know I have posted a lot of stuff so maybe you haven’t got there yet, I will repeat a small part of that again here –
Henry Alford: "Theos must then be taken as implying God, in substance and essence,–not ho theos, ‘the Father,’ in person. It does not = theios, nor is it to be rendered a God–but, as in sarx egeneto, sarx expresses that state into which the Divine Word entered by a definite act, so in theos en, theos expresses that essence which was His en arche:–that He was very God. So that this first verse might be connected thus: the Logos was from eternity,–was with God (the Father),–and was Himself God." Alford’s Greek Testament: An Exegetical and Critical Commentary, Vol. I, Part II (Guardian Press, 1975; originally published 1871), p. 681.
So the absence of the article is to distinguish the Word from the person of the Father, while at the same time affirming his absolute divinity.
Westcott says the same –
B. F. Westcott: "The predicate (God) stands emphatically first, as in v.24. It is necessarily without the article (theos not ho theos) inasmuch as it describes the nature of the Word and does not identify His Person… No idea of inferiority of nature is suggested by the form of expression, which simply affirms the true deity of the Word." The Gospel According to St. John (Eerdmans, 1958 reprint), p. 3.
You said –
What do you mean by “the point is that the article shows that God or a god is being spoken of”? I have shown that Jehovah is called “a God” and Jesus is called “the God” so there is no difference between these terms.
A God, the God, in English ‘A’ and ‘the’ are both articles. Not sure of your point here. In John 1:1 "The Word was God" has no article".
The point is that some people incorrectly put “a God” in English when no article is present in Greek, whether the article is present or not has no significance as the true God is spoken of in both instances, it doesn’t mean a “lesser” God or “godlike” or “having the nature of God”.
You said –
“Not at all. I am reading scripture with scripture to understand the truth. If I accept your view of John 1:1, then I have to throw away a huge chunk of the New Testament, including John, Paul and Peter’s teachings on God and Christ.”
No you don’t have to throw them away, just see that they are not inconsistent with the Trinity as you will see when you have had an opportunity to read all my biblical arguments.
You have already admitted that the man Jesus has the Father as his God, i.e not inconsistent.
You said –
“Yes. Can you accept that the glorified Jesus in Heaven now (the same glory that he had before the worlds were made) has a God? Your belief in the Trinity will not allow it.”
Again you show that you do not understand the Trinity, Jesus retains his perfect humanity even after he ascends to heaven, he retains it forever, so the Father will always be the God of the man.
There is no conflict with the Trinity.
You said –
“No problem with resorting to the Greek. The point is that you are asking me to trust Scholars who believe in the Trinity.”
No, not all of them –
Dr. J. Johnson of California State University, Long Beach: "No justification whatsoever for translating THEOS EN HO LOGOS as ‘the Word was a god.’ There is no syntactical parallel to Acts 28:6 where there is a statement in indirect discourse; John 1:1 is direct….I AM NEITHER A CHRISTIAN NOR A TRINITARIAN."
You said –
“Lets look at some other translations:
"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 Moffatt
John 1:1
The Word already was, way back before anything began to be. The Word and God were together. The Word was God. (WE)”Again I refer you to my Biblical arguments part V where I have shown that those translations of the Bible lack all credibility.
You said –
I also read this from another web site:
"In the "original" Greek manuscripts (Did the disciple John speak Greek?), "The Word" is only described as being "ton theos"(divine/a god) and not as being "ho theos" (The Divine/The God). A more faithful and correct translation of this verse would thus read: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was divine".Again see my Biblical arguments part V which shows this to be absolutely incorrect, but in any case it would make absolutely no difference, if the Word is divine then he must be God, as that is the meaning of the word divine, and there cannot be two gods as I have shown before.
You said –
“The point is that I am reading all the scriptures and it is obvious that there is a distinction between God and Jesus Christ. We are not talking about 1 or 2 verses, rather hundreds perhaps thousands.”
You say this as if it resolves your problems instead of creates them.
You still have to reconcile why Jesus is also clearly referred to as God, and you still haven’t said anything about the Holy Spirit who is also clearly identified as God.
You said –
“How can Jesus be the Son of God and God at the same time. This is very strange.”
Again I say to you, don’t put limitations on God just because your human mind finds it hard to understand.
T8, I have now shown on several occasions that passages which you thought were incompatible with the Trinity are not because your idea of the Trinity was wrong.
We have also seen that you don’t know how to explain Jn 1.1 (as you admitted).
So, T8 can’t you at least see that it could be possible that your idea of Jesus could be i
ncomplete, and it is possible that the Trinity (when you understand it correctly) could resolve these problems for you?You said –
“I haven’t read all your rebuttals yet. But once I have replied to them, I am looking forward to seeing how your religion can explain clear biblical teaching that Jesus has a God and that God is our God too. That Jesus is subject to God. That Jesus and God are mentioned together but as different people. That Jesus is the SON OF GOD and GOD is the Father. It will be interesting to see what you say at least.”
I accept everything you have said above, and have shown that it is not incompatible with the Trinity, so it will be interesting to see what you say!
Be Well.
Hi GJG –
You said –
“Could it possibly be, due to the above mentioned points, that the Holy Ghost (Spirit of God), the Spirit of Christ, and the eternal omnipresent Spirit God; BE ONE AND THE SAME SPIRIT? THE ONE ETERNAL SPIRIT THAT IS GOD.”
Yes they are all the one God, and of one substance, so I suppose we could say they are all the same spirit.
But does this mean they are all the one person?
I don’t think so as the Bible clearly talks of them as being separate persons who talk to each other etc.
You said –
“Jesus did pre-exist only within the mind and plan of God (logos).”
But Jn 1.1 doesn’t say that, it says he is God, also as I posted before in my Biblical arguments part VI –
Another common mistake is the Adoptionist or Logos theology position as currently taught by Christadelphians, which would paraphrase as –
In the beginning, God had a plan to eventually create EVE, and EVE, as God imagined, was with MAN, and EVE, as God imagined, was MAN. v1-2 … Finally, the thought/plan became flesh when EVE was actually created. v14
Meaning –
"In the beginning God had a fore-ordained plan in his mind (logos). And this fore-ordained plan was with God, and this plan was as inseparable from God as is a thought from the person thinking it – thus the plan was God." v1-2 … "And Jesus Christ came into personal existence for the first time at His conception, being a creature based upon God’s fore-ordained plan in the beginning. Now God’s plan was materialized in all its fulness."
Christadelphians would argue that the phrase, "the Word was with God" does not mean the Son and the Father are distinct. "Word" (Gr. logos) simply means "something said" and refers to God’s speaking in creation ("In the beginning" – cp. Gen 1:1,3).
However this position can also be shown to be incorrect as the word "with" (Gr. pros) means "to, towards" when used with the accusative as it is here (Thayer, p.541). The word is generally translated "to" or "toward" (NKJV) or "unto" (KJV; see John 1:29,42,47; 2:3; 3:2,4,20,26). So this phrase cannot be referring to "something said" coming FROM God.
You said –
This vessel of God has now been glorified into heaven in a totally different form. The same form that manifested Himself to Saul (Paul), on the way to Damascus, as a supernaturally bright and intense light. The past vessel is no more, until the time He desires to come back.
I don’t agree with this because when Jesus was resurrected it was the same body he had before that was resurrected i.e the tomb was empty, and later he specifically showed the parts of his physical body to the disciples saying “a ghost doesn’t have a body”
However I also understand that this “resurrection body” has abilities it didn’t have before, i.e power to appear and disappear etc.
I believe that it may be as we will be after our resurrection.
Be Well.
To Global.
The Bible shows us that the Holy Ghost is the very same Spirit that is God. The Holy Ghost being the desrciption of the way in which the invisible Spirit operates in the lives of believers. THE VERY SAME SUBSTANCE! ONE SPIRIT! ONE GOD! There is no seperation whatsoever!
Do you agree?
Also, the body of Christ cannot have been flesh and blood when He was taken up into heaven. Christ Himself explains this point quite clearly:
1 Cor 15:50-53
50 I declare to you, brothers, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. 51 Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed- 52 in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. 53 For the perishable must clothe itself with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality.
NIVWE SHALL BE CHANGED!
This point is again confirmed when Jesus-Christ is in the form of an intensly bright light when He manifested this new form to Saul (Paul) on the way to Damascus.
Flesh and blood cannot enter heaven and flesh and blood does not resemble light.
(Edited by GJG at 9:11 pm on Aug. 30, 2003)
(Edited by GJG at 9:29 pm on Aug. 30, 2003)
To Global,
You mention "three seperate persons that speak to each other".
Where does the Holy Ghost speak to the Spirit of God or the Spirit of Christ?
Also, isn’t a person made of flesh and blood?
I ask this because I feel it is important for readers to always be aware of this most vital fact: the HOLY GHOST is the very same Spirit that is the ONE SPIRIT GOD. ONE AND THE SAME SPIRIT!
Refering to SPIRIT as flesh and blood is confusing.
The only example of a "person" being mentioned, regarding the Godhead, is Jesus-Christ.
This same "person" is no longer an ordinary "person". Rather He is now at His rightful place of authority: Heaven.
I agree with you when you state the obvious fact that Jesus-Christ is indeed called God. However, you do not show any real clear evidence of how there is any type of "seperation" within the Godhead. The very same Godhead that is undoubtedly said to be the "ONE SPIRIT".
Please explain your interpretation of how God remains the unchanging ONE SPIRIT form OT to NT.
(Edited by GJG at 10:01 pm on Aug. 30, 2003)
To t8,
Due to the Divine conception of the man-Christ, do you think it is possible that the ‘true-self’ of this unique man, is the ‘greater Spirit’ within Him?
Also, due to the same reasoning, do you think it is possible that any ‘Divine Attributes’ of this unique man, are refering to that very same Spirit?
So that, the "title of God" and "Son of God title" are completely in harmony with each other.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
