The Trinity Doctrine

[Worshipping Jesus]

You said…

Quote

Interesting, but expected. “logos” is “logos”. Why some new definition? In the Hebrew, “logos” is “dabar”, and is used many times in the Masoretic OT. Never once was it attributed to some “person” or “entity”. If God cannot change, then how can something be “new” about God after 4000 years?

How about the “New Testament”, after 4000 years its “New” isnt it? How about the “New Commandments” and the “New Covenant” and the “New Birth” and the “New man” and the “New heavens and the New earth”?

How about this term…”God is Love” 1 Jn 4:8,16. Is this term found in the OT?
How about this term…”The image of the invisible God”, Col 1:15.
Or this one…

1 Tim 2:5
For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

These things are all new about God are they not?

You said…

Quote

So it would seem. Yet the writer of the epistles of John never says that the “Word of life” is indeed Yeshua. The bad thing about both the GoJ and the epistles of John is that the language could lead to many beliefs as the writer never plainly states that “Yeshua is the logos”. Thus both sides of the issue can claim the verses mean what they believe. Was the apostle John really that philosophical and obscure?

No.  John is not obscure. In fact it is very plain to see that John is calling Jesus the “Logos of life”. Look again…

1 Jn 1:
That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word (Logos) of life;
2 (For the life was manifested, and we have seen [it], and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us;)
3 That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship [is] with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ.

John says he looked upon and heard and handled the “Word” of life.
“which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled,”

“OF THE WORD OF LIFE”

It cant be any clearer.

Nevertheless, Johns use of the word “Logos” here and in John 1:1 and Rev 19:13 shows that “Logos” is not just the spoken “dabar” of the OT.

Is there a scripture in the OT that says the “dabar” is God? John 1:1

You say…

Quote

Finally, some clarity. But is “logos” a name or is “logos theos” a name? There is a difference. And as I've stated on several occasions, the Hebrew language and people were big on name meanings. Since Yeshua was the last real biblical prophet, he was the last to “officially” bring the “logos” of God to mankind. And he was the fulfillment of the “logos” of God as well. So his name could be seen as the fulfillment of the redemptive plan of God toward mankind.

There is a difference, but never the less the “Logos of God” is a name, where as earlier you implied that in 4000 years of the OT word “debar” that the definition of that word has not changed. Yet here we see the “Logos of God” is a name.
Is there any OT scripture that the word “dabar of elohim” was given to anyone as a name.

Again, most scholars belief that the Gospel of John was written after Johns vision of Jesus. So I believe he borrowed the term and applied it to Yeshua in Jn 1:1. Therefore elevating Yeshua above the “Word of God”, and why not since all things are upheld by the “Word of his Power”. Heb 1:3 Jesus is named the “Word of God” because the Word of God comes from him.

And also you say…

Quote

Since Yeshua was the last real biblical prophet, he was the last to “officially” bring the “logos” of God to mankind.

HUH! So the Apostles who were inspired by the Holy Spirit and wrote the NT scriptures were not bringing the “Word of God”?

Here is the thing kejonn, its obvious the word “Logos” is not defined as just a saying or spoken word.

Here is some examples of the word that proves this point…

Matt 12:36
[36] But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account [logos]thereof in the day of judgment.

Matt 18:23
“Therefore, the kingdom of heaven is like a king who wanted to settle accounts [logos] with his servants”

Rom 14:12
So then, each of us will give an account [logos] of himself to God.

Matt 5:32
[32] But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause [logos]of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.

Acts 8:21
Thou hast neither part nor lot in this matter [logos]: for thy heart is not right in the sight of God.

Acts 10:29
Therefore came I unto you without gainsaying, as soon as I was sent for: I ask therefore for what intent [logos] ye have sent for me?

So as you can see the word “Logos” is not always a saying or speech.

So the argument that the “Logos” in John 1:1 has to be interpreted that way is a red herrin. In fact the following is proof that this is so.

“With God (prov ton qeon). Though existing eternally with God the Logos was in perfect fellowship with God. Prov with the accusative presents a plane of equality and intimacy, face to face with each other. In 1 John 2:1 we have a like use of prov: “We have a Paraclete with the Father” (paraklhton exomen prov ton patera). See proswpon prov proswpon (face to face, 1 Corinthians 13:12), a triple use of prov. There is a papyrus example of prov in this sense to gnwston thv prov allhlouv sunhqeiav, “the knowledge of our intimacy with one another” (M.&M., Vocabulary) which answers the claim of Rendel Harris, Origin of Prologue, p. 8) that the use of prov here and in Mark 6:3 is a mere Aramaism. It is not a classic idiom, but this is Koin‚, not old Attic. In John 17:5 John has para soi the more common idiom.
(source)”.
https://heavennet.net/cgi-bin….75;st=0

John speaks of the “Word” leading up to vrs 14 showing clearly that the “Word” to him was not just a saying in vrs 1 but that to him the “Word” that was with God is Yeshua.

Jn 1:10
He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.
11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not.
12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, [even] to them that believe on his name:

An “it” did not come unto its own, a
n”it” did not have a name!

If the translators believed that Jn 1:1 is speaking of Gods spoken word, then it would read that way. But they stayed true to the text and the message that the writer John wanted to portray concerning Yeshua being the “Word”.

You should trust the translators, for they knew far more than you or I.

To be continued….

[kejonn]

This is the second half addressing an earlier post…

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Sep. 21 2007,01:43)

You say… Quote But  I have to stop right here and ask, are you certain you would like to pursue the line of reasoning that the writer of Hebrews is saying the unseen here is Yeshua? Think carefully because there has been a position put forth on this board that would crumble like a house of cards if you pursue it. There is nothing to think about. Yeshua is invisible to mans eyes and can appear to man whenever he likes. As you know Trinitarians believe Yeshua is the “I AM” that appeared to Moses and the Prophets and Patriarchs. In fact it is the Non-Trinitarians that have a contradiction here. Jn 1:18 No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared [him]. 1 Jn 4:12 No man hath seen God at any time. If we love one another, God dwelleth in us, and his love is perfected in us. Jn 6:46 Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father. Was John contradicting himself here? He heard Jesus say no man has seen the Father, yet Yeshua is a man and has seen the Father. When did he see him? And if he is just a man then John lied! Or else Jesus wasnt a man when he saw him! But here is the thing kejonn. Where does it say that Angels, or other beings has not seen the Father? All three scriptures says “No man”.

And thus you have knocked your house of cards down with your own hand. “No one has seen God”. Yet you say that people saw Yeshua in both the OT and NT. But that contradicts the verse that says “no one has seen God” doesn’t it? For, if Yeshua is God, and people have seen Yeshua both in his humanity and whatever pre-existent form he had, then obviously Yeshua can’t be God. John 1:18 and 1 John 4:12 do not say “no one has seen God the Father” do they? No, they say “no one has seen God! Only 1 John 4:12 goes on to say no one has seen the Father. Now you have a whole new dilemma to deal with.

As far as you implication that non-trinitarians have a contradiction because we say Yeshua was a man, and the verses say “No man has seen” let’s dig deeper into the Greek shall we?

The Greek word that the KJV is translating as “no man” is “oudeis”. According to Strong’s

From G3761 and G1520; not even one (man, woman or thing), that is, none, nobody, nothing: – any (man), aught, man, neither any (thing), never (man), no (man), none (+ of these things), not (any, at all, -thing), nought.

Thus, there is no true sense that this should be translated as “no man”. In fact, most modern versions say “no one”. If the writer of both John’s Gospel and the Epistles had wanted to emphasize that “no man” had seen God, he would have used “anthropos”, the Greek word for “man”.

But then we come around full circle because “no one” would include the angels. But you have to realize who he was speaking to: humans. He was not speaking to the host of heaven, so he was indeed telling him that “no man” that had walked the earth had seen God. This matches with Ex 33:20

Exo 33:20(KJV)  And he said, Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live.

Now the word for “man” truly is in this verse. The Hebrew word is “adam”. Thus, we see that “no man” can see God and live. So now we come back to the belief of non-trinitarians that Yeshua was a man. But the fact of the matter, he was a man fully while on earth. He ascended to heaven and has a glorified body which is unlike our own. We will inherit a new body some day as well. But for now, we cannot see God in our mortal flesh. And we know Yeshua was in a mortal body because he died on the tree at Calvary.

When God made the statement to Moses, there was no idea of a glorified body. This was only made possible by God sending His Son to die and be resurrected. So God was telling Moses that no mortal man, in the flesh, could see God. And Yeshua was saying the same thing because before his resurrection, all things were mortal except God. “The wages of sin is death”.

Now let’s return to the verses above. Did Yeshua say these things? No, the writer of John’s Gospel and Epistles did. So Yeshua was not saying he had seen God, correct? Let’s look at these verses again.

Joh 1:18(KJV)  No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

Understand that was in the “prologue” section of GoJ. What does it say? “The only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father”. This is present tense. Since GoJ was written well after the ascension of Yeshua, this is accurate. Yeshua is presently in the bosom of the Father. But the verse goes on to say that although no one had seen God, Yeshua explained the Father to them so that they could know God through His Son.

Joh 6:46  “Not that anyone has seen the Father, except the One who is from God; He has seen the Father.

Now this IS Yeshua speaking. Whoa, looks like he has “seen” the Father while no one else has. Well, we are back to the word “horao” for the English word “seen”. As before, the sense of this word is a perception, and not necessarily a visual one. It is like a form of understanding. And Yeshua had been anointed with the Holy Spirit, had he not? Therefore, up until this time, no one had truly perceived the Father, because they did not have the special anointing of the Holy Spirit like Yeshua had. All men before Him were only filled temporarily so as to prophecy. What does Yeshua say of the Holy Spirit?

Joh 14:26  “But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you.

So this same Holy Spirit that filled Yeshua did likewise to him – it taught him all things pertaining to God. If he already had full knowledge of God prior to his anointing, why would this have been said of him?

Luk 2:40  The Child continued to grow and become strong, increasing in wisdom; and the grace of God was upon Him.

So it was the Holy Spirit within him that revealed the things of God to Yeshua.

Quote

You say… Quote Hey, there it is. Yes, he was invisible at the time of Moses in that he was a prophecy at the time of Moses. It dosnt say Christ is a prophesy. It says by faith he left Egypt for the Greater riches of Christ and endured as seeing him who is unseen.

What does Christ mean? Was Christ Yeshua’s last name? No, it means “anointed one, Messiah”. Heb 11:26 says nothing of Yeshua, but of Christ. Yes, they are now synonymous, but in Moses’ day, th
ere was no Yeshua, only the promise of a Messiah.

Quote

No. It dosnt just say that at all. Lets look at it again… Heb 9: 26 For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. 27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment: 28 So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear *the second time* without sin unto salvation. To appear the second time means he had to of appeared a first time. The context clearly shows that Yeshua pre-existed or else the first part of verse 26 is obsolete.

Huh? The second time is spoken of in Revelation. Else the account in Rev. will be his third coming. I see no where in the Bible that there will be a third coming.

And the first part of v26 is saying that he would have had to come right away if one time was not enough. And he would have to die again, and again, and again…but once was enough. That is the message of this passage. You know that.

Quote

For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. It clearly indicates he was before the foundation of the world. This lines up with a boatload of scriptures that says Jesus came down from heaven and returned back. Now to come again.

No, it says that God would have placed the Messiah in the world at the beginning. It says nothing of him existing at the foundation of the world. If that is so, so did we all:

Eph 1:4  just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless before Him. In love

But Peter tidies everything up for us

1Pe 1:20  For He was foreknown before the foundation of the world, but has appeared in these last times for the sake of you

The Greek word for “foreknown” here is “proginosko” which means “foresee” or “foreordained”. It does not mean “pre-exist”. The word is also used in these verses

Rom 8:29  For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren;

Rom 11:2  God has not rejected His people whom He foreknew. Or do you not know what the Scripture says in the passage about Elijah, how he pleads with God against Israel?

So do we “pre-exist” according to these verses?

Quote

You say… Quote To the human eye, many things are invisible. I've never seen you so to me you are invisible. Christ lived with us (visible) and he will return (visible). But right now, is he “invisible”? No evidence, but he is not in our presence physically, so he is unseen. Can you see him? Then to us he is invisible. To Paul he also was invisible. And yes I believe he is in our presence. I fell his presence litterally. The Spiritual world is real and tangible or else invisible deamons couldnt manifest themselves in human flesh. Jesus said if I by the Spirit of God cast out devils then the Kingdom of God has come unto us. He said his Kingdom is not of this world, and he also said the Kingdom of God is in us. The Kingdom of God is invisible to us!

See all I have posted above. He has never himself been called “invisible” and that is the point of the verses in question.

Quote

You say… Quote That has nothing to do with invisibility. Do you believe Moses existed? Have you ever seen him? If you believe he existed, then by your own logic, he too is “invisible”. In fact, all spirits are invisible. But God is the only being ever called “invisible” in scripture. But what does scripture say? You've all seen it: no one has seen God. Truly invisible in the greatest sense. Does scripture say “no one has seen Yeshua at any time”? Not invisible in the same sense. Can you see Moses? Then to you he is invisible. But now you have different “sences” of Invisibility! The scripture dosnt say “No One” has seen God! It says “No Man” has seen God. Invisible is invisible.

It does say “no one”. “Man” is not in the Greek.

Quote

You say… Quote Not really. As I've shown, biblical context shows differently. Can I show you the context of the whole chapter to see who “God” in v17 is? The chapter starts out by clarifying it: 1Ti 1:1  Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus according to the commandment of God our Savior, and of Christ Jesus, who is our hope, 1Ti 1:2  To Timothy, my true child in the faith: Grace, mercy and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord. So who is God in v17? According to the opening statement of this epistle to Timothy, it is God our Savior, further clarified by God the Father. There is no mention of “God the Son”. Thus Paul has already pointed out who he is calling God. So is your opinion! Verse 1 reads… 1 Tim 1:1 Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the commandment of God our Saviour and Lord, Jesus Christ, which is our hope; The grandville sharp rule says that the “Theos” in verse 1 is Yeshua. Therefore Paul is saying that both the Father in verse 2 and the son in verse 1 is God.

I’m supposing that you now disagree with all of the translations then? I thought that was a non-trinitarian ploy?

(ESV)  Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by command of God our Savior and of Christ Jesus our hope,

(ISV)  From Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the command of God our Savior and Christ Jesus our hope,

(KJV)  Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the commandment of God our Saviour, and Lord Jesus Christ, which is our hope;

(NASB)  Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus according to the commandment of God our Savior, and of Christ Jesus, who is our hope,

(Webster)  Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ
by the commandment of God our Savior, and Lord Jesus Christ, who is our hope

(NLT)  This letter is from Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus, appointed by the command of God our Savior and by Christ Jesus our hope

(NIV)  Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the command of God our Savior and of Christ Jesus our hope,

(RSV)  Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by command of God our Savior and of Christ Jesus our hope,

(YLT)  Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ, according to a command of God our Saviour, and of the Lord Jesus Christ our hope,

(Darby)  Paul, apostle of Jesus Christ, according to [the] command of God our Saviour, and of Christ Jesus our hope,

In fact, I’ve yet to see a single version that supports your translation. Not a single one.

Quote

Verses 14:-17 in context confirm Jesus is God. Follow the Pronouns kejonn.

What pronouns? The only pronouns in those verses are “I” and “me”, and that is Paul. So are you saying Paul is God?

Quote

Later on in the Epistle Paul writes… 1Tim 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory. The Word “Theos” is found in the Greek Intelinear.

According to Bruce Metzger

[“He who”] is supported by the earliest and best uncials…no uncial (in the first hand) earlier than the eighth or ninth century supports theos; all ancient versions presuppose hos or ho [“he who” or “he”]; and no patristic writer prior to the last third of the fourth century testifies to the reading theos. The reading theos arose either (a) accidentally, or (b) deliberately, either to supply a substantive for the following six verbs [the six verbs that follow in the verse], or, with less probability, to provide greater dogmatic precision [i.e., to produce a verse that more clearly supports the Trinitarian position].”

No modern version of the Bible has “theos” in it because the earliest manuscripts did not contain the word.

Quote

] Hey, I never said he doubted that Jesus was God. I was simply pointing out that Thomas no longer doubting Thomas when he made the statement “My Lord and My God”, for I have heard you say to CB would you believe the words of doubting Thomas. The fact that John wrote ealier that the Apostles heard Jesus say I go to my God and your God is even more incredible that neither John nor Jesus rebuked him.

The Apostles did not hear it, Mary did. She was supposed to pass that message on to the Apostles. And she supposedly did, but Thomas was not present when she did. And as far as John rebuking him, the Apostle John is nowhere to be found in the Gospel of John.

But even in heaven, Yeshua still has a God.

Rev 3:12  'He who overcomes, I will make him a pillar in the temple of My God, and he will not go out from it anymore; and I will write on him the name of My God, and the name of the city of My God, the new Jerusalem, which comes down out of heaven from My God, and My new name.

Since Yeshua was in heaven and the Jews could not stone him…why didn’t he claim “Godship” for himself in Revelation? Revelation would have been the perfect book for Yeshua to proclaim he was God, yet the proclamation never came from his lips. In heaven, the Father is still the only God.

[Mr. Steve]

Gentlemen;

Is God limited in form. Our God who is invisible could manifest himself in visible form if he chose to do so. We walk by faith and not by sight.

Steven

[kejonn]

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Sep. 21 2007,12:46)

You say… Quote True, but is the word “invisible” ever used of him in scripture? Yes, 1 Tim 1:16.

Only if you keep taking it out of the context of the entire chapter. The first two verses of the chapter, as I have shown, clarify who God is. I have even provided that every translation supports that but you provided an translation that I cannot find in any Bible. So if Paul says “God our Savior” and “God the Father”, most people who not read “Jesus” into the God of v17. Except diehard Trinitarians who can’t accept that this verse is definitely not about Jesus. You want to say that because Jesus is mentioned in v16, that “God” must be applied to him in v17. I think you’d find that even the majority of Trinitarians wouldn’t even agree with you here.

Quote

You say… Quote That is the key here, because as I pointed out to Is 1:18, Paul made similar statements. Therefore, Paul could be labeled as “invisible” by your logic. What that does then is lessen when the actual word “invisible” is applied to God. 1Co 5:4  In the name of our Lord Jesus, when you are assembled, and I with you in spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Col 2:5  For even though I am absent in body, nevertheless I am with you in spirit, rejoicing to see your good discipline and the stability of your faith in Christ. What are you saying? That Paul was dwelling in them or that he was standing in their midst? Quite different from… Matt 18:20 For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them. 2 Cor 13:5 Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves. Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates? Jesus is litterally in us and with us. Paul or no man can do that.

No, but that is not the contention, is it? You are saying Yeshua is “invisible” but so is Paul in these instances, correct? You are moving in a new direction.

Quote

You say… Quote No but others have. Thus, he is not truly “invisible”, not in the same manner as God. Yes the Father cannot be seen, but Jesus is just as invisible to man as the Father is.

Yes he has been “visible”. The Father never has, not to any mortal man.

Quote

You say… Quote Huh? This verse says absolutely nothing of his “visibility”. This one is a stretch, don’t let your imagination make something out of this verse that is not there. The CEV version of this verse reads Luk 4:30(CEV) But Jesus slipped through the crowd and got away. If he was “invisible” why would he need to “slip through the crowd”? All the other translations use the word “Passing”. Lk 4: NIV This is your version. 29 They got up, drove him out of the town, and took him to the brow of the hill on which the town was built, in order to throw him down the cliff. 30 But he walked right through the crowd and went on his way. NASB 29 and they got up and drove Him out of the city, and led Him to the brow of the hill on which their city had been built, in order to throw Him down the cliff. 30 But passing through their midst, He went His way. Looks like he was invisible to me.

It may “look” that way, but those words are never used. Here is a case where you are reading into scripture something that is not there. There is no support for your position other than what you want to believe.

Quote

You say… Quote This is true, but again I must re-emphasize that the word “invisible” in the Bible was never applied to him. 1 Tim 1:16.

See above.

Quote

You say… Quote That, as I am pointing out, is the true measure. The fact of the matter is that he has been both visible and invisible, but God is always invisible as God is Spirit. No humanity to God, no “solid” substance. What are you saying? That Jesus is not Spirit? It is he that dwells in us. The last time I looked he is invisible. But again ch 3:16 Paul says God came in the flesh so obviously Paul is not limiting the term God to just the Father.

And I have shown that “theos” was a later addition to the manuscripts that was not present in early manuscripts. You’ll find that in a previous reply. Not my argument, but documented evidence.

Quote

You say… Quote In the Bible, the actual word is. The only other time you see the actual word “invisible” used is in relation to all things created . Every other use is applied to God alone. So while you’re examples of him being unseen are true, the actual usage of the word in scripture never once is applied to Yeshua. Yes, but the word “Invisible” is used for all things created, Right? My contention is not that the Father can be seen. But that the Father is not the only one “Invisible”. So your argument that 1 Tim 1:16 is the Father because of this, is not true. Especially in light of 1 Tim 1:1 and 3:16.

No it is not used for all things created. It mentions
all things created, both visible and invisible. Can you see molecules, atoms, certain gases? To the eye, these things are invisible. But there are other created things that are obviously visible. And your translation of 1 Tim 1:1 is not supported in a single Bible translation that I am aware of.

Quote

You say… Quote To go further, the Greek word used for “invisible” is “aoratos”, and it is applied to God only in Rom 1:20, Col 1:15, 1 Tim 1:17, and Heb 11:27. The only other instance of “aoratos” is for the “invisible” things of creation in Col 1:16. Thus, scripturally, only God is called “invisible”, and only by implication is Yeshua thought to be “invisible”. Not by implication. Yeshua is invisible to humanity at this time.

Now I think you are being stubborn. Yes, I will admit that Yeshua’s spirit is invisible. I will also admit that my spirit is invisible. So am I God now? As I’ve already stated, the word “invisible” is only applied to one being: God. Never to Yeshua. Not even in 1 Tim 1:17 because the context will not support this.

Quote

You say… Quote No, but they would see him for who he was while he walked among them either. But you miss the point of how Stephen was able to see the Yeshua: Act 7:55  But being full of the Holy Spirit, he gazed intently into heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God; Stephen could not see Yeshua in heaven lest he be filled with the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit was not in those who stoned him. No I am not missing the point. Yeshua is invisible to Stephen and those stoning him until Yeshua reveals himself. Since Yeshua is the image of the invisible God then Stephen was seeing the visual image of God therefore seeing God. “If you have seen me you have seen the Father (God)”.

I’m sorry WJ but you are starting to get a little far-fetched at this point. If something is “invisible” wouldn’t everything “invisible” be the image of it? And beyond that, you mentioned earlier that we are “made” in the image of God while Yeshua is the image of God. What of this verse?

1Co 11:7  For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man.

Men are the “image AND glory of God” according to Paul!

Quote

You say… Quote And Yeshua was a man. Regardless, both mankind and Yeshua are the image of God. You can’t escape the fact that man was made in the image of God and that Yeshua was born a man (not adult obviously). The two go hand-in-hand. However, he was a truer image of God because he is the Son of God. My own son is a truer image of me than some other person who does not have my genetics. And Yeshua was sent by his Father to be His “word” to humanity. What are you saying? That Yeshua is only flesh? “Made in the image of God” and “Being the Image of God” is two different things. The term “Image of the invisible God” and “Image of God” is only ascribed to Yeshua. Gen 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, afterour likeness: 27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. Can you show me a scripture that says Yeshua is made in the image of God?

See 1 Co 11:7 above. Men are “the image and glory of God”. Nothing about man being “made” in that verse.

Quote

You say… Quote Actually, it is basically saying that Yeshua is the image of the God who is invisible. Thus, the “invisible God”. Does God have any other nature besides a “divine” nature? He is fully and wholly divine. Are you saying Yeshua is not fully and wholly divine? Boy you like the NLT don’t you? There is no other translation on Blueletterbible.com that translates it… “the image of the God who is invisible”.

Huh? That is not the NLT, that is me. Let’s see, “invisible God” versus “God who is invisible”. What is the discernable difference?

There is nothing in scripture that says that Yeshua is “fully and wholly divine”. So I’m not saying anything the Bible doesn’t support.

Quote

You say… Quote Obviously, you are missing out in the wording of this verse: “he was looking to the reward”. The sense of this verse states that Moses was looking to the future for a reward that was promised. He was not looking at some present reality. Here are some other translations that clarify the sense of this verse The context in fact the very verse shows what the reward is look again… Heb 11:26 NASB considering the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures of Egypt; for he was looking to the reward. The reward is Christ riches that he esteemed greater than the treasures of Egypt. Yes he was looking ahead to Christ as the coming Messiah. But he also seen the invisible Christ. Heb 11:27(KJV)  By faith he forsook Egypt, not fearing the wrath of the king: for he endured, as seeing him who is invisible. The context is clearly showing he saw him who is invisible.

See my previous response. It says “Christ”, not “Jesus Christ”. While we see them as the same, to Moses, there was no promise of a Messiah named Yeshua (Jesus). Just a Messiah, or Christ. So again, Moses is looking forward to the promise of the Messiah.

From a commentary on bible.cc (fully replete with Trinitarian viewpoints I might add)

seeing him … invisible—as though he had not to do with men, but only with God, ever before his eyes by faith, though invisible to the bodily eye (Ro 1:20; 1Ti 1:17; 6:16). Hence he feared not the wrath of visible man; the characteristic of faith (Heb 11:1; Lu 12:4, 5).

Nothing about Yeshua there.

Quote

You say… Quote Thus, “seeing” here does not necessarily mean “seeing” in the visual sense with the eye. It could be “perceived” as well, and we know that Moses “perceived” God on many occasions. Yes but none of the translators translated it that way. I will trust their judgment over yours.

I “see” what you mean. I can “see” you viewpoint. I don’t “see” myself as a fireman. I “see” what you are saying.
Definitions of “see” according to answers.com

• To perceive with the eye.
• To have a mental image of; visualize: They could still see their hometown as it once was.
• To understand; comprehend: I see your point.
• To consider to be; regard: Many saw her as a world leader.
• To believe possible; imagine: I don't see him as a teacher.
• To foresee: I see great things for that child.
• To know through firsthand experience; undergo: “He saw some service on the king's side” (Tucker Brooke).
• To give rise to or be characterized by: “Her long reign saw the heyday of verbal humor” (Richard Kain). “The 1930s saw the development of sulfa drugs and penicillin” (Gregg Easterbrook).
• To find out; ascertain: Please see who's knocking.
• To refer to; read: Persons interested in the book's history should see page one of the preface.
• To take note of; recognize: She sees only the good aspects of the organization.
• To meet or be in the company of: I saw all my aunts and uncles at the reunion.
• To share the companionship of often or regularly: He's been seeing the same woman for eight years.

Phew. You're giving me a scriptural workout bro!

[kejonn]

Quote (Mr. Steve @ Sep. 21 2007,14:41)

Gentlemen; Is God limited in form.  Our God who is invisible could manifest himself in visible form if he chose to do so. We walk by faith and not by sight. Steven

You've made your own point, Steven. A manifestation of God is not God, but something formed by Him so that our minds and eyes can comprehend. No mortal man can see God in his ultimate glory.

[kejonn]

Quote (Mr. Steve @ Sep. 21 2007,12:22)

To all; I'm trying to find the point in whether or not God is invisible or visible, and what kind of body, if any, God and Jesus possess.  Where is this an issue in scripture? Steven

Well, to be truthful, it is but a characteristic of God that has only been applied to Him in scripture. We are trying to show how God is different than His Son, Yeshua.

[charity]

Quote (kejonn @ Sep. 22 2007,08:14)

Quote (Mr. Steve @ Sep. 21 2007,14:41) Gentlemen; Is God limited in form.  Our God who is invisible could manifest himself in visible form if he chose to do so. We walk by faith and not by sight. Steven You've made your own point, Steven. A manifestation of God is not God, but something formed by Him so that our minds and eyes can comprehend. No mortal man can see God in his ultimate glory.

Hi Kejonn, you are a such a blessing, God is Good

Perhaps then the picture is…. what’s visible sits on the throne beside the invisible spirit of God, that all we should ever see is the King of kings, elected above his fellow men, in his glory, or should we expect God to give himself a body?
Yet he has never promised to do this?
But Use this method of revealing his power, thu A father , A father Son, And His seed
2Sa 7:11 And as since the time that I commanded judges [to be] over my people Israel, and have caused thee to rest from all thine enemies. Also the LORD telleth thee that he will make thee an house. ¶ And when thy days be fulfilled, and thou shalt sleep with thy fathers, I will set up thy seed after thee, which shall proceed out of thy bowels, and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build an house for my name, and I will stablish the throne of his kingdom for ever. I will be his father, and he shall be my son. If he commit iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men, and with the stripes of the children of men:
But my mercy shall not depart away from him, as I took [it] from Saul, whom I put away before thee. And thine house and thy kingdom shall be established for ever before thee: thy throne shall be established for ever. According to all these words, and according to all this vision, so did Nathan speak unto David.
¶ Then went king David in, and sat before the LORD, and he said, Who [am] I, O Lord GOD? and what [is] my house, that thou hast brought me hitherto?

charity

[kejonn]

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Sep. 21 2007,12:57)

You said… Quote Interesting, but expected. “logos” is “logos”. Why some new definition? In the Hebrew, “logos” is “dabar”, and is used many times in the Masoretic OT. Never once was it attributed to some “person” or “entity”. If God cannot change, then how can something be “new” about God after 4000 years? How about the “New Testament”, after 4000 years its “New” isnt it? How about the “New Commandments” and the “New Covenant” and the “New Birth” and the “New man” and the “New heavens and the New earth”? How about this term…”God is Love” 1 Jn 4:8,16. Is this term found in the OT? How about this term…”The image of the invisible God”, Col 1:15. Or this one… 1 Tim 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; These things are all new about God are they not?

No, they are not “new” in the sense that they change the nature of the eternal God. God made covenants with Noah, Abraham, and the children of Israel under Moses. So nothing new about making covenant (which is another word for testament BTW).

As to “God is love”, that is a new statement about Him, but are you prepared to say that this is a new facet of God? Are you prepared to say that God was not love in the OT?

What “new commandments” are you talking about? The commandments that Yeshua stated , love God and love your neighbor, are just summaries of all of God’s commandments. So nothing “new” about them.

And the “new heaven and new earth” is not “new” the NT.

Isa 65:17  “For behold, I create new heavens and a new earth; And the former things will not be remembered or come to mind.

The only thing “new” would be that God is triune. But it is not “new” as it is not supported. Yet you know that the OT predicts the coming of the Messiah. However, it never once says that the Messiah will be “God in the flesh”.

What “new man” are you speaking of?

But regardless, God does not change. Why would he keep this triune nature from His chosen people for 4000 years?

Quote

You said… Quote So it would seem. Yet the writer of the epistles of John never says that the “Word of life” is indeed Yeshua. The bad thing about both the GoJ and the epistles of John is that the language could lead to many beliefs as the writer never plainly states that “Yeshua is the logos”. Thus both sides of the issue can claim the verses mean what they believe. Was the apostle John really that philosophical and obscure? No.  John is not obscure. In fact it is very plain to see that John is calling Jesus the “Logos of life”. Look again… 1 Jn 1: That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word (Logos) of life; 2 (For the life was manifested, and we have seen [it], and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us;) 3 That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship [is] with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ.

Ok, take a moment and clear you mind of any thoughts of the “word” being Yeshua and read these verses again. There is no mention of Yeshua in v1-2! It speaks of eternal life, something we’ve beheld, what we’ve heard! Yes, this could be Yeshua but there is plenty of room to see that it is not. Just as in John 1:1-3, Yeshua is never mentioned.

Quote

John says he looked upon and heard and handled the “Word” of life. “which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled,” “OF THE WORD OF LIFE” It cant be any clearer. Nevertheless, Johns use of the word “Logos” here and in John 1:1 and Rev 19:13 shows that “Logos” is not just the spoken “dabar” of the OT. Is there a scripture in the OT that says the “dabar” is God? John 1:1

No. But then again, why is the writer of John the only one to say this? I am presently reading something about John 1:1 which theorizes that the prelude to John was written to oppose Gnostic views of “logos”. The Gnostic – and Paltonic I think – view was that “logos” was the creator of the world but Christ was the “Aeon” sent to destroy the “logos”. The Gnostics believed that the God of the OT was an evil being and that Christ was sent to eliminate the brutal God of the OT. Thus, the writer of GoJ wrote John 1 wrote this to oppose this viewpoint and show that the “logos” was not some evil destructive spirit.

This finds support in evidence that Gnostics were starting to appear around the time that GoJ was written. There was supposedly a Gnostic by the name Cerinthus around the late part of the 1st century. This would lend to the reason you do not see the other Gospel writers mentioning any “logos” in relation to God.

What is also interesting is that only the writer of the Epistles of John, which were supposed to be the same as the GoJ, defines antichrist as someone who did not admit that Christ came in the flesh. A popular Gnostic belief was that Christ was not human at all, but some manifestation of a human. So there again, the writer is battling the heretical notions of the Gnostic movement of the time.

But in any case, there is no mention of the “dabar” being God in the OT. Nor is there any mention of the “logos” being God in the balance of the NT except by the very same supposed writer attached to anything with “John” in the title.

Quote

You say… Quote Finally, some clarity. But is “logos” a name or is “logos theos” a name? There is a difference. And as I've stated on several occasions, the Hebrew language and people were big on name meanings. Since Yeshua was the last real biblical prophet, he was the last to “officially” bring the “logos” of God to mankind. And he was the fulfillment of the “logos” of God as well. So his name could be seen as the fulfillment of the redemptive plan of God toward mankind. There is a differen ce, but never the less the “Logos of God” is a name, where as earlier you implied that in 4000 years of the OT word “debar” that the definition of that word has not changed. Yet here we see the “Logos of God” is a name. Is there any OT scripture that the word “dabar of elohim” was given to anyone as a name.

No. And by this very fact, you either have to accept that Yeshua is NOT God (God cannot change) or that God can change and contradict scripture. Because if this new “Word of God” is actually part of God, then God has changed after 4000 years.

Quote

Again, most scholars belief that the Gospel of John was written after Johns vision of Jesus. So I believe he borrowed the term and applied it to Yeshua in Jn 1:1. Therefore elevating Yeshua above the “Word of God”, and why not since all things are upheld by the “Word of his Power”. Heb 1:3 Jesus is named the “Word of God” because the Word of God comes from him.

How is he being elevated above the “Word of God”? It says he IS the “Word of God” in Revelation, so how can he be elevated above who he is?

Quote

And also you say… Quote Since Yeshua was the last real biblical prophet, he was the last to “officially” bring the “logos” of God to mankind. HUH! So the Apostles who were inspired by the Holy Spirit and wrote the NT scriptures were not bringing the “Word of God”?

Are they called prophets? I specifically said “prophet”.

Quote

Here is the thing kejonn, its obvious the word “Logos” is not defined as just a saying or spoken word. Here is some examples of the word that proves this point… Matt 12:36 [36] But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account [logos]thereof in the day of judgment. Matt 18:23 “Therefore, the kingdom of heaven is like a king who wanted to settle accounts [logos] with his servants” Rom 14:12 So then, each of us will give an account [logos] of himself to God. Matt 5:32 [32] But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause [logos]of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery. Acts 8:21 Thou hast neither part nor lot in this matter [logos]: for thy heart is not right in the sight of God. Acts 10:29 Therefore came I unto you without gainsaying, as soon as I was sent for: I ask therefore for what intent [logos] ye have sent for me? So as you can see the word “Logos” is not always a saying or speech.

No, but none of these are a “being” either, are they? What you propose is that the “logos” of John 1:1 is a “person” of God. None of the above support that view either.

Quote

So the argument that the “Logos” in John 1:1 has to be interpreted that way is a red herrin. In fact the following is proof that this is so. “With God (prov ton qeon). Though existing eternally with God the Logos was in perfect fellowship with God. Prov with the accusative presents a plane of equality and intimacy, face to face with each other. In 1 John 2:1 we have a like use of prov: “We have a Paraclete with the Father” (paraklhton exomen prov ton patera). See proswpon prov proswpon (face to face, 1 Corinthians 13:12), a triple use of prov. There is a papyrus example of prov in this sense to gnwston thv prov allhlouv sunhqeiav, “the knowledge of our intimacy with one another” (M.&M., Vocabulary) which answers the claim of Rendel Harris, Origin of Prologue, p. 8) that the use of prov here and in Mark 6:3 is a mere Aramaism. It is not a classic idiom, but this is Koin‚, not old Attic. In John 17:5 John has para soi the more common idiom. (source)”. https://heavennet.net/cgi-bin….75;st=0

That’s not proof, its speculation. It is but another opinion and opinions are not proof.

Quote

John speaks of the “Word” leading up to vrs 14 showing clearly that the “Word” to him was not just a saying in vrs 1 but that to him the “Word” that was with God is Yeshua. Jn 1:10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not. 11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not. 12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, [even] to them that believe on his name:

You hit a disconnect here. John 1:10-12 is not talking about “logos” anymore, but “light”. Even so, if by extension you want to use “logos” it still fits with the “word of YHWH”. God’s word often came to people and they ignored it. How many times did the children of Israel stray and worship other God’s? So people ignored the “word of YHWH” all throughout the OT. And YHWH is the God of Israel, correct? They are His children, right? So His “Word” came to them, and they did not receive it. Yet when they repented, He delivered them and they were accepted as His children again. It was always they who strayed.

Quote

An “it” did not come unto its own, an”it” did not have a name! If the translators believed that Jn 1:1 is speaking of Gods spoken word, then it would read that way. But they stayed true to the text and the message that the writer John wanted to portray concerning Yeshua being the “Word”. You should trust the translators, for they knew far more than you or I. To be continued….

I don’t have any contention with the way it is translated, just the way some interpret it. The overwhelming use of “logos” outside of John will not support “logos” being an entity. So why must we now force some new usage for this unique case? Easy: to support a theology.

[IM4Truth]

Quote (Mr. Steve @ Sep. 21 2007,12:22)
To all;

I'm trying to find the point in whether or not God is invisible or visible, and what kind of body, if any, God and Jesus possess. Where is this an issue in scripture?

Steven
First God the Father has only always been invisible at all times, a Spirit Glorified Body. Could He make himself visible to someone, if He wanted to He could. We can't limit God, He can do anything, but if God would make Himself visible no man would be able to see He would get blind. In that sense He is not visible. Will we on day see Him, It says that we will be like Jesus, and He is seeing His Father.
1 Corinth. 15:28 ,,, so God will be all in all.” That time we will be like Him. After the Millenium after Satan and His demons and all those that could not obey God will be destroyed in the Lake of Fire. We will live in a New Earth coming down from Heaven the New Jerusalem. We will have a New Heaven and New Earth. If that is meant literally, I am not sure of. Or if God will restore this Earth again.
Jesus was created as a Spirit Body. Then was in Human Body, what we have to remember tho, that He had the Fathers Spirit in full strength. It says then He became a Spirit Body again.
John 17:5 ” And now O Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was.”

Peace and Love Mrs.

[charity]

It really dose good  to hold fast to the that which God has given, concerning his plans, on the first born Son, and he is going to perform it, and how God has chosen to be separate from the visible eye, and places his chosen’s seed to come, as the God of the earth, leading, but he still remains the Invisible force of performing, above what any flesh was ever designed to be able to do, the God of the Heavens and earth, for then the Kingdom would be set up to all generations of the earth, understanding we need not seek anymore than what has been made visible, And begin to rejioce over what he has done for Mankind, that the heavens may desolve into the eternal earth, for ever and ever
And discern those who are working against these plans of God, desiring to see Him? when it is not possible. God is Love
And the earth is not desolved into the heavens, as some remove the kingdom hence out of reach.

. Psa 89:1 ¶ [[Maschil of Ethan the Ezrahite.]] I will sing of the mercies of the LORD for ever: with my mouth will I make known thy faithfulness to all generations.
For I have said, Mercy shall be built up for ever: thy faithfulness shalt thou establish in the very heavens. I have made a covenant with my chosen, I have sworn unto David my servant,
Thy seed will I establish for ever, and build up thy throne to all generations. Selah. And the heavens shall praise thy wonders, O LORD: thy faithfulness also in the congregation of the saints. For who in the heaven can be compared unto the LORD? [who] among the sons of the mighty can be likened unto the LORD? God is greatly to be feared in the assembly of the saints, and to be had in reverence of all [them that are] about him.
O LORD God of hosts, who [is] a strong LORD like unto thee? or to thy faithfulness round about thee? Thou rulest the raging of the sea: when the waves thereof arise, thou stillest them. Thou hast broken Rahab in pieces, as one that is slain; thou hast scattered thine enemies with thy strong arm. The heavens [are] thine, the earth also [is] thine: [as for] the world and the fulness thereof, thou hast founded them.
The north and the south thou hast created them: Tabor and Hermon shall rejoice in thy name. Thou hast a mighty arm: strong is thy hand, [and] high is thy right hand.
Justice and judgment [are] the habitation of thy throne: mercy and truth shall go before thy face. Blessed [is] the people that know the joyful sound: they shall walk, O LORD, in the light of thy countenance. In thy name shall they rejoice all the day: and in thy righteousness shall they be exalted. For thou [art] the glory of their strength: and in thy favour our horn shall be exalted. For the LORD [is] our defence; and the Holy One of Israel [is] our king.
Then thou spakest in vision to thy holy one, and saidst, I have laid help upon [one that is] mighty; I have exalted [one] chosen out of the people.
I have found David my servant; with my holy oil have I anointed him:
With whom my hand shall be established: mine arm also shall strengthen him.
The enemy shall not exact upon him; nor the son of wickedness afflict him.
And I will beat down his foes before his face, and plague them that hate him.
But my faithfulness and my mercy [shall be] with him: and in my name shall his horn be exalted.
I will set his hand also in the sea, and his right hand in the rivers.
He shall cry unto me, Thou [art] my father, my God, and the rock of my salvation. Also I will make him [my] firstborn, higher than the kings of the earth. My mercy will I keep for him for evermore, and my covenant shall stand fast with him. His seed also will I make [to endure] for ever, and his throne as the days of heaven. If his children forsake my law, and walk not in my judgments;
If they break my statutes, and keep not my commandments;
Then will I visit their transgression with the rod, and their iniquity with stripes.
Nevertheless my lovingkindness will I not utterly take from him, nor suffer my faithfulness to fail. My covenant will I not break, nor alter the thing that is gone out of my lips.
Once have I sworn by my holiness that I will not lie unto David.
His seed shall endure for ever, and his throne as the sun before me.
It shall be established for ever as the moon, and [as] a faithful witness in heaven. Selah. But thou hast cast off and abhorred, thou hast been wroth with thine anointed. Thou hast made void the covenant of thy servant: thou hast profaned his crown [by casting it] to the ground. Thou hast broken down all his hedges; thou hast brought his strong holds to ruin.
All that pass by the way spoil him: he is a reproach to his neighbours.
Thou hast set up the right hand of his adversaries; thou hast made all his enemies to rejoice. Thou hast also turned the edge of his sword, and hast not made him to stand in the battle. Thou hast made his glory to cease, and cast his throne down to the ground.
The days of his youth hast thou shortened: thou hast covered him with shame. Selah. How long, LORD? wilt thou hide thyself for ever? shall thy wrath burn like fire?
Remember how short my time is: wherefore hast thou made all men in vain?
What man [is he that] liveth, and shall not see death? shall he deliver his soul from the hand of the grave? Selah. Lord, where [are] thy former lovingkindnesses, [which] thou swarest unto David in thy truth? Remember, Lord, the reproach of thy servants; [how] I do bear in my bosom [the reproach of] all the mighty people; Wherewith thine enemies have reproached, O LORD; wherewith they have reproached the footsteps of thine anointed.
Blessed [be] the LORD for evermore. Amen, and Amen.

[Is 1:18]

Quote (t8 @ Sep. 20 2007,22:13)

No. I have also not seen an angel either. In fact I haven't even seen the queen of England or the Paul who wrote much of the NT. Yet they are all visible beings. Angels are usually hidden from the world for good reason, the Queen has never invited me over for a cup of tea, and Paul lived in a different generation to mine. But no man has seen God and can ever see God. Yet men have seen Jesus and I will see him as he is one day too. In fact I also hope to meet Paul too, and I will also see and meet angels. Can't wait.

duh….

Angels, the Queen and Paul are not said to be in the midst of us when we gather together in prayer. So this is not a sound counter-argument. Yeshua promised he would be there when we gather but is almost never seen, so logic should tell you that He is in fact invisible to us…..moreover many times in the OT YHWH is described as being visible (notably Gen 17-18)….which leaves the argument you were making (Yeshua cannot be God because He is visible) in tatters…..

[Worshipping Jesus]

You say…

Quote

And thus you have knocked your house of cards down with your own hand. “No one has seen God”. Yet you say that people saw Yeshua in both the OT and NT. But that contradicts the verse that says “no one has seen God” doesn’t it?

Not at all. Because the scriptures in do not say that no one has seen God. The scriptures in context are speaking of the Father.

Scriptures are clear that men have seen God.

Gen 32:30 KJV
And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel: for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved.

NLT
Jacob named the place Peniel-“face of God”-for he said, “I have seen God face to face, yet my life has been spared.”

NIV
So Jacob called the place Peniel, saying, “It is because I saw God face to face, and yet my life was spared.”
I could go on but none of the translations say he saw a vision of God.

Jn 14:8
Philip saith unto him, Lord, shew us the Father (God), and it sufficeth us.
9 Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me (God), Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father (God); and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father (God)?

You say…

Quote

As far as you implication that non-trinitarians have a contradiction because we say Yeshua was a man, and the verses say “No man has seen” let’s dig deeper into the Greek shall we? The Greek word that the KJV is translating as “no man” is “oudeis”. According to Strong’s From G3761 and G1520; not even one (man, woman or thing), that is, none, nobody, nothing: – any (man), aught, man, neither any (thing), never (man), no (man), none (+ of these things), not (any, at all, -thing), nought.

OK. Ill give you that. But the context is still speaking of the Father. And also since Jesus has seen him then obviously the “No One” does not include Yeshua who is the Word that was with God and the Word that was God.

You say…

Quote

Joh 6:46  “Not that anyone has seen the Father, except the One who is from God; He has seen the Father. Now this IS Yeshua speaking. Whoa, looks like he has “seen” the Father while no one else has. Well, we are back to the word “horao” for the English word “seen”. As before, the sense of this word is a perception, and not necessarily a visual one. It is like a form of understanding. And Yeshua had been anointed with the Holy Spirit, had he not? Therefore, up until this time, no one had truly perceived the Father, because they did not have the special anointing of the Holy Spirit like Yeshua had. All men before Him were only filled temporarily so as to prophecy. What does Yeshua say of the Holy Spirit?

I gave you the last one on the greek  “oudeis”. No man or no one. If you are going to invoke the translations on “No One” then you should do the same here.

All the major translations say Yeshua has seen the Father. So they disagree with you!

Jn 6:46
Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father.
king James Version 1611, 1769
NKJV
“Not that anyone has seen the Father, except He who is from God; He has seen the Father.
New King James Version © 1982 Thomas Nelson
NLT
(Not that anyone has ever seen the Father; only I, who was sent from God, have seen him.)
New Living Translation © 1996 Tyndale Charitable Trust
NIV
No one has seen the Father except the one who is from God; only he has seen the Father.
New International Version © 1973, 1978, 1984 International Bible Society
ESV
“not that anyone has seen the Father except he who is from God; he has seen the Father.
The Holy Bible, English Standard Version © 2001 Crossway Bibles
NASB
“Not that anyone has seen the Father, except the One who is from God; He has seen the Father.
New American Standard Bible © 1995 Lockman Foundation
RSV
Not that any one has seen the Father except him who is from God; he has seen the Father.
Revised Standard Version © 1947, 1952.
ASV
Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he that is from God, he hath seen the Father.
American Standard Version 1901 Info
Young
not that any one hath seen the Father, except he who is from God, he hath seen the Father.
Robert Young Literal Translation 1862, 1887, 1898 Info
Darby
not that any one has seen the Father, except he who is of God, he has seen the Father.
J.N.Darby Translation 1890 Info
Webster
Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he who is from God, he hath seen the Father.
Noah Webster Version 1833 Info
HNV
Not that anyone has seen the Father, except he who is from God. He has seen the Father.
Hebrew Names Version 2000 Info

You say…

Quote

So this same Holy Spirit that filled Yeshua did likewise to him – it taught him all things pertaining to God. If he already had full knowledge of God prior to his anointing, why would this have been said of him?

Can you give me a scripture that says Yeshua was filled with the Holy Spirit?

You say…

Quote

Luk 2:40  The Child continued to grow and become strong, increasing in wisdom; and the grace of God was upon Him.

Yes Jesus came in the likeness of sinfull flesh (Phil 2) and in his temple and his natural mind he grew until all things that he had with the Father had come back to him.

Jn 16:15
All things that the Father hath are mine: therefore said I, that he shall take of mine, and shall shew it unto you.

You say…

Quote

So it was the Holy Spirit within him that revealed the things of God to Yeshua.

Is there a scripture for this statement. Here is the previous scripture again…

Jn 16:15
All things that the Father hath are mine: therefore said I, that he shall take of mine, and shall shew it unto you.

It looks like the Holy Spirit is taking from Yeshua and showing it unto us. Imagine that the Holy Spirit of God subservient to just a man?

You say…

Quote

What does Christ mean? Was Christ Yeshua’s last name? No, it means “anointed one, Messiah”. Heb 11:26 says nothing of Yeshua, but of Christ. Yes, they are now synonymous, but in Moses’ day, there was no Yeshua, only the promise of a Messiah.

The writer of Hebrews disagrees with you and says Moses esteemed Christ riches greater.

The NT writers knew a whole lot more than we do about th
e Hebrew scriptures.

Heb 1:8 the writer raises the scripture which speaks of an earthly King in Pss 45, and elevates it to being Prophetic of the Father Speaking to the Son as “Theos” And in verse 9 he uses the same word “Theos” for both the Father and the Son.

And then in verse 10 speaks of this same Son who is God (Theos) as the Lord who laid the foundations of the earth.

This happens often when the NT writers quote OT scriptures.

You say…

Quote

Huh? The second time is spoken of in Revelation. Else the account in Rev. will be his third coming. I see no where in the Bible that there will be a third coming. And the first part of v26 is saying that he would have had to come right away if one time was not enough. And he would have to die again, and again, and again…but once was enough. That is the message of this passage. You know that.

Where did you get third coming? I said the scriptures show Christ appeared once. And the scriptures in question say he will appear a second time. If he came from heaven the first time and went back to heaven then he is will appear again.

Jn 6:38
For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.

Heb 10:5
Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me:
7 Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God.

Here we see the writer of the book of Heb in the next chapter confirming what he previously spoke concerning Christ “Appearing” in the end of the world”

Heb 9:26
26 For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.

If you want ot go down the pre-existence trail Im game. These scriptures are clear that Yeshua pre-existed his natural birth.

You say…

Quote

No, it says that God would have placed the Messiah in the world at the beginning. It says nothing of him existing at the foundation of the world. If that is so, so did we all: Eph 1:4  just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless before Him. In love But Peter tidies everything up for us 1Pe 1:20  For He was foreknown before the foundation of the world, but has appeared in these last times for the sake of you The Greek word for “foreknown” here is “proginosko” which means “foresee” or “foreordained”. It does not mean “pre-exist”. The word is also used in these verses Rom 8:29  For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren; Rom 11:2  God has not rejected His people whom He foreknew. Or do you not know what the Scripture says in the passage about Elijah, how he pleads with God against Israel? So do we “pre-exist” according to these verses?

The problem with your theory here is the last part of the verse…” but has appeared in these last times for the sake of you.”

Every major translation has it “manifest” “revealed” or “appeared”. Can you show me where this same terminology is applied to anyone else in relation to Gods foreknowledge other than Yeshua?
Of course the Father foreknew Yeshua coming in the flesh and ordained it so.

But no man can make these claims…

Jn 6:38
For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.

Jn 6:13
And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, [even] the Son of man which is in heaven. King James Version 1611, 1769
Jn 3:13
For only I, the Son of Man, have come to earth and will return to heaven again.
Footnote:
Some manuscripts add who lives in heaven.
New Living Translation © 1996 Tyndale Charitable Trust
NIV – Jhn 3:13 – No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven–the Son of Man.
Footnote:
Some manuscripts Man, who is in heaven
New International Version © 1973, 1978, 1984 International Bible Society
ESV – Jhn 3:13 – “No one has ascended into heaven except he who descended from heaven, the Son of Man.
NASB – Jhn 3:13 – “No one has ascended into heaven, but He who descended from heaven: the Son of Man.
New American Standard Bible © 1995 Lockman Foundation

All the translations agree. Cant wait to see how you will read into this.
John 13:3
Jesus knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands, and that he was come from God, and went to God; (KJV)
You say…

Quote

See all I have posted above. He has never himself been called “invisible” and that is the point of the verses in question.

And so is your opinion my friend!

You say…

Quote

What pronouns? The only pronouns in those verses are “I” and “me”, and that is Paul. So are you saying Paul is God?

LOL. Just pointing out how that when contextually a passage disagrees with you that you don’t play by the same rules like you did with 1 Jn 5:20.

Howbeit for this cause I obtained mercy, that in me first Jesus Christ might shew forth all longsuffering, for a pattern to them which should hereafter believe on **him **to life everlasting.
Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God, be honour and glory for ever and ever. Amen.

Off to the rest…  

[Worshipping Jesus]

You say…

Quote

According to Bruce Metzger…”… with less probability, to provide greater dogmatic precision [i.e., to produce a verse that more clearly supports the Trinitarian position].” No modern version of the Bible has “theos” in it because the earliest manuscripts did not contain the word.

Well kejonn finally a verse that I have to go with the minority of the translators. On blueleterbible.com its 7 to 6. 7 in favour of “He was manifest” Or who or whom. 6 In favour of God coming in the flesh.

You quote Bruce Metzger. Well here is some info on him…

Metzger's commentaries often utilize historical criticism and higher criticism, which attempt to explain the literary and historical origins of the Bible and the biblical canon. For instance, Metzger argues that the early church which assembled the New Testament did not consider divine inspiration to be a sufficient criterion for a book to be canonized. Metzger says that for the early church, it was very important that a work describing Jesus' life be written by a follower of or an eyewitness to Jesus, and in fact considered other works such as The Shepherd of Hermas and the Epistles of Clement to be inspired but not canonical. Because of such views, he was criticized by some Christian fundamentalists (but not most evangelicals) who believed Metzger's views contradict the idea that the Bible is inerrant in its original manuscripts.[2]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_Metzger

By the way it would be nice if you provided your source that you quote from.

So Bruce M. is questionable. While it is true that some of the earlier manuscripts the word “Theos” is not found, that’s not the whole story.

This verse has a very famous variation. Some manuscripts have the pronoun  (Hos, He/Who) in place of  (Theos, God). This variation could have arisen in a number of ways. It could be that a scribe had abreviated the word Theos to  (Theta – Sigma) which was commonly done. This would make the difference between Theos and Hos nothing more than the thin line in the center of the Theta which could easily be overlooked. Alternately, it could be that the first two letters of Theos were dropped because manuscript damage or scribal oversite. A third possibility is an Arian predjudice that inclined the scribe to change Theos to Hos for theological reasons, to avoid the clear statement proving the divinity of the Lord Jesus Christ.
The identities below are based on the reading of Theos. When I get time, I will compare the structures that emerge from the variations. But one fact imediately jumps out. When Theos is read, the sum of the entire verse is a multiple of  (Theos, 354). Specifically, we have:
Sum of 1 Timothy 3.16 = 44 x 354 (God)
http://www.biblewheel.com/GR/GR_2148.asp

Also here is information about the manuscripts and Bruce…
Bruce Metzger, author of the Reader's Digest NewTestament, as well as co-editor of the UBS Greek NewTestament, picked the wrong verse to help create a slimline bible.

1. Of the 300 Greek manuscripts containing I Timothy 3:16,
only five late manuscripts (9th, 12th and 13th century) omit “God.”
The uncials, Aleph and especially A and C, have been altered here so
that either “God” or “who” can be deduced.
2. The earliest witnesses support the inclusion of “God”:
Dionysius of Alexandria A.D. 265, Gregory of Nyssa A.D. 394, and
Didymus A.D. 398. In addition, Ignatious A.D. 110, Barnabas and
T E S T 3 F O R A N I T C H I R S T • 3 5 3
Hippolytus A.D. 235, and Diodorus of Tarsus A.D. 370 allude to the
inclusion of “God.” Of writers before A.D. 400, Origen, the exiled
heretic, stands alone in omitting “God”.
3. Versions used around the world, such as the Italian
Diodati, the French Osterwald, the Spanish Valera, the Portuguese
Almeida and Luther's German Bible, all attest to “God was manifest in
the flesh.”
4. The overwhelming majority of manuscripts say, “God.”
The NIV and NASB footnote stating, “some later mss read God,”
should read “some later mss read who.” Those few copies that have
“who” in place of “God,” do not have a complete sentence. There is no
subject without “God.” In addition, a neuter noun “mystery” cannot be
followed by the masculine pronoun “who.” To avoid having a clause
with no subject, the NIV and J.W. bible arbitrarily drop the word
“who” and invent a new word, “He.” The NASB retains “who” and
adds “He.” By making these additions and subtractions, the new
versions, in I Timothy 3:16, follows no Greek manuscripts at all, not
even the five late uncials.
5. The omission of 'God' in the new versions is based on its
deletion in 1881 by the Westcott and Hort revision which Metzger
says, “was taken as the basis for the present United Bible Societies'
edition.”137 Its omission resulted from the doctrinal stance of the 1881
committee, not from any overwhelming manuscript evidence. Of the
committee's two Unitarian members, Smith and Thayer, the former
reveals why the revisors dropped 'God'.
http://www.avpublications.com/avnew/downloads/PDF/NABV/sample.PDF

God was manifest in the flesh. Jn 1:1,14 1Tim 3:16, Phil 2

You say…

Quote

The Apostles did not hear it, Mary did. She was supposed to pass that message on to the Apostles. And she supposedly did, but Thomas was not present when she did. And as far as John rebuking him, the Apostle John is nowhere to be found in the Gospel of John.

Yes I have heard you say that John is not found in the Gospel of John. He was a disciple wasn’t he? I also heard you say you thought Mary was the writer of John, if that is so then why didn’t Mary rebuke Thomas or correct him since she heard Yeshua say I ascend to my God and your God?

No matter Jesus didnt correct or rebuke him for his proposed blasphemy.

Jn 20:28
And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.
29 Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.

No question about this one being in the manuscripts!!!

You say…

Quote

But even in heaven, Yeshua still has a God. Rev 3:12  'He who overcomes, I will make him a pillar in the temple of My God, and he will not go out from it anymore; and I will write on him the name of My God, and the name of the city of My God, the new Jerusalem, which comes down out of heaven from My God, and My new name. Since Yeshua was in heaven and the Jews could not stone him…why didn’t he claim “Godship” for himself in Revelation? Revelation would have been the perfect book for Yeshua to proclaim he was God, yet the proclamation never came from his lips. In heaven, the Father is still the only God.

He already said he is the Alpha and Omega the Almighty. An that if you have seen him you have seen God! Jn 14:9 What more do you need?
The Father also calls him God. Heb 1:8

Not to mention the many other scriptures showing his deity like John 1:1. Jn 20:28, 1 Tim 1:16 Heb 1:8 Rev 1:8 1 Tim 3:16 etc etc etc.

[kejonn]

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Sep. 21 2007,18:47)

You say… Quote And thus you have knocked your house of cards down with your own hand. “No one has seen God”. Yet you say that people saw Yeshua in both the OT and NT. But that contradicts the verse that says “no one has seen God” doesn’t it? Not at all. Because the scriptures in do not say that no one has seen God. The scriptures in context are speaking of the Father. Scriptures are clear that men have seen God. Gen 32:30 KJV And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel: for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved. NLT Jacob named the place Peniel-“face of God”-for he said, “I have seen God face to face, yet my life has been spared.” NIV So Jacob called the place Peniel, saying, “It is because I saw God face to face, and yet my life was spared.” I could go on but none of the translations say he saw a vision of God.

Are you certain that he saw God, just because that was the statement? Then what of this passage?

Jdg 13:3 Then the angel of the LORD appeared to the woman and said to her, “Behold now, you are barren and have borne no children, but you shall conceive and give birth to a son.

Jdg 13:6 Then the woman came and told her husband, saying, “A man of God came to me and his appearance was like the appearance of the angel of God, very awesome. And I did not ask him where he came from, nor did he tell me his name.

Jdg 13:9 God listened to the voice of Manoah; and the angel of God came again to the woman as she was sitting in the field, but Manoah her husband was not with her.
Jdg 13:10 So the woman ran quickly and told her husband, “Behold, the man who came the other day has appeared to me.”
Jdg 13:11 Then Manoah arose and followed his wife, and when he came to the man he said to him, “Are you the man who spoke to the woman?” And he said, “I am.”
Jdg 13:12 Manoah said, “Now when your words come to pass, what shall be the boy's mode of life and his vocation?”
Jdg 13:13 So the angel of the LORD said to Manoah, “Let the woman pay attention to all that I said.

Jdg 13:21 Now the angel of the LORD did not appear to Manoah or his wife again. Then Manoah knew that he was the angel of the LORD.
Jdg 13:22 So Manoah said to his wife, “We will surely die, for we have seen God.”

Take the time to read the whole chapter. No single instance of the appearance of God, only and angel every single time. Yet Manoah said “We will surely die, for we have seen God.” Thus it can be seen that the people of the OT viewed God and His servants, or a manifestation in some cases, as synonymous. If they had seen an angel of God, they said they had seen God.

Since Gen 32:24 says Jacob wrestled with a man then it was not God himself. Why?

Num 23:19 “God is not a man, that He should lie, Nor a son of man, that He should repent; Has He said, and will He not do it? Or has He spoken, and will He not make it good?

So in the face of these passages, are you so certain that Jacob actually said YHWH God Himself?

Quote

Jn 14:8 Philip saith unto him, Lord, shew us the Father (God), and it sufficeth us. 9 Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me (God), Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father (God); and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father (God)?

It says what it says. This verse is very anti-trinitarian because the trinity does not say the Father is the Son. That is Oneness or sabellianism. But Yeshua say that if Philip had seen him, he saw the Father. Do you now agree that Yeshua is the Father?

But we know that Yeshua came to represent his Father.

Quote

You say… Quote As far as you implication that non-trinitarians have a contradiction because we say Yeshua was a man, and the verses say “No man has seen” let’s dig deeper into the Greek shall we? The Greek word that the KJV is translating as “no man” is “oudeis”. According to Strong’s From G3761 and G1520; not even one (man, woman or thing), that is, none, nobody, nothing: – any (man), aught, man, neither any (thing), never (man), no (man), none (+ of these things), not (any, at all, -thing), nought. OK. Ill give you that. But the context is still speaking of the Father. And also since Jesus has seen him then obviously the “No One” does not include Yeshua who is the Word that was with God and the Word that was God.

Why would the context be the Father? Because it has to be to support your theology? 2 out of 3 verses say “God”.

Quote

You say… Quote Joh 6:46 “Not that anyone has seen the Father, except the One who is from God; He has seen the Father. Now this IS Yeshua speaking. Whoa, looks like he has “seen” the Father while no one else has. Well, we are back to the word “horao” for the English word “seen”. As before, the sense of this word is a perception, and not necessarily a visual one. It is like a form of understanding. And Yeshua had been anointed with the Holy Spirit, had he not? Therefore, up until this time, no one had truly perceived the Father, because they did not have the special anointing of the Holy Spirit like Yeshua had. All men before Him were only filled temporarily so as to prophecy. What does Yeshua say of the Holy Spirit? I gave you the last one on the greek “oudeis”. No man or no one. If you are going to invoke the translations on “No One” then you should do the same here. All the major translations say Yeshua has seen the Father. So they disagree with you! Jn 6:46 Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father. king James Version 1611, 1769 NKJV “Not that anyone has seen the Father, except He who is from God; He has seen the Father. New King James Version © 1982 Thomas Nelson NLT (Not that anyone has ever seen the Father; only I, who was sent from God, have seen him.) New Living Translation © 1996 Tyndale Charitable Trust NIV No one has seen the Father except the one who is from God; only he has seen the Father. New International Version © 1973, 1978, 1984 International Bible Society ESV “not that anyone has seen the Father except he who is from God; he has seen the Father. The Holy Bible, English Standard Version © 2001 Crossway Bibles NASB “Not that anyone has seen the Father, except the One who is from God; He has seen the Father. New American Standard Bible © 1995 Lockman Foundation RSV Not that any one has seen the Father except him who is from God; he has seen the Father. Revised Standard Version © 1947, 1952. ASV Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he that is from God, he hath seen the Father. American Standard Version 1901 Info Young not that any one hath seen the Father, except he who is from God, he hath seen the Father. Robert Young Literal Translation 1862, 1887, 1898 Info Darby not that any one has seen the Father, except he who is of God, he has seen the Father. J.N.Darby Translation 1890 Info Webster Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he who is from God, he hath seen the Father. Noah Webster Version 1833 Info HNV Not that anyone has seen the Father, except he who is from God. He has seen the Father. Hebrew Names Version 2000 Info

And I later supplied the many definitions of “see” (a form of “seen”). Many of them do not have anything to do with optical perception. So can you definitively say the “seen” means visually?

Quote

You say… Quote So this same Holy Spirit that filled Yeshua did likewise to him – it taught him all things pertaining to God. If he already had full knowledge of God prior to his anointing, why would this have been said of him? Can you give me a scripture that says Yeshua was filled with the Holy Spirit?

Did it leave him after the baptism?

Joh 1:32 John testified saying, “I have seen the Spirit descending as a dove out of heaven, and He remained upon Him.

And before you get excited. “He” is implied. It is not in the original Greek.

Quote

You say… Quote Luk 2:40 The Child continued to grow and become strong, increasing in wisdom; and the grace of God was upon Him. Yes Jesus came in the likeness of sinfull flesh (Phil 2) and in his temple and his natural mind he grew until all things that he had with the Father had come back to him.

Any scripture to support your assumption? Because that is all it is at this point. This is a statement that is colored by your theology, not the Bible.

Quote

Jn 16:15 All things that the Father hath are mine: therefore said I, that he shall take of mine, and shall shew it unto you.

But wasn't this statement made after the anointing of the HS? Yes. Thank you for proving my point.

Quote

You say… Quote So it was the Holy Spirit within him that revealed the things of God to Yeshua. Is there a scripture for this statement. Here is the previous scripture again… Jn 16:15 All things that the Father hath are mine: therefore said I, that he shall take of mine, and shall shew it unto you. It looks like the Holy Spirit is taking from Yeshua and showing it unto us. Imagine that the Holy Spirit of God subservient to just a man?

Not just a man. The Son of God, the Messiah. I never said he was “just a man”. But his reality was “just a man” in the sense that he was flesh and blood and died. He was a man that died and was given a second place to his Father. Can any other man claim the same?

I have shown you that the HS would teach us all things. That is one of the functions of the HS. Why should it be any different for Yeshua? Was it a different Holy Spirit that descended as a dove on Yeshua? If so, there are 4 “persons” of the Godhead.

Quote

You say… Quote What does Christ mean? Was Christ Yeshua’s last name? No, it means “anointed one, Messiah”. Heb 11:26 says nothing of Yeshua, but of Christ. Yes, they are now synonymous, but in Moses’ day, there was no Yeshua, only the promise of a Messiah. The writer of Hebrews disagrees with you and says Moses esteemed Christ riches greater.

How so? The writer said “Christ” not “Jesus Christ”. “Jesus Christ” is not his name…”Jesus” is his name, his title is “Christ”.

Quote

The NT writers knew a whole lot more than we do about the Hebrew scriptures. Heb 1:8 the writer raises the scripture which speaks of an earthly King in Pss 45, and elevates it to being Prophetic of the Father Speaking to the Son as “Theos” And in verse 9 he uses the same word “Theos” for both the Father and the Son.

You say “elevates it”, but this is not evident, only if you apply trinitarian special pleading. And as far as “theos”…was there another Greek word for “God”?

Quote

And then in verse 10 speaks of this same Son who is God (Theos) as the Lord who laid the foundations of the earth. This happens often when the NT writers quote OT scriptures.

The New Testament is all about the new creation. Can you prove that this was not the new earth?

Quote

You say… Quote Huh? The second time is spoken of in Revelation. Else the account in Rev. will be his third coming. I see no where in the Bible that there will be a third coming. And the first part of v26 is saying that he would have had to come right away if one time was not enough. And he would have to die again, and again, and again…but once was enough. That is the message of this passage. You know that. Where did you get third coming? I said the scriptures show Christ appeared once. And the scriptures in quest ion say he will appear a second time. If he came from heaven the first time and went back to heaven then he is will appear again.

But you have no scripture that shows he came from heaven. Wait, here's one:

Joh 3:13 “No one has ascended into heaven, but He who descended from heaven: the Son of Man. [/quote]
“descended from heaven”. You got me…or do you? The Holy spirit is from heaven, right?

[color=blue]Mat 1:20 But when he had considered this, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife; for the Child who has been conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit.

So, yes, Yeshua has descended from heaven. This is so because of the Holy Spirit's union with Mary. What other man can claim this? Thus he is indeed the only man to descend from heaven due to his parental heritage.

Quote

Jn 6:38 For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.

The say word translated as “descended” in John 3:13 is used again to translate as “came down”. So see above. He had a heavenly Father after all!

Quote

Heb 10:5 Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me: 7 Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God. Here we see the writer of the book of Heb in the next chapter confirming what he previously spoke concerning Christ “Appearing” in the end of the world”

Huh? What is this supposed to mean? He will appear at the end of this present earth.

Quote

Heb 9:26 26 For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. If you want ot go down the pre-existence trail Im game. These scriptures are clear that Yeshua pre-existed his natural birth.

Clear to who? Those who need to see it to support their theology? I have shown you an alternate interpretation, but you can't agree because it would strike a chink in your trinitarian armor.

It says what is says: if his one-time death was not sufficient, he would have had to have been born and died many times over since the beginning of the fall of man. But this verse tells us that his one-time death was a sufficient covering for all time.

Quote

You say… Quote No, it says that God would have placed the Messiah in the world at the beginning. It says nothing of him existing at the foundation of the world. If that is so, so did we all: Eph 1:4 just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless before Him. In love But Peter tidies everything up for us 1Pe 1:20 For He was foreknown before the foundation of the world, but has appeared in these last times for the sake of you The Greek word for “foreknown” here is “proginosko” which means “foresee” or “foreordained”. It does not mean “pre-exist”. The word is also used in these verses Rom 8:29 For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren; Rom 11:2 God has not rejected His people whom He foreknew. Or do you not know what the Scripture says in the passage about Elijah, how he pleads with God against Israel? So do we “pre-exist” according to these verses? The problem with your theory here is the last part of the verse…” but has appeared in these last times for the sake of you.”

This is no problem at all. God foreknew the Savior, and He brought Him into the world in the 1st century. Why do you view this as a problem? Is it the word “appear”? Well, did he literally “appear” or was he born of Mary?

Quote

Every major translation has it “manifest” “revealed” or “appeared”. Can you show me where this same terminology is applied to anyone else in relation to Gods foreknowledge other than Yeshua? Of course the Father foreknew Yeshua coming in the flesh and ordained it so.

How many other people were prophesied about?

Quote

But no man can make these claims… Jn 6:38 For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.

See above.

Quote

Jn 6:13 And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, [even] the Son of man which is in heaven. King James Version 1611, 1769

He came down from heaven because the Holy Spirit is from heaven, The HS united with Mary. This just shows he has an earthly parent and a divine parent.

Quote

Jn 3:13 For only I, the Son of Man, have come to earth and will return to heaven again. Footnote: Some manuscripts add who lives in heaven. New Living Translation © 1996 Tyndale Charitable Trust NIV – Jhn 3:13 – No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven–the Son of Man. Footnote: Some manuscripts Man, who is in heaven New International Version © 1973, 1978, 1984 International Bible Society ESV – Jhn 3:13 – “No one has ascended into heaven except he who descended from heaven, the Son of Man. NASB – Jhn 3:13 – “No one has ascended into heaven, but He who descended from heaven: the Son of Man. New American Standard Bible © 1995 Lockman Foundation All the translations agree. Cant wait to see how you will read into this.

Wait no longer! Well, wait no longer since I have answered already. One parent from earth, the other from heaven. No other human before or since can claim a human mother and Holy Spirit father.

Quote

John 13:3 Jesus knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands, and that he was come from God, and went to God; (KJV ) You say… Quote See all I have posted above. He has never himself been called “invisible” and that is the point of the verses in question. And so is your opinion my friend!

Not opinion, scripture. I have shown you numerous times, you just don't accept it.

Quote

You say… Quote What pronouns? The only pronouns in those verses are “I” and “me”, and that is Paul. So are you saying Paul is God? LOL. Just pointing out how that when contextually a passage disagrees with you that you don’t play by the same rules like you did with 1 Jn 5:20.

You are correct. There are no pronouns to follow in this. But there ARE in 1 John 5:20. Therein lies the difference. This is a poor comparison.

Quote

Howbeit for this cause I obtained mercy, that in me first Jesus Christ might shew forth all longsuffering, for a pattern to them which should hereafter believe on **him **to life everlasting. Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God, be honour and glory for ever and ever. Amen. Off to the rest…

I don't see “him” or any other pronoun repeated in 1 Tim 1:17. Nor any other pronoun. There is a pronoun in the last sentence of 1 John 5:20 though. I reiterate…poor comparison.

The context of who God is to Paul is in the first 2 verses of 1 Tim. You just don't accept the translation of every single version I've seen.

[kejonn]

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Sep. 21 2007,19:21)

You say… Quote According to Bruce Metzger…”… with less probability, to provide greater dogmatic precision [i.e., to produce a verse that more clearly supports the Trinitarian position].” No modern version of the Bible has “theos” in it because the earliest manuscripts did not contain the word. Well kejonn finally a verse that I have to go with the minority of the translators. On blueleterbible.com its 7 to 6. 7 in favour of “He was manifest” Or who or whom. 6 In favour of God coming in the flesh.

This is a very strong statement of your unwillingness to accept anything that does not agree with your theology, even if there is strong evidence that “theos” was not in early manuscripts. Thus, you are willing to say you accept manuscripts that came after the early ones when the earliest ones were most likely to have the proper wording. I don't know how to respond to this but to say that you are not very open to anything that may run in opposition to your beliefs even when presented with evidence.

Quote

You quote Bruce Metzger. Well here is some info on him… Metzger's commentaries often utilize historical criticism and higher criticism, which attempt to explain the literary and historical origins of the Bible and the biblical canon. For instance, Metzger argues that the early church which assembled the New Testament did not consider divine inspiration to be a sufficient criterion for a book to be canonized. Metzger says that for the early church, it was very important that a work describing Jesus' life be written by a follower of or an eyewitness to Jesus, and in fact considered other works such as The Shepherd of Hermas and the Epistles of Clement to be inspired but not canonical. Because of such views, he was criticized by some Christian fundamentalists (but not most evangelicals) who believed Metzger's views contradict the idea that the Bible is inerrant in its original manuscripts.[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_Metzger

So rather than address that Metzger has shown that earlier manuscripts do not have “theos” you nitpick his character? See above.

Quote

By the way it would be nice if you provided your source that you quote from.

http://www.biblicalunitarian.com/modules….32#null

They took this quote from
Bruce Metzger, The Text of the New Testament, Its Transmission, Corruption and Restoration (Oxford University Press, NY, 1992), pp. 8-10.

Obviously a site biased against the trinitarian view but they at least quoted from another's work, and have not made their own assumptions.

Quote

So Bruce M. is questionable. While it is true that some of the earlier manuscripts the word “Theos” is not found, that’s not the whole story.

There needs to be more of a story? If I write something and someone changes it, whether intentional or by mistake, is it still my original words?

Quote

This verse has a very famous variation. Some manuscripts have the pronoun (Hos, He/Who) in place of (Theos, God). This variation could have arisen in a number of ways. It could be that a scribe had abreviated the word Theos to (Theta – Sigma) which was commonly done. This would make the difference between Theos and Hos nothing more than the thin line in the center of the Theta which could easily be overlooked. Alternately, it could be that the first two letters of Theos were dropped because manuscript damage or scribal oversite. A third possibility is an Arian predjudice that inclined the scribe to change Theos to Hos for theological reasons, to avoid the clear statement proving the divinity of the Lord Jesus Christ.

So you are supporting the idea that later correctors changed it back? On what basis?

Quote

The identities below are based on the reading of Theos. When I get time, I will compare the structures that emerge from the variations. But one fact imediately jumps out. When Theos is read, the sum of the entire verse is a multiple of (Theos, 354). Specifically, we have: Sum of 1 Timothy 3.16 = 44 x 354 (God) http://www.biblewheel.com/GR/GR_2148.asp

The author of this site freely admits: “I am a non-denominational blood-bought Bible-believing Trinitarian Christian.”

The least he could have done was quoted from another source like the BU site did. So as you call into question Metzger's character, I call foul on the character of the author of this website because of his obvious trinitarian stance. What are his credentials BTW?

Quote

Also here is information about the manuscripts and Bruce… Bruce Metzger, author of the Reader's Digest NewTestament, as well as co-editor of the UBS Greek NewTestament, picked the wrong verse to help create a slimline bible. 1. Of the 300 Greek manuscripts containing I Timothy 3:16, only five late manuscripts (9th, 12th and 13th century) omit “God.” The uncials, Aleph and especially A and C, have been altered here so that either “God” or “who” can be deduced.

You can “deduce” God? It would seem that the Paul would not have left room for a deduction of God, but used “theos” directly. can you show where Paul has done such a thing anywhere else in his writings?

And note “only five late manuscripts. That is, manuscripts that came along much later when trinitarianism was the overwhelming viewpoint of the nature of God.

Quote

2. The earliest witnesses support the inclusion of “God”: Dionysius of Alexandria A.D. 265, Gregory of Nyssa A.D. 394, and Didymus A.D. 398. In addition, Ignatious A.D. 110, Barnabas and T E S T 3 F O R A N I T C H I R S T • 3 5 3 Hippolytus A.D. 235, and Diodorus of Tarsus A.D. 370 allude to the inclusion of “God.” Of writers before A.D. 400, Origen, the exiled heretic, stands alone in omitting “God”.

I looked in Ignatius' writings and he do
es not even once quote the part of 1 Tim 3:16 that has to do with this. The only thing close is that Ignatius says the Word was manifested. All the others you mention are around the time when trinitarianism started to appear.

Here is what is said in the Epistle of Barnabas (100 AD)
Behold again: Jesus who was manifested, both by type and in the flesh, is not the Son of man, but the Son of God.

He says nothing of God being manifested in the flesh, but Jesus himself. This supports the readings of “he” or “who” or “which” not “God”. Thus an earlier author, closer to the time of the original text, specifically says Jesus was manifest in the flesh. The notes to this point to 1 Tim 3:16 according to the ones who compiled the works.

Quote

3. Versions used around the world, such as the Italian Diodati, the French Osterwald, the Spanish Valera, the Portuguese Almeida and Luther's German Bible, all attest to “God was manifest in the flesh.”

But how late are these and what did they use as their basis?

Quote

4. The overwhelming majority of manuscripts say, “God.” The NIV and NASB footnote stating, “some later mss read God,” should read “some later mss read who.” Those few copies that have “who” in place of “God,” do not have a complete sentence. There is no subject without “God.” In addition, a neuter noun “mystery” cannot be followed by the masculine pronoun “who.” To avoid having a clause with no subject, the NIV and J.W. bible arbitrarily drop the word “who” and invent a new word, “He.” The NASB retains “who” and adds “He.” By making these additions and subtractions, the new versions, in I Timothy 3:16, follows no Greek manuscripts at all, not even the five late uncials.

Why should the notes read “who”? Because they don't like what the NIV translators wrote?

Quote

5. The omission of 'God' in the new versions is based on its deletion in 1881 by the Westcott and Hort revision which Metzger says, “was taken as the basis for the present United Bible Societies' edition.”137 Its omission resulted from the doctrinal stance of the 1881 committee, not from any overwhelming manuscript evidence. Of the committee's two Unitarian members, Smith and Thayer, the former reveals why the revisors dropped 'God'. http://www.avpublications.com/avnew/downloads/PDF/NABV/sample.PDF

Interesting you chose to quote from a site whose sole purpose is to defend the KJV…what is her credentials? from wikipedia

In college Riplinger studied Industrial and Environmental Design, branches of Architecture, although she taught various courses instead of working directly in that field after graduation. Riplinger has stated that she did “postgraduate study at Harvard and Cornell Universities.”

Now compare Riplinger's “credentials” against Mr. Metzger

Bruce Manning Metzger (9 February 1914, Middletown, Pennsylvania – 13 February 2007, Princeton, New Jersey) was a professor emeritus at Princeton Theological Seminary and Bible editor who served on the board of the American Bible Society. He was a scholar of Greek, New Testament and Old Testament Bible, and wrote prolifically on these subjects.

Quote

God was manifest in the flesh. Jn 1:1,14 1Tim 3:16, Phil 2

Only one of those supports your view, and that one is definitely questionable.

Quote

You say… Quote The Apostles did not hear it, Mary did. She was supposed to pass that message on to the Apostles. And she supposedly did, but Thomas was not present when she did. And as far as John rebuking him, the Apostle John is nowhere to be found in the Gospel of John. Yes I have heard you say that John is not found in the Gospel of John. He was a disciple wasn’t he? I also heard you say you thought Mary was the writer of John, if that is so then why didn’t Mary rebuke Thomas or correct him since she heard Yeshua say I ascend to my God and your God?

Could you imagine a woman rebuking an Apostle in the 1st century? Besides, I never said she wrote GoJ I just listed it as one of many theories out there.

Quote

No matter Jesus didnt correct or rebuke him for his proposed blasphemy.

But is anyone 100% certain that the way we read it is the way that Thomas meant it? What I mean is, was he actually calling Yeshua “my God”? It appears that way, but it did not seem to be a big deal because no other gospel writer recorded it. How do we know that he did not say “My Lord” while looking at Yeshua and saying “My God” while looking to heaven? Wouldn't it have been obvious had he said “My Lord God”?

Whatever the case, we have what we have. I still do not know how one must look to the words of others as opposed to the words of the Lord. He never, ever said he is God, not even in Revelation. He often said who was his God: the Father. And he told those around him that his God was their God. As I've said numerous times, as a follower of Yeshua, I believe his words over all others.

Quote

You say… Quote But even in heaven, Yeshua still has a God. Rev 3:12 'He who overcomes, I will make him a pillar in the temple of My God, and he will not go out from it anymore; and I will write on him the name of My God, and the name of the city of My God, the new Jerusalem, which comes down out of heaven from My God, and My new name. Since Yeshua was in heaven and the Jews could not stone him…why didn’t he claim “Godship” for himself in Revelation? Revelation would have been the perfect book for Yeshua to proclaim he was God, yet the proclamation never came from his lips. In heaven, the Father is still the only God. He already said he is the Alpha and Omega the Almighty.

He never said he was Almighty. Not once. List any verse that you think supports this and I will show you where this is incorrect.

Quote

An that if you have seen him you have seen God! Jn 14:9 What more do you need?

False. He said if you had seen him you had seen the Father. Who IS God, but to trinitarians, He is a “person” of God. So this verse actually refutes trinitarianism and supports Oneness if you want to go there. If you support this verse as proof, then you must support that Yeshua is the Father.

Quote

The Father also calls him God. Heb 1:8

Already covered. Earthly king from OT.

Quote

Not to mention the many other scriptures showing his deity like John 1:1. Jn 20:28, 1 Tim 1:16 Heb 1:8 Rev 1:8 1 Tim 3:16 etc etc etc.

John 1:1 – “logos”, no Yeshua
John 20:28 – Thomas said it, Yeshua says his God and our God is the Father (John 20:17)
1 Tim 1:16 – God, not Yeshua
Heb 1:8 – quotation concerning an earthly king
Rev 1:8 – God, not Yeshua
1 Tim 3:16 – earliest manuscripts do not support “theos”

[kejonn]

An addition relating to 1 Tim 3:16, from http://net.bible.org/verse.p….erse=16

3 tc The Byzantine text along with a few other witnesses (אc Ac C2 D2 Ψ [88 pc] 1739 1881 Ï vgms) read θεός (qeos, “God”) for ὅς (Jos, “who”). Most significant among these witnesses is 1739; the second correctors of some of the other mss tend to conform to the medieval standard, the Byzantine text, and add no independent voice to the discussion. A few mss have ὁ θεός (so 88 pc), a reading that is a correction on the anarthrous θεός. On the other side, the masculine relative pronoun ὅς is strongly supported by א* A* C* F G 33 365 pc Did Epiph. Significantly, D* and virtually the entire Latin tradition read the neuter relative pronoun, ὅ (Jo, “which”), a reading that indirectly supports ὅς since it could not easily have been generated if θεός had been in the text. Thus, externally, there is no question as to what should be considered original: The Alexandrian and Western traditions are decidedly in favor of ὅς. Internally, the evidence is even stronger. What scribe would change θεός to ὅς intentionally? “Who” is not only a theologically pale reading by comparison; it also is much harder (since the relative pronoun has no obvious antecedent, probably the reason for the neuter pronoun of the Western tradition). Intrinsically, the rest of 3:16, beginning with ὅς, appears to form a six-strophed hymn. As such, it is a text that is seemingly incorporated into the letter without syntactical connection. Hence, not only should we not look for an antecedent for ὅς (as is often done by commentators), but the relative pronoun thus is not too hard a reading (or impossible, as Dean Burgon believed). Once the genre is taken into account, the relative pronoun fits neatly into the author’s style (cf. also Col 1:15; Phil 2:6 for other places in which the relative pronoun begins a hymn, as was often the case in poetry of the day). On the other hand, with θεός written as a nomen sacrum, it would have looked very much like the relative pronoun: q-=s vs. os. Thus, it may have been easy to confuse one for the other. This, of course, does not solve which direction the scribes would go, although given their generally high Christology and the bland and ambiguous relative pronoun, it is doubtful that they would have replaced θεός with ὅς. How then should we account for θεός? It appears that sometime after the 2nd century the θεός reading came into existence, either via confusion with ὅς or as an intentional alteration to magnify Christ and clear up the syntax at the same time. Once it got in, this theologically rich reading was easily able to influence all the rest of the mss it came in contact with (including mss already written, such as א A C D). That this reading did not arise until after the 2nd century is evident from the Western reading, ὅ. The neuter relative pronoun is certainly a “correction” of ὅς, conforming the gender to that of the neuter μυστήριον (musthrion, “mystery”). What is significant in this reading is (1) since virtually all the Western witnesses have either the masculine or neuter relative pronoun, the θεός reading was apparently unknown to them in the 2nd century (when the “Western” text seems to have originated, though its place of origination was most likely in the east); they thus supply strong indirect evidence of ὅς outside of Egypt in the 2nd century; (2) even 2nd century scribes were liable to misunderstand the genre, feeling compelled to alter the masculine relative pronoun because it appeared to them to be too harsh. The evidence, therefore, for ὅς is quite compelling, both externally and internally. As TCGNT 574 notes, “no uncial (in the first hand) earlier than the eighth or ninth century (Ψ) supports θεός; all ancient versions presuppose ὅς or ὅ; and no patristic writer prior to the last third of the fourth century testifies to the reading θεός.” Thus, the cries of certain groups that θεός has to be original must be seen as special pleading in this case. To argue that heretics tampered with the text here is self-defeating, for most of the Western fathers who quoted the verse with the relative pronoun were quite orthodox, strongly affirming the deity of Christ. They would have dearly loved such a reading as θεός. Further, had heretics introduced a variant to θεός, a far more natural choice would have been Χριστός (Cristos, “Christ”) or κύριος (kurios, “Lord”), since the text is self-evidently about Christ, but it is not self-evidently a proclamation of his deity. (See ExSyn 341-42, for a summary discussion on this issue and additional bibliographic references.)
tn Grk “who.”

[GeneBalthrop]

Kejonn…..> here is somthing interesting with regards to how God works with and through others.
Ex 23:20-22…..>behold (I) send an angel before you to keep you in the way, and to bring you into the place (I) have prepard.
21…> beware of him, and obey his voice provoke him not; for he will not pardon your transgressions; for (or because) MY mane is (IN) him.
22…> But if thou shalt indeed obey his voice and do all that (I SPEAK) ; Then I will be an enemy unto your enemies & ect.

The interesting part here is that God used others and gave them great power even to not forgive sins. And notice he said because MY NAME is IN him. Some who when God's name is applied to another person they recieve great authority, but it was not apart from God's name the person had the authority it was in God's name. I believe it's the same with Jesus, it's (ONLY) in Gods NAME he has authority and not of himself. This seams to beack up what was said in the Ex 23:20-22 scriptures.

Your posts seam to be more soild then WJ's. NO offense intended WJ. I really like both your debates I keep learning more and more. Blessings………gene

[Laurel]

Blind leading the blind.

If you studied the word fulfill as much as you stidied the word theos, you would undrestand that the Word is fulfilled in Y'shua Messiah, so in essense Y'shua IS the Word.

Not only is He the Son of Elohim, He is His right hand man, and He deserves all the respect of His Father, since it is His Father who sent Him to be the Fullnes of Himself.

No one comes to the Father except those whom the Son has revealed Him to. Understaning the “connection” is the “secret” that He reveals to those who call Him by His rightfull title “Master.”

Submission is tough for a man since it goes against the nature Elohim gave him to be a leader. Men at to submitt to Y'shua who is his Head. The Father is the Head of the Son. Look to the Son for what it means to submit, and you will find His light there.

Laurel

[GeneBalthrop]

Laurel…..> evidently you doin't undewrstand the connection , because Jesus said no one (CAN) come to ME except the Father draw Him. and again the Son of man can do nothing OF HIMSELF. So it seems The Father is certinly over Jesus. And Jesus is not (THE WORD) He plainly said the (WORDS) I speak unto you are (NOT) my words but the (WORDS) of HIM who sent ME> I suggest before you start call people the blind leading the blind you should conceder yourself in the blind group also………gene

[IM4Truth]

Laurel Were are the blind leading the blind? And even if they did it is not your job to point that out. Jesus is not equal with the Father like you are trying to make Him. The Father is greater then I Jesus said. You can't seem to keep from accusing others, can you? I found nothing wrong with Gen's post. Jesus Christ is our Savior and to be worshipped as such, but all glory and Honor should always go to our Heavenly Father. Jesus is our mediator between us and our Father, but that will never make Him equal with the Father. By Jesus own words.
I hope and pray with all my heart that You will one day from refraining doing Romans 14:13
Peace and Love Mrs.:blues:

[Author]

Posts