- This topic has 18,300 replies, 268 voices, and was last updated 1 year, 3 months ago by
.
- Posts
Quote Quote: from global on 6:02 am on Sep. 30, 2003
Tribbles7, as I understand T8’s argument, he does not deny the divinity of Jesus, but he appears to believe that he is a lesser type of divinity. (actually I think that T8 sways between saying that Jesus is divine, and saying that he has the nature of God in the sense of just being morally like God, he is never too clear precisely what his position is, but it seems to be that Jesus is actually divine)This is, I believe, why his argument is illogical because he denies that he is polytheistic, yet by applying the term divine or deity to Jesus MUST either make him The God, or mean that there are two gods i.e polytheism.
You do not understand Global because you do not know of a label that fits my teaching. You do not have a box in which to put me in. Carnal minds cannot comprehend things of the Spirit and likewise carnal minds judge on the outside and they need labels and headings in order to judge.
Maybe I need to spell it out, for the sake of the readers.
God is the Divinity. Jesus is the Son of the Divinity, so he has the nature of the Divinity which makes him divine, not ‘the Divine’. Jesus is not the source, God is.
In other words God is the source and God’s Son is the recipient i.e the Image of God.
So Jesus is not another GOD, rather he is Godlike. Like Father like Son as they say.
Similarly we are the sons of God, we can have the nature of God too, but we are not the God either, we are MADE in God’s image and we too are recipients.
The difference between us and Christ is that Christ is the only begotten of the Father and he existed with God before all things. We were given birth through Christ and we are the image of Christ.
As I have mentioned many times the Divine order is God -> Christ -> Man.
Again, The Divine -> Christ -> Man
Again, The Divine -> divine/flesh -> flesh/divine
Again, The Father -> The only begotten Son -> The sons.
Again, The Supreme God -> Mighty God -> Gods
Again, The All knowing -> Wisdom -> The Wise
Again, The Gardener -> The Vine -> The branches.
Again, The Source -> the Image -> the image of the image
Again, The God -> The Word/Logos -> CreationRemember that there are many Gods but for US, there is but ONE GOD, the Father.
This is eternal life that you may know the you, the ONLY TRUE GOD and Jesus Christ whom YOU have sent.
This teaching is present in every NT book and is hinted at in many places of the OT.
I challenge all that love truth and love The Truth to seek him with all your heart for he will not let you down. He will deliver you to God holy and blameless.
JESUS is not the FATHER is what you say yet JESUS is called the EVERLASTING FATHER , HE also said " I and MY FATHER are ONE " , HE also said " when you have seen ME , you have see the FATHER ."
HE also said " before Abraham was , I AM ."
HE aslo said " unless you believe that I AM , you will die in your sins "
Moses asked " who shall I say has sent me ?"
JEHOVAH replied " I AM that I AM "JESUS CHRIST is the invisible JEHOVAH made visible .
The reason it uses the terms FATHER and SON is because the Spirit begat the flesh .
Mary was overshadowed by and conceived from the HOLY GHOST ( the Spirit of GOD )
So the HOLY GHOST is the FATHER as well .
Yet the fullness of GOD dwells in JESUS CHRIST .
JESUS said " HE dwells with you but HE shall be in you ."What HE meant by this was that they saw HIM in the physical but the day was coming when HE would come to live inside them .
The doctrine that states JESUS is not Almighty GOD is extremely false .
The BIBLE says " no one can say that JESUS is LORD except through the HOLY GHOST "
The reason people do not see JESUS CHRIST as JEHOVAH ( LORD ) is because they need the HOLY GHOST to fill them and reveal to them exactly who HE is !
Hi T8,
You said
“I do not have a problem with John 1:1 at all.”
But you do reject the accepted translation.
You said
“I was searching for it’s meaning”
But you do reject the accepted translation.
You said
“I backed it up with sound reasoning in the Greek.”
As I have said many times now your reasoning in the Greek is not accepted by any reputable Greek scholar, but you refuse to admit this.
You said
“In addition I also quoted from others including your beloved scholars that believe John 1:1 to say the same thing as I said.”
NO, none of them believe the same thing as you as I have pointed out, you are deliberately misinterpreting their position, it has been made perfectly clear that the accepted position is that they all believe in the Trinity.
You said
“I quote 100 scriptures that demonstrate that God is the Father and Jesus is God’s Son.”
Blah blah blah, you have been repeating the same position for the last God knows how many posts, but I have shown in my Biblical arguments that those verses don’t prove anything and you have yet to refute it.
You said
“I also demonstrate clearly the scriptures that are used as so-called proof of the Tinity, are not that at all, (such as John 1:1) and you still you turn your head away in shame.”
You haven’t demonstrated anything clearly, I have presented clear evidence that all your interpretations of Jn 1.1 are incorrect, I am not turning away in shame T8, I am going to go back over the discussion and compile a list of all my questions and points which so far you have not answered and we will see if I have any reason to be ashamed.
You said
“You deserve to remain deceived. Light has come into the world, but men prefer the darkness to the light and truth is revealed to the humble and teachable for this is the Father’s will.”
Blah blah blah, why don’t you get on with the job of answering my points instead of repeating all this nonsense continually.
You said
“God is the Divinity. Jesus is the Son of the Divinity, so he has the nature of the Divinity which makes him divine, not ‘the Divine’”
I am convinced that you simply don’t even understand your own position or belief.
If Jesus is divine then he is a god, so you are a polytheist aren’t you?
You believe in a big god “the Divine” and a little god “the divine” don’t you?
So you are a polytheist, yet somehow you have so twisted logic that in your mind you cannot see how this is totally contrary to Gods statements that there is only one God.
But then you try to deny that he is in fact a god by saying
“So Jesus is not another GOD, rather he is Godlike. Like Father like Son as they say.”
If a human has a son, that son must also be human, if God has a son that son must also be a god, so how is it that you now deny that he is another god?
What is Jesus then T8? Please explain because nobody understands what you are saying.
Please T8, state your position clearly, tell us what type of being Jesus is and whether you are a polytheist or not. Then can you please proceed to answering all the points I have raised up to now. Please don’t give another long answer like the one above which just restates your rejection of my position over and over again with no evidence.
I am not answering anymore until you reply to some of my Biblical arguments, and I hope your answers are better than that pathetic list of people you quoted as scholars to support your interpretation of Jn 1.1 (i.e the Egyptologist and the misinterpreted quote from Barclay etc ).
Be Well.
To Global,
Your quotes are in gray.
You say that I said that scholars in general believe as I do, but what I actually said was that these particular scholars agree that the dropping of the article in “The Word was god” in John 1:1 is significant. Indeed many believe that the lack of the article shows that the Word was not God the person, but God in nature. In fact I seem to remember we disagreed earlier when I said that God was a person and you said God was a class.
Now when I said that John 1:1 says that the Word was god in class, you now suddenly disagree, which contradicts your earlier position. Of course John 1:1 hasn't disproven my belief that God is a person, it strengthens it, because the Word was with the God (with the I Am) and the Word is like God, he has his nature. Same thing when we look at it in the sense of the Father and the Son. The Son should be like his Father. The Son inherits the Fathers qualities/nature. Similar to light from the Light. One is an essence or nature or reflection, the other is the person, the source.
You haven’t demonstrated anything clearly, I have presented clear evidence that all your interpretations of Jn 1.1 are incorrect, I am not turning away in shame T8, I am going to go back over the discussion and compile a list of all my questions and points which so far you have not answered and we will see if I have any reason to be ashamed.
The next post will contain quotes from Trinitarians that say the same thing about John 1:1. Overall there are plenty of scriptures that are clear as to who God is and who Christ is. I have quoted 100+ scriptures that distinguish between God and Christ which should be compelling and in addition there are clear scriptures that teach that the only true God is the Father and that Yeshua's God is the Father and Yeshua's God and is also our God. To make the case even more obvious, there are plenty of scriptures that demonstrate that the son is subject to the Father in all things and the Son is not all knowing. On top of that, Jesus never went round saying that he was God, but the Son of God. This is all about as clear as seeing the risen Christ. If you want to be hard of heart and unteachable, then it is your choice to make. It is obvious that much of Christianity today has departed the true doctrine as it is written.
What I have said here is not my own opinion, rather I quote the scriptures themselves to prove this. If you cannot see the truth, then it is because your tradition gets in the way. Your tradition nullifies the power of God for you and your traditions have clouded your mind. I can only conclude that the God of this age has blinded your mind from seeing who Christ really is.
If Jesus is divine then he is a god, so you are a polytheist aren’t you?
Way off again Global. You see humans are also gods, (theos). So then there must be like 10 billion GODS according to your way of thinking here. Sounds like you should preach the Tenbillionity, not a Trinity. No, if you think about it, we have the nature of God, we are the images of God, we were made in his image. But we are not the God in person. Same with Christ. He is the firstborn of many sons, he is the Image of the source himself. We also know that the Sons of God, the Son of God and the Father will be one. So why don't you preach a Tenbillionity or one billionity or whatever number equals the Sons of God plus the Father and the Son. Come on, can you not reason that there is one God, ONE. He is the source of the Son and the sons. There is only ONE source of all good things and that is the Father. All the family in Heaven are named after him even Jesus is named after him. YHWH Yahweh is the Father and Yashua/Yeshue is the son. Are you with me or have you lost the plot?
If a human has a son, that son must also be human, if God has a son that son must also be a god, so how is it that you now deny that he is another god?
Humans both male and female inherit humanity from Adam the first Son of Man. Adam was 'the Man' and we are mankind in nature. But I am not the source of humanity, the Man, the Son of Man. I am Man/mankind. Not the Man. Likewise God has a son, so the son inherits his nature. He is god or of the God. Not the God himself. In both cases there is only one source. One Adam and One God. One is the source of the flesh/human nature and one is the source of the godly nature.
The term “son of man” in Hebrew was stated as “son of adam.” Cain was adam “of” Adam, humanity of the humanity, just as the Son/Word was god of God, divinity of the Divinity, deity of The Deity.
I remind you of the following scripture: 1 Corinthians 8:5-6 (English-NIV)
5 For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords”),
6 yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.So you say to me why can't I accept what the Trinitarian scholars say, but I say, why can't you accept the words of Paul.
To the readers out there: Who should we trust, the Trinitarian Scholars or Paul? Scripture or the interpretations of Catholics? Would you trust the scholars of Jesus time, (the Pharisees). Do you trust the conclusions of men after Paul warned the churches of great deception to come after he died. Please note that it took Reformers like Martin Luther to expose many deceptions of the Catholic Church and Reformers brought back some scriptural truth such as salvation being a free gift of God, neither works or membership of Church organisations.
Global if you expect me to just accept what Trinitarian Scholars say, then you are just as blind as the Catholic Church in whom you belong. You clearly follow the traditions of that organisation, yet that organisation is guilty of some of the biggest crimes against humanity. It is foolish for me to trust the scholars of an organisation that is guilty of mass murder. An organisation that wouldn't allow people to read the scriptures. An organisation that makes/made money from penance. An organisation that is full of sexual deviants in high positions. An organisation that claimed to be the only Church and is the main promoter of the Trinity doctrine. And you expect me or any other person to accept your scholars. Global many people have wisened up to this crap. There are too many people that think and search for truth to be easily fooled into doctrines that make up the foundation of the Harlot Church. I and many other people are not interested in partaking of her sins. I am not of your organisation and her doctrines. I seek the Kingdom of God. I seek the city made without HUMAN HANDS.
Blah blah blah, why don’t you get on with the job of answering my points instead of repeating all this nonsense continually.
If you disrespect the truth, then that proves your true relationship with Jesus Christ who is the truth. You just flatly refuse to align yourself with scripture and that surely is not my problem, but yours. Yes I would prefer to answer your earlier rebuttals as you have pointed out, as I think this John 1:1 thing is not going anywhere with you now. It is clear to me that I am beating my head against a brick wall and you are that wall. I think that enough has been said for the readers to make up there own mind and what is it to me if people worship idols and preach false doctrine. I am accountable to God for myself first and foremost and if you ignore the truth, then that has no bearing on me. My responsibility is to preach the truth, not to force people to believe the truth.
Anyway now onto
the quotes on John 1:1 made by Trinitarians that believe that the Word was god in nature. Not the God mentioned in John 1:1bTo Global,
Make sure you read the previous post. I have posted 2 posts.
You say that the scholars I quote are rubbish and it is true that I do not know much about scholars, but that is not important. Anyway I would have thought that Origen wasn't rubbish but it is your right to rubbish anyone you like. But I think that most people would wonder who are you to say who is good and who is not. Of course you would be biased. Your view is that Trinitarian scholars are good and all others are bad.
Anyway here are some quotes from Trinitarian scholars that agree that John 1:1c means that the Word was god in nature. I have taken the following info from
http://www.angelfire.com/space…._1.htmlC. K. Barrett: “The absence of the article indicates that the Word is God, but is not the only being of whom this is true; if ho theos had been written it would have implied that no divine being existed outside the second person of the Trinity.“
The Gospel According to St. John (S.P.C.K., 1955), p.76.C. H. Dodd: “On this analogy, the meaning of theos en ho logos will be that the ousia [substance (“what”)] of ho logos, that which it truly is, is rightly denominated theos…That this is the ousia of ho theos (the personal God of Abraham, the Father) goes without saying. In fact, the Nicene homoousios to patri is a perfect paraphrase.”
New Testament Translation Problems II,” The Bible Translator, 28, 1 (Jan. 1977), p. 104.James Moffatt: “'The Word was God…And the Word became flesh,' simply means “.the word was divine…And the Word became human.' The Nicene faith, in the Chalcedon definition, was intended to conserve both of these truths against theories that failed to present Jesus as truly God and truly man…”
Jesus Christ the Same (Abingdon-Cokesbury, 1945), p.61.Philip B. Harner: “Perhaps the clause could be translated, 'the Word had the same nature as God.” This would be one way of representing John's thought, which is, as I understand it, that ho logos, no less than ho theos, had the nature of theos.” “Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns: Mark 15:39 and John 1:1,”
Journal of Biblical Literature, 92, 1 (March 1973, p. 87.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. 681B. 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.
The article sometimes distinguishes the subject from the predicate in a copulative sentence. In Xenophon's Anabasis, 1:4:6, emporion d' en to korion, and the place was a market, we have a parallel case to what we have in John 1:1, kai theos en ho logos, and the word was deity. The article points out the subject in these examples. .Neither was the place the only market, nor was the word all of God, as it would mean if the article were also used with theos. As it stands, the other persons of the Trinity may be implied in theos.
(H. E. Dana, Julius Mantey, A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament, (New York: The MacMillan Company, 1950) pp. 148-149).“The Word was God. Here the word “God” is without the article in the original. When it is used in this way, it refers to the divine essence. Emphasis is upon the quality or character. Thus, John teaches us here that our Lord is essentially Deity. He possesses the same essence as God the Father, is one with Him in nature and attributes.”
(Kenneth Wuest, Word Studies in the Greek New Testament, vol. 3, “Golden Nuggets,” p. 52).“In the beginning the Word was existing. And the Word was in fellowship with God the Father. And the Word was as to His essence absolute deity”
(Wuest, Word Studies, vol. 4, p. 209).“The structure of the third clause in verse 1, theos en ho logos, demands the translation “The Word was God.” Since logos has the article preceding it, it is marked out as the subject. The fact that theos is the first word after the conjunction kai (and) shows that the main emphasis of the clause lies on it. Had theos as well as logos been preceded by the article the meaning would have been that the Word was completely identical with God, which is impossible if the Word was also “with God”. What is meant is that the Word shared the nature and being of God, or (to use a piece of modern jargon) was an extension of the personality of God. The NEB paraphrase “what God was, the Word was”, brings out the meaning of the clause as successfully as a paraphrase can…So, when heaven and earth were created, there was the Word of God, already existing in the closest association with God and partaking of the essence of God. No matter how far back we may try to push our imagination, we can never reach a point at which we could say of the Divine Word, as Arius did, “There was once when he was not”
(F. F. Bruce, The Gospel of John, (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1983), p. 31).“The Word is distinguishable from God and yet Theos en ho logos, the Word was God, of Divine nature; not “a God,” which to a Jewish ear would have been abominable; nor yet identical with all that can be called God, for then the article would have been inserted…”
(W. Robertson Nicoll, ed., The Expositor's Greek Testament, 5 vols, (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1983), 1:684).Below I have quoted the words of the author who compiled this page.
Now these men who are renowned in Trinitarians circles, completely agree with what I am saying here. The second instance of the word “theos” in John 1:1 is to be understood qualitatively to “what” the Word was and not “who” the Word was. Now at this point, it is fashionable for the Trinitarian apologist to jump up and down in fury here because I have quoted their scholars and then claim I am misrepresenting them which is not the case so let's make something very clear. The point here is that Trinitarians are dishonestly inconsistent. On one hand they say one thing and on the other hand they say another. The men quoted above promote Trinitarian theology and I most definitely do not. I am agreeing with them that the second instance of the word theos is qualitative in John 1:1. I am not agreeing with their theology which they derive from elsewhere and eisegetically read into John 1:1. They rest upon the false premise that if you have the nature of deity then you ARE “The Deity”, “God” by identity, and that premise is a matter quite apart from what John 1:1 is about. In other words, they based their Trinitarian beliefs here on the premise that “what” you are makes you “who” you are and if the Word i
s deity then the Word is The Deity, that is, “God.” I do not concur with them on their assumption that having the nature of deity makes one God Most High by identity and we shall also decisively deal with that matter in a separate article. In fact, they make several statements in the above quotations to which I disagree. Trinitarian scholars and I simply agree on this one vital point: that the second instance of the word “theos” in John 1:1 is qualitative and is referring not to “who” the Word was quantitatively, but “what” the Word was qualitatively, and I am saying nothing more than that here. So now if you find a Trinitarian making the claim that I am misrepresenting their scholars, then let it be known that I am not mispresenting these men above, but those who accuse me of doing so are in fact misrepresenting me.To Global,
I have submitted 2 new posts previous to this post.
To tribbles7,
Ok, so you follow the doctrine of Oneness. In case you are not aware, I believe that Oneness, Trinity and JW's to be wrong. I believe them all to be mans mind and the doctrines of demons manifested through carnal minded men who want/ed to make a name for themselves. These organisations attract those who have little knowledge of the truth and/or who do not search the truth out for themselves. All these organisations are rooted in Babylon the source of all false religion. In Revelation we are told to come out of Babylon.
Now the Jehovah Witnesses correctly believe that the Trinity is a false doctrine, but they in turn preach lies such as 144,000 people redeemed to heaven and that Jesus is Michael the Archangel. They also have made numerous false prophecies and that shows us that the Watch Tower is false, like a false prophet.
On the other hand, the Trinitary doctrine is false because it denies that there is One God the Father and replaces the One true God (YHWH) with 3 persons who are 1 God. The Trinitary doctrine also cannot comprehend what an Image of God is and they cannot see that Jesus is the Image of God and that we are also the images of God. They truly do not understand what a Son is and they also admit that they do not fully understand their own doctrine. They then try to make out that God was the author of this confusion. One really bad conclusion they draw from their doctrine is that God walked around in flesh and then God died for our sins. But the truth is that God cannot die, he is the God of the living not the dead.
Now the Oneness doctrine is incorrect because it incorrectly assumes that Jesus is actually the Father. So it is clear that the Oneness people cannot know Christ himself for they deny that he is actually another person to God. Unlike the scriptures, the Oneness crowd cannot distinguish between God and his son or the Father and the Son.
What I will do now is to compare your points to scripture and I might as well let you know now, that I have been wanting to write a page about the Oneness doctrine for a while, similar to the page located @
https://heavennet.net/writings/trinity.htmSo your timing is good and you have every opportunity to prove your doctrine. I pray that God will reveal his truth by his Spirit in the name of his Son Jesus Christ.
Your points will be answered in my next post to you.
t8
Are you Mormon ?
Because you have made yourself separate from all .
I have given you the Words of JESUS HIMSELF but you go on with your own man-made ideas .JESUS CHRIST is both LORD ( YHWH ) and CHRIST ( Messiah )
You cannot separate the flesh that GOD became from the SPIRIT that GOD has always been.
What do you do with the words that JESUS said here ?
" before Abraham was , I AM . "
There is no doubt HE is claiming to be JEHOVAH .
Your doctrine of exclusiveness is only adding confusion to the simplicity of CHRIST .
What is the main thing ?
Believe on the LORD JESUS CHRIST and you shall be saved !
To tribbles7,
Am I a Mormon, lol. What was going through your mind?
You know that most people have to put a label on people. It is because the carnal mind judges by the outward appearance and not the fruit. The carnal mind asks questions like “Are you a follower of Paul or Apollos”. Or “What Church do you go to”.
I suppose I had better spell it out. Denominations and all other names that exalt themselves are not of God. Look at Babel. They tried to make a name for themselves and build a tower to heaven. So what is the difference with denominations today. Do they not exalt their name even higher than the name of Jesus Christ and in turn they build their cathedrals up to heaven and then say that the cathedral is the church. People then mistakenly say, “I am going to church” rather than realising that they are the Church. It is obvious that the truth is so far from todays version of Christianity and it is time for reformation and redefinition. Just as God divided men into languages with Babel, God has allowed the division of denominations in order to lessen the iniquity of self promotion and exaltation, lest they unite in their idols and exalt their own names above the name of Jesus Christ.
Do you understand that there is one Body. Yet we see so many creeds and other foundations that claim to be of God. The true foundation is clearly spelled out in the scriptures and the Body of Christ is suppose to be one. It will not be through denominations tolerating each others existance that will bring about the unity of the brethren. No it will be through the Spirit of love and truth and the recognition of what and who the Church is. When the new wine fills the old wine skins, the old wine skins will burst. We do not have to aid in the destruction of Babel and Babylon. It will happen as it is written.
I believe that we will learn if we are lead by the Spirit and read the scriptures with no preconcieved man made doctrine or creed. Otherwise you will always read scripture in the light of a creed. The Creed will be the template in which all scripture is processed, which is really just the mind of man perverting the truth.
We should start off empty and let God fill us with his truth. If we are already full of ourselves or the things of man, then we leave no room for God to work. Crucify yourself so that Christ may live in you. Let go and let God as the saying goes.
I will now respond to your posts.
Your quotes are in gray.
JESUS CHRIST is both LORD ( YHWH ) and CHRIST ( Messiah )
Psalm 2:7 declares the following:
“I will declare the decree: YHWH hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.”
Therefore YHWH (God) is the Father of Jesus. Jesus is the Son of YHWH. Jesus is not YHWH.
What do you do with the words that JESUS said here ?
” before Abraham was , I AM . “
There is no doubt HE is claiming to be JEHOVAH.Exodus 3:13-14 (English-NIV), says the following:
13 Moses said to God, “Suppose I go to the Israelites and say to them, `The God of your fathers has sent me to you,' and they ask me, `What is his name?' Then what shall I tell them?”
14 God said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM. This is what you are to say to the Israelites: `I AM has sent me to you.'”In John 18:5-6 (English-NIV) Jesus says the following:
5 “Jesus of Nazareth,” they replied. “I am he,” Jesus said. (And Judas the traitor was standing there with them.)
6 When Jesus said, “I am he,” they drew back and fell to the ground.We already know from Psalm 2:7 that Yahweh is the Father of Jesus. Jesus is the Son of Yahweh. Jesus is not Yahweh and the Son is not the Father. Therefore, Jesus (the Son of Yahweh) cannot be the I AM (Yahweh).
In addition we read in John 18 when the Jews came to arrest Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane, the Jews took him to Annas first (vs.13). Then they took him to Caiaphas (vs.24) and eventually to Pilate (vss.28,29). A parallel account is found in Matthew 26:57-68. Notice, in particular, verse 59. The same men that had fallen backward to the ground were in attendance when the council sought false witnesses against Jesus to put him to death. Verse 60 says they couldn't find any. Eventually two came forward. Interestingly, they didn't bear false witness about what Jesus said in Jn.8:58, but about his reference to destroying the temple and building it again in three days, then Jesus was condemned for claiming to be the Son of God in Matthew 26:63-65.
The point about Matthew 26 is, why would false witnesses be sought if they had true witnesses in attendance? The arresting officers heard Jesus say “Ego eimi.” They could have stoned him right there in the garden for blasphemy, but they didn't. They could have reported the supposed blasphemy to the council, but they didn't. Why not? Because it wasn't blasphemy, nor was it a stoneable offense. He was merely identifying himself as Jesus of Nazareth.
It is believed by some that the account recorded in John 8:48-59 further supports the position that Jesus is the “I AM.” Why else would the Jews try to stone him (v59)? He obviously blasphemed in the eyes of the Jews.
“I am” is a translation from Greek words “ego eimi”. Is the mere utterance of “ego eimi” a blasphemy? Does the use of “ego eimi” automatically identify the speaker as Yahweh, the I AM? In Luke 1:19, the angel Gabriel said, “Ego eimi Gabriel.” In John 9:9, the blind man whose sight was restored by Jesus said, “Ego eimi.” In Acts 10:21, Peter said, “Behold, ego eimi (I am) he whom ye seek.” Obviously, the mere use of “ego eimi” does not equate one to the “I Am” of Exodus 3:14.
Yeshua used the phrase “ego eimi” at least twenty times and yet, in only one instance did the Jews seek to stone him (John 8:58). Jesus said, “I am the bread of life” to a large crowd, in John.6:35-48, yet no one opposed him. In verse 41, the Jews murmured because he said, “I am (ego eimi) the bread which came down from heaven.” But in verse 42, the Jews questioned only the phrase, “I came down from heaven” and ignored “ego eimi.” The same is true of verses 51 & 52
In John 8:12, 18, 24, & 28, Jesus used “ego eimi” with Pharisees present (vs.13) and yet, no stoning. He, again, used it four times in John 10:7, 9, 11, & 14 with no stoning. Jesus said to his disciples, “that ye may believe that I am (ego eimi)” in John 13:19 without them batting an eye.
This brings us back to Jn.8:58. Why did the Jews seek to stone him on that occasion? The context of Jn.8 shows that Jesus;
- accused the Jews of “judging after the flesh” (vs.15).
- said they would die in their sins (vss.21,24).
- implied they were in bondage (vss.32,33).
- said they were servants of sin (vs.34).
- said they were out to kill him (vss. 37,40).
- implied they were spiritually deaf (vs.43,47).
- said their father was the devil (vs.44).
- said they were not of Elohim (vs.47).
- accused them of dishonoring him (vs.49).
- accused them of not knowing Yahweh (vs.55).
- accused them of lying (vs.55).
- Aside from that, the Jews misunderstood Jesus words leading them to believe;
- that he accused them of being born of fornication (vs.41).
- Jesus had a devil (vs.52).
- that he was exalting himself above Abraham (vs.53).
- that he saw Abraham (vs.56).
Jesus words in verse 58 were the culmination of an encounter that was so offensive to the Jews, that they couldn't restrain themselves. They simply couldn't take it anymore so they sought to stone him, not because of two simple words, “ego eimi,” but because he was making himself out to be greater than their beloved father Abraham.
To say that Jesus claimed to be God because he said “I am” can only be at most, an unsupported and weak opinion. It is obviously not a teaching, but simply an historical occur
rence that many have turned into a teaching that has no foundation. Nor is there any scripture in the bible that uses this occurrence as a teaching to promote a Trinity or Oneness, or to prove that Yashua is Yahweh. To hinge the Trinity or Oneness doctrine on an assumption is indeed a weak argument to make and wouldn't get very far in a court of law. And to say that we are condemned if we do not believe in a certain vague interpretation is totally unacceptable to all who earnestly seek truth. Remember that we are judged by the measures we judge others, so we shouldn't be so unreasonable.What is the main thing ?
Believe on the LORD JESUS CHRIST and you shall be saved !AMEN
More to come in the next post.
Your quote are in gray.
JESUS is not the FATHER is what you say yet JESUS is called the EVERLASTING FATHER , HE also said ” I and MY FATHER are ONE ” , HE also said ” when you have seen ME , you have see the FATHER .”
Isaiah 9:6 (English-NIV)
For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.”'Here we can see that Jesus is called “Mighty God”. The word in the Hebrew used here is “El” and this word means the following:
1) god, godlike one, mighty one
1a) mighty men, men of rank, mighty heroes
1b) angels
1c) god, false god, (demons, imaginations)
1d) God, the one true God, Jehovah
2) mighty things in nature
3) strength, power“So Yeshua is the Mighty El and we can see that the word El can refer to any kind of God and we know that there are many Gods, but for us, there should be one God the Father.
So Yeshua is the Mighty God, and you know what? We are gods, but we are not mighty like he is. Please note that Isaiah 9:6 doesn't say “Almighty God”. (The term Almighty God indicates that there are Gods of a lesser position).
Now we know that Yeshua is the Image of God, so if he is the Image, then he would be like God and because men cannot see God, we see the Invisible Spirit through him. Yeshua/Jesus has a body and we can see the glory of the Invisible God through Yeshua the only begotten Son of the Father. In a similar way we are told that the heavens declare the glory of God, yet we know that the heavens are not God. Also God can be revealed in us and we are not God either, we are gods. Yeshua reveals the fullness of God and only Yeshua can reveal God to us.
Like light striking a prism. The light may be invisible, apart from the fact that it reveals all things and the prism receives the light and reflects it into it's beautiful colours. So Christ reflects the fullness of God to creation and we who are redeemed should also reflect God, but we reflect only in part and the part we reflect is what makes us unique. Together the Church is actually the Image of Christ and Christ is the Image of God. Now we know that we are not Christ but his Image and likewise with Christ. He is the Image of God, not God himself.
God -> Christ -> Man.
The other part of Isaiah 9:6 mentions the term 'Everlasting Father' and this on first glance seems like it is saying that Yeshua is the Father and added with scriptures like “I and the Father are one”, you could mistakenly draw the conclusion that Yeshua is the Father. That Yeshua is the Invisible Eternal Spirit.
The word Father that is used here is “Ab” and this word is the same word that is used when describing Abraham as our Father and this scripture is just a reference to say that Yeshua is our Everlasting Father, in other words he is greater than Abraham, but it certainly doesn't say 'Heavenly Father'.
We need to read the adjectives carefully. When we see the word God we need to read the adjective to see what kind of God is being referred to. E.g the God of this Age is different to the Most High God. Likewise the Everlasting Father is different to the Heavenly Father. Same with your earthly father, he is certainly not the Heavenly Father, but he is a father.
It is very important to read scriptures not only in context but also in agreement with other scriptures, especially since it is possible to interpret some scripture in more than one way, because of the wide varying uses and meanings of some words. In fact we should always see things through Yeshua eyes as he is the Truth.
Now back to the words of Christ “I and the Father are one”. This doesn't mean one person, it means one in spirit, purpose and deed. For if it meant one person, then we would also be the God.
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.JESUS CHRIST is the invisible JEHOVAH made visible
Jesus Christ reveals Jehovah/Yahweh. Yeshua is the IMAGE of the Invisible God. That doesn't make him God as much as we who are the Image of Christ are not Christ.
The reason it uses the terms FATHER and SON is because the Spirit begat the flesh .
Mary was overshadowed by and conceived from the HOLY GHOST ( the Spirit of GOD )
So the HOLY GHOST is the FATHER as well .
Yet the fullness of GOD dwells in Yeshua .
Yeshua said ” HE dwells with you but HE shall be in you .”So you say that the Father is the Invisible Spirit (which I agree with) and the Son is the flesh. Well the word flesh means human nature. So you say that Yeshua is God become flesh. That God took a human body and walked amongst us.
Well I disagree for the following reasons:
Man is not the flesh and never will be. The flesh is a nature that men inherit. Man (us) are actually souls and we have a body around us and we should have the Spirit within us, (within our soul).1 Thessalonians 5:23
May God himself, the God of peace, sanctify you through and through. May your whole spirit, soul and body be kept blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.So we have a body, soul and spirit.
Romans 8:5 (English-NIV)
Those who live according to the sinful nature (flesh) have their minds set on what that nature desires; but those who live in accordance with the Spirit have their minds set on what the Spirit desires.Notice that our mind is neither the flesh, nor the Spirit.
Revelation 6:9
When he opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of those who had been slain because of the word of God and the testimony they had maintained.Obviously we exist after the body dies. If we have eternal life our soul is saved.
Matthew 10:28
Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in ####.Death of our body is not to be feared. Destruction of the soul is, because we are our soul.
Genesis 2:7
And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.The soul is dead without the breath of God.
So man is a soul and a living man on earth is a soul housed in a body with a spirit inside the soul. Now you correctly point out that Christ has a body and a spirit. But you completely ignore the soul. The soul is who men really are. The soul is our identity.
If Christ is God's Spirit clothed in flesh, then he is not a man like us. We are composed of body soul and spirit. Your belief ignores Yeshua as a person and makes Christ into a God and Flesh union. So we are souls and we can choose from 2 natures. God's nature and the human nature. Your decision affects your destiny.
Our souls are different from spirit and the Spirit.
Hebrews 4:12
For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.So if we are Souls in a body with a spirit or the Spirit dwelling in our souls and if Christ is the Spirit in flesh, then he is certainly not a man. Your assumption that God dwelt in flesh completely removes Yeshua from the picture for Yeshua was/is also a soul like us.
So Yeshua Spirit comes from God, his body came from Mary made possible by the Power of God's Spirit then surely he must have an identity/soul of his own, that is neither Spirit or Flesh.
Mark 14:34
“My soul is overwhelmed with sorrow to the
point of death,” he said to them. “Stay here and keep watch.”Who is Yeshua really? The Father, the flesh. No he is his soul, the WORD/LOGOS. It was the Word who became flesh. He existed with God before all ages and God created all things through him and for him.
1 John 4:2
This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God,So we must recognise that Yeshua came in the flesh, but you say that the Father came in the flesh. If your point of view says that Yeshua is the flesh, then that means that flesh came in the flesh according to this verse. If you say that Jesus is the God and Flesh union thing, then that union came in the flesh. It doesn't make sense either way does it. Jesus is a person, he has his own identity. He is not the Father, he is the Son, the Logos. It was the Logos/Word who came in the flesh.
John 1:14
The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only,[1] who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.Please consider what these last 2 scriptures are saying. Together they show us that the Word is Jesus Christ and it defines who is not of God, i.e those that deny that Jesus/the Word/Logos came in the flesh. Those who deny this truth are not of God.
The BIBLE says ” no one can say that JESUS is LORD except through the HOLY GHOST ”
Yes that is correct. Jesus is Lord. Now read the following scripture.
1 Corinthians 8:5-6 (English-NIV)
5 For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords”),
6 yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.Note that the word Lord in the New Testament is different to the word God. (actually the word Lord is different to the Old Testament word for Lord too. Anyway we can see plainly that there is one God and one Lord. That makes 2 persons. One is identified as the Father and the other is identified as the Yeshua/Jesus.
The same idea is repeated in Ephesians 4:4-6 (English-NIV)
4 there is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to one hope when you were called
5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism;
6 one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.So this scripture shows us plainly that there is one Lord, who we know to be Yeshua and there is one God and Father of all. But to say that Yeshua is God is to really say that Jesus is the Father and this view is clearly not taught in scripture.
Your belief that God came in flesh suggests that flesh somehow has a life of it's own and can walk and talk and has a will (a mind). But the flesh/body is dead without a soul. A soul is dead without the Spirit. Yeshua is his soul. His soul is the Logos. The Logos existed with God before all the ages. The Logos was given birth from God before all things. He is the Son of God, he is the Wisdom of God, he is the Image of God, he has the nature of God, but he is not the God himself. He is definately of God and we should be of Christ.
Hi T8,
Im sorry, but your posts are becoming so nonsensical and evasive of my questions that it is becoming very difficult to respond to you.
I must repeat my request that you limit yourself to answering the many Biblical arguments which I took a lot of trouble preparing.
If you cannot answer those simple points then all your other theories are just that – THEORIES.
Now, for the LAST time try and understand the point about the scholars, –
When those scholars talk about the significance of the article or describe the Word as having the nature of God etc etc. they all say that the significance of it is to show that the Word is a separate person from the Father, but that he is the same God as the Father.
NONE of them mean that Jesus is not the same God as the Father, NONE of them mean that Jesus is a lesser type of being than the Father, as you yourself have admitted they are all Trinitarians.
You are just trying to take a small part of what they say out of context to make it fit your own ideas, and that will simply not work.
That is why all those scholars approve the translation “in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God”
None of them approve “in the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was a god”
In fact they say that that translation is NOT possible.
Regarding the rest of what you have said it is just your usual illogical rambling with no evidence or Biblical basis.
You have completely ignored my previous questions –
What type of being is Jesus?
Is Jesus divine?
How can Jesus be Gods Son and not be in the same class of being as God?Please don’t try and worm your way out and confuse the issue by saying that humans are gods (theos) because humans are not divine. Please don’t say that you are a man but you are not “the Man” (as if the term “the Man “means something, which it doesn’t) your parents were humans , you are a human. Jesus parent is a God, so Jesus is……….
Please give a clear answer do you believe Jesus is a God, and if so how is this compatible with the there only being one God?
And can I suggest that this kind of rubbish –“What I have said here is not my own opinion, rather I quote the scriptures themselves to prove this. If you cannot see the truth, then it is because your tradition gets in the way. Your tradition nullifies the power of God for you and your traditions have clouded your mind. I can only conclude that the God of this age has blinded your mind from seeing who Christ really is.”
Is just self important nonsense which is not helping the discussion, so why don’t we limit ourselves to just discussing facts.
Be Well.
In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with the God/Divine and the Word was god/divine.
I do not have a problem with it, but I admit that you are entitled to have a problem with it, even in contradiction to some of your own scholars. It is your right to believe what you want to believe.
Anyway the fact that you say that I am saying 'a god' in John 1:1c shows that you do not understand what I am saying about John 1:1. So your argument is useless till you actually understand what you are arguing against. You even admit that my posts are nonsense to you. So why argue with something you do not understand. You can only argue effectively and profitably with what you understand. I think that you should not comment on something you do not understand, lest you find yourself arguing against the truth, which is what happened to many of the Jews including the scholars of Jesus time.
Perhaps you do understand that I am saying that the Word was divine (not a god) in John 1:1c and you are saying it is nonsensical as a way of making your argument sound better. Either way I think this clearly demonstrates that you put agenda before truth; mans religion before the truth of God. Why else would you condemn something that you do not understand or condemn something that you do understand while pretending not to understand or misrepresenting what I am saying with regards to John 1:1. I feel that you are more interested in winning an arguement than searching for truth. At least I understand the doctrine of the Trinity and this is the reason that I believe it to be false. If I didn't understand it then how could I in good conscience condemn it.
So who is right, you or those trinitarian scholars I quoted in a previous post who said the Word was divine or the Word has God's nature and is not God the person?
Anyway you said the following:
they all say that the significance of it is to show that the Word is a separate person from the Father, but that he is the same God as the Father.But you have to agree that John 1:1 says that the Word was with God, not the Word was with the Father. So the Word is with the Father yes, but the Father is the one identified as God and it is obvious that the Word was with the God. I do not say this, this scripture does. To argue against that shows denial. The same thing is said in the following 2 verses:
Acts 3:15 (English-NIV)
You killed the author of life, but God raised him from the dead. We are witnesses of this.1 Corinthians 15:27 (English-NIV)
For he has put everything under his feet. Now when it says that everything has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ.It is obvious that God is the Father and the Word was with God in the beginning. Simple I would have thought, but you are entitled to your opinion that John 1:1 proves the Trinity doctrine, but I think that most people who read it without bias would never draw that conclusion. Religious indoctrination is a powerful form of brainwashing and a brainwashed person cannot reason the obvious, if the form of brainwashing doesn't allow it. You have to empty yourself of yourself in order to be filled with God's truth, otherwise you leave God no room to work in your life. We should crucify ourselves so that Christ (the truth) may live in us.
How can Jesus be Gods Son and not be in the same class of being as God?
Yes he is god, but not the God. In other words he has the nature of God, but he is not the source/the God of that nature. He is god in nature but not in identity. God the Father is exclusively the God in identity.
Please give a clear answer do you believe Jesus is a God, and if so how is this compatible with the there only being one God?
Global, Paul says that there are many gods just as there are many lords and this is true. But there is one Most High God. So yes Jesus is a god and Jesus calls us gods. Even the Father is a god. What kind of god is the Father? He is the Most High god of course. So he is the God. The Father is the only God in identity and the only one who is the God. All other gods are god in nature except for false gods and authorities that are not of the God. Even the Father is god in nature, but he is more than that, he is the source of that nature, hence he is the God. Likewise Jesus is the Lord, and he is still a lord just as a landlord of a house is a lord. God is the source of his own nature which he gives to Christ and he gives it to the children of God too. If you think that all who have the nature of God are actually God the person, then please explain to me the following verses.
Philippians 2:6
Who, being in very nature[ 2:6 Or in the form of] God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,Galatians 5:24
Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the sinful nature with its passions and desires.So what nature do we have if we crucify our human nature?
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.So if you believe that to have divine nature is to be the God in identity, then we are also the God and hence you believe not in a trinity but a God made up of billions of identites and then every true believer is the God. So if we crucify our human nature and receive the divine nature, then do we become God? Of course not because our identity is our soul and Jesus identity is the Word. It is one nature being replaced with another. Jesus is the Word become flesh, his nature doesn't identify him as God in identity, it just shows that he has the nature of his Father inside him and he makes it possible for us to receive that nature too.
Is just self important nonsense which is not helping the discussion, so why don’t we limit ourselves to just discussing facts.
If tradition contradicts scripture, then such tradition is not of God. So I stand by these words.
I will answer your previous questions when this debate is closed off. I am not going to let you make accusations or ask more questions and not defend myself and my words just to answer your other questions and accusations. I think it wise to deal with one thing at a time and when I have closure on this John 1:1 debate I will move on.
How about you agree to disagree and you let me answer your other posts rather than asking more questions and challenging things I am saying. I am not very good at multitasking.
Why not the TRUTH?
The sad thing to me is that Christians really believe that the Holy Scriptures say what the English translators say they do.At the site below you will find out just how subtle Satan was in the use of other languages and the translators
to deceive the whole world.The first mistake made by any translator is the removal of the Holy Name Of Yahweh.
Once this Name is removed you can make the Scriptures say anything you want them to say.The case of the trinity is just such a case.
Check out the book of Yahchanan ( Hebrew for John )
This great Apostles Name means "Yahweh Is Merciful."
This is just one of the 6823 time the Name of Yahweh was removed from the very Scriptures He Inspired to be written by the lying pens of the false scribes.
In the Prophet YeremYAH who the translators call Jeremiah to remove the Holy Name chapter 8 verse 8
it reads. " How can you say; We are wise, and the Law of Yahweh is with us? Behold, the lying pen of the scribes has falsified them and written them wrong.This Prophets Name means May Yahweh Lift Up.
What you would find should you study the Hebrew Language is, trying to understand the Holy Scriptures read only the English is like repairing a 747 Jumbo Jet with a Volkswagon manual…it can’t be done.
hope this helps
Iyyob
Hi T8, you said –
“But you have to agree that John 1:1 says that the Word was with God, not the Word was with the Father. So the Word is with the Father yes, but the Father is the one identified as God and it is obvious that the Word was with the God. I do not say this, this scripture does. To argue against that shows denial. The same thing is said in the following 2 verses:
Acts 3:15 (English-NIV)
You killed the author of life, but God raised him from the dead. We are witnesses of this.1 Corinthians 15:27 (English-NIV)
For he has put everything under his feet. Now when it says that everything has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ.It is obvious that God is the Father and the Word was with God in the beginning. Simple I would have thought, but you are entitled to your opinion that John 1:1 proves the Trinity doctrine, but I think that most people who read it without bias would never draw that conclusion.”
You are still failing to appreciate what the scholars say about this, they say that it is phrased this way to show that the Word is with God the Father (as a separate person) but that he is also the God.
You are only looking at the bit that says that he was with God, but you are not looking at the bit that says he is also God.
When you say the scripture says this you are correct, it says the Word was God, not a god, not having the nature of God or any other form of words you wish to try and impose to make the Word a lesser form of being, all those other forms of words have been rejected by sound scholars.
Now you are entitled to believe in your own personal T8 translation, but lets not pretend that your translation is supported by anybody else.
You have STILL failed to answer my question!
“WHAT TYPE OF BEING IS JESUS?”
Why wont you answer this?
You are still repeating your nonsensical arguments about god in nature and having the nature of god etc etc.
Now, T8, when the Bible says that we have the nature of God, it does not mean that we are divine (i.e we are not gods) it is a figure of speech because we are not gods we are OBVIOUSLY humans.
Now when you say that Jesus has the nature of God do you mean that he is divine?
Yes that is right, your scholars use John 1:1 to say that Jesus is the God. We both know that, but your scholars interpret the word God as divine or nature, not the Divine as the other parts of John 1:1 say because that would rule that the Father is not God. "And the god/God was the Word" as aposed to "And god was the Word.
This is the part that I agree with. Where we differ is that these scholars rest upon the premise that if you have the nature of deity then you ARE "The Deity", "God" by identity. In other words, they base their Trinitarian beliefs here, on the premise that "what" you are makes you "who" you are and if the Word is deity then the Word is The Deity, that is, "God."
Again this is where I and others differ from Trinitarians. I showed you evidence of redeemed humans who also partake of the divine nature and I have also shown you evidence that we humans are ‘theos’ and ‘elohim’ and both these titles are translated as God. But I am not suggesting that we are God in identity, but in nature. They are 2 different things. Likewise Jesus is God in nature, not identity. Even your own scholars say that with regard to John 1:1.
What kind of being is Jesus? Well I pointed out in the previous post that there are many gods and even the Father is a god. The God of gods. Now Jesus is a god, the Mighty God and he is a god because he has the divine nature. We are also gods if we partake of the divine nature. In addition Jesus is also a Man as he has also partaken of the flesh. But he is the Word in identity, not God in identity and because the God has given him first place in all things, he is now also the Son of Man, the second Adam, just as he is and was the Son of God, the only begotten of God.
Hi T8,
You said
“This is the part that I agree with. Where we differ is that these scholars rest upon the premise that if you have the nature of deity then you ARE "The Deity",”
I don’t think that is what they are saying. I don’t think they talk about the “nature of deity” in reference to Jn 1.1, in fact that phrase has been rejected as a translation, I think they talk about divinity.
In this sense they do say that if the Word is divine he must be God, because if not then it would be polytheism.
You said
“In other words, they base their Trinitarian beliefs here, on the premise that "what" you are makes you "who" you are and if the Word is deity then the Word is The Deity, that is, "God."”
Not quite because the “who you are” refers to the person, in this sense they are clear (because they say that the construction in the Greek is designed to show this) that Jesus is not the Father, i.e that the “what” he is doesn’t make him who he is, it doesn’t, he is a separate person, but there is nothing that that excludes the two “who’s” being the same “what” i.e there is nothing to exclude the Father and the Son from both being God.
You said
“Again this is where I and others differ from Trinitarians. I showed you evidence of redeemed humans who also partake of the divine nature and I have also shown you evidence that we humans are ‘theos’ and ‘elohim’ and both these titles are translated as God. But I am not suggesting that we are God in identity, but in nature.”
But are you suggesting we are gods?
I have previously stated that I believe these expressions as applied to humans to be figures of speech, or descriptive of our nature or character, but they do not refer to our class of being because we are humans not gods.
When you say we are not God in identity all you are saying is that we are not the same person as God, but are you saying that we are other gods (truly divine) or just godlike in nature etc etc as I explained above?
Please can you clarify this?
You said
“Likewise Jesus is God in nature, not identity. Even your own scholars say that with regard to John 1:1.”
Again by saying that Jesus is god in nature do you mean that as a description of his nature or as a description of his class of being? By saying he is not God in identity you only distinguish him from God in person but not as a class of being.
In these other quotes you do seem to say that you believe Jesus to be actually divine –
“Now Jesus is a god, the Mighty God”
But then you again try and water it down by repeating that we are gods too.
So you have still not clarified what type of being Jesus is, do you believe him and/or humans to be actually divine as class of being?
If the answer is yes would you agree that you are polytheistic?
If the answer is no, then for humans our class of being is human but we have the nature of God, correct?
Jesus also has the nature of God but what is his class of being?
Global,
I think it all goes back to what we were saying before. I am saying that God is a person and you are saying that God is a class/family. I said earlier that there are many gods, so the word 'god' can be used in the sense of class, but there is only one God the person otherwise there would be more than 1 God if God is truly a person. I and many others including the Jews believe that God is a person, not an organization.
You and your scholars justify 3 persons (which I and many others see as 3 Gods) as one God by saying that they are one God in essence or nature, but I have pointed out that some humans will also partake of the divine nature, and we both believe that we are not the God in identity.
So I say that God is a person who shares his nature with many (his family/his sons) and you say that God is a class who (whos) shares his/their nature with no one else outside that class of 3 persons. Of course I have scripture to back up what I am saying and I have already quoted much of it already.
Now the first thing I need to point out is that the word class or the term 'class of being' doesn't seem to appear in scripture (I admit that I may be wrong here, as I am venturing into territory that I haven't really been before). It seems to me that the writers of the books in the bible do not seem to talk about class or teach about it. Yes they teach about nature and if nature is class, then I understand what you mean by class. As far as I know the word class in a scientific sense can be used to say something like all Orangutans are in the same class as Chimpanzees, they are from the monkey FAMILY and a Chimp is not an Orangutan, but they are monkeys in class. But I do not seem to see this kind of analysis or analogy in scripture. So I wonder just how important such a debate really is. E.g I could ask you “Have you stopped smoking yet”. If you answer no, then I can assume that you are still smoking and if you answer yes, then I can assume that you did once but you have stopped. So this question is not really a good question to ask if you have never smoked. So some questions defeat the purpose. Some questions shouldn't be asked.
Case in hand; we are human because we have partaken of human nature/flesh. But in identity we are souls not flesh and the redeemed of Christ will receive a new body, the one we have now is flesh/carnal the one to come is spiritual. So if we are men by identity, then our identity will be changed into another identity. Carnal to Spiritual. But if we are men by nature, then it is our nature that changes, not our identity/ourselves.
If I am truly a child of God then I have eternal life, so the me part is not the human nature/my body as that will not exist forever. I am my soul. If I have eternal life even now, then the unchanging part of me, the true me, my identity is my soul and my identity as a son of God is true now and then too. So in Heaven will I be a human if I know longer have this body of flesh? Well I can not think of any scripture that identifies the redeemed as men in the age to come, but all I know for sure is that I will be a Son just as I am now and I will be
become like the Angels. So just as I am man by nature, in identity I am a son, a soul.Romans 8:5 (English-NIV)
Those who live according to the sinful nature (flesh) have their minds set on what that nature desires; but those who live in accordance with the Spirit have their minds set on what the Spirit desires.Notice that we (our mind) is neither flesh nor the Spirit.
So I ask you a question, “what class of being are redeemed men in heaven?” Man, Angel?
This is why I am hesitant to answer your question about what class of being am I or Jesus. I would prefer to stick to scripture rather than Analise God and Man from a scientific framework. I can tell you WHO Jesus is as the scriptures are very plain about that and the WHO is the important part, it is the foundation of the true faith.
Matthew 16
15 “But what about you?” he asked. “WHO (authors note: not WHAT) do you say I am?”
16 Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”
17 Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. 18 And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.So the important thing is Who Jesus is. Not what. Again, our faith rests on who Jesus is, not what.
In addition my understanding of class maybe different to yours as you seem to think class is identity and I say class is nature, although I am not even sure about that. But I am sure that nature is not identity. Nature is type. Identity is who.
Now we know that God is a who. He is the Father. We know that Jesus is a who, he is the Son. But your reasoning suggests that Jesus is also God in identity and I believe that this presumption is not taught in scripture. Yes scripture does in many places talk about God in type/nature, but in identity it is always the Father who is being referred to, unless the adjective suggests otherwise or God the identity sends a representative which He nearly always does because he is invisible and Spirit and he is so much higher than us. (We can see this clearly in how the Book of Revelation came to us for example).
E.g Psalm 2:7
“I will declare the decree: YHWH hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.”Mark 10:18
“Why do you call me good?” Jesus answered. “No one is good–except God alone.1 Corinthians 15:24-28 (English-NIV)
24 Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power.
25 For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet.
26 The last enemy to be destroyed is death.
27 For he has put everything under his feet. Now when it says that everything has been put
under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under
Christ.
28 When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all.The WHO in these scriptures is the Father and you have already agreed to that.
Now my understanding of God is that he is the source of all good. Scripture teaches clearly that the Father is the source for the Son and even the words 'Father' and 'Son' suggest that the Father is the source of the Son. Now if the Son has the nature of his Father, then he cannot be the Father and if the Father is the only true God, the one who is over all and through all, then Jesus is not that identity. He is of that identity. That is what the concept of a Father and son is and was.
You suggest that I am saying that Jesus is the Mighty God, then I say that we are gods to water down that statement. My reply to you is “certainly not”. You see, I am not trying to push an agenda here. I am pushing scripture no matter how uncomfortable some scriptures are to some peoples theology. I have always said that scripture will paint the true picture and even if it appears to conflict with our understanding. My faith encompasses the idea that scripture is inspired by God and over time God will show how all scripture fits together and compliments the truth if we search for it's meaning. This is all I am doing. I quote scripture that shows that Jesus is the Mighty God and I also quote scripture that shows that we are gods. What I say is really just a repetition of scripture. I didn't make it up and we must take all scripture, not just some of it.
When I first started on this journey of letting scripture speak, it certainly appeared to me that there were some conflicts. But I now realize that the conflicts were the teachings of man that I had taken on board and the truth is really obvious once these presuppositions are r
emoved.Global, can I make a suggestion: Out of the scriptures that talk clearly about the only true God, can you quote 3 scriptures that are referring to that God as Jesus in identity, not nature. I will not accept John 1:1 as even your scholars teach that it is talking about God in nature. Please no presuppositions. Just 3 scriptures that are referring to the God and then identify that God as Jesus Christ.
Could I also ask you to answer this question:
“What will we be in Heaven”. Will we be men, angel, god, or what?Hi T8,
I will be happy to answer your questions when I am satisfied that I fully understand your answers to the questions I asked above, which at the moment I don’t.
I think this question is quite simple:
Are humans divine?
The possible answers are yes, no, or you don’t know.
This question is also simple:
Is Jesus divine?
The possible answers are yes, no, or you don’t know.
Jesus is divine.
John 1:1c
And the Word was divine.Philippians 2:6
“Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped”.We can be divine.
2 Peter 1:4
Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.There is NO way the Creator can be called a GOD!
The reason the world has no understanding about what the Holy Scriptures say is…
They will not do as the Scriptures tells them to do.
By rejecting the authority of the Scriptures to tell you how to live you cut yourself off from all the blessing and wisdom to understand the Scriptures.
The Prophet Isayah wrote in 8:20 " If they speak not according to the LAW and the Prophecys it is because they have NO LIGHT in them!"
If your religion or set of beliefs do not teach you the LAWS you will never learn who God really is.For sure you will never come to know Father Yahweh nor His beloved Son Yahshua Messiah!
And Father Yahweh will never be called by the title tha SAtan is called by. 2 Cor.4:4
Yes, it is true Satan is the God of this world!
And all who call on this title worship Satan the Devil!Iyyob
There are many called by the title ‘theos’, including the Father.
There are many called by the title ‘eloyhim’ including the Father.
There is only one called by the name Yahweh, that is the Father. He is the only true God, for all other gods would not exist without him.All gods are gods by nature, except false gods. However the Father is the only God, by identity. He is the source of all, even the Son.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
