Trinity &#8211; Is 1:18&#039;s Proof Text #3

Participant

Hi TT,
He was not our God or his own God but is the Son of God.[Jn20]
He is not our God but our Lord.[1Cor8]

April 22, 2009 at 6:26 pm#128530

Participant

Hi TT,
Are you a temple of the living God?
Does God dwell within you?

If so then you should understand that Jesus was the same as us and we follow him.

April 23, 2009 at 12:22 am#128581

Participant

Quote (SEEKING @ April 23 2009,05:05)

Quote (thethinker @ April 22 2009,08:33)

Quote (Nick Hassan @ April 22 2009,10:27)

Hi Is 1.18,
Exactly.
Just as he taught Thomas in Jn 14 when anyone saw the Son they saw God IN HIM.

2cor5
19To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.

thinker

1 John 3:1 (KJV)
Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not.

1 John 3:2 (KJV)
Beloved, now are we the sons of God,and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.

1 John 3:3 (KJV)
And every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as he is pure.

Seeking,
The statement “we shall be like Him” refers to “God” and not the Father specifically. It says that we shall be like “Him” (God). It does NOT say that we shall be made like the Father. The transformation includes the body (1 Cor. 15) and the Father does not have a body. So “God” is Jesus. Why do you need to have it repeatedly spelled out?

Paul said that we shall be made in the image of the Son (Rom. 8:29; 2 Corinthians 3:7-17).

thinker

April 23, 2009 at 1:09 am#128585

Participant

Hi TT,
How far your blind theorising takes you from truth.
Wake up.

Jesus revealed every aspect of the nature of His God who dwelled within him.

April 23, 2009 at 5:25 am#128625

Participant

Nick said:

Quote

Jesus revealed every aspect of the nature of His God who dwelled within him.

Nick,
Exactly! I have said nothing to the contrary.

thinker

April 23, 2009 at 5:46 am#128634

Participant

Hi TT,
Jesus behaved exactly as the Father would have.
He was guided and empowered every step of the way.

April 23, 2009 at 1:13 pm#128661

Participant

Quote (Nick Hassan @ April 23 2009,17:46)

Hi TT,
Jesus behaved exactly as the Father would have.
He was guided and empowered every step of the way.

But now that He has returned to the glorious condition He had before He took flesh He is NOT empowered and guided. It was in the weakness of His flesh that He was empowered and guided. He no longer possesses flesh. Ergo….

thinker

April 23, 2009 at 7:10 pm#128701

Participant

Hi TT,
He did ask to return to that glory but was given greater glory.
Now seated with the Father God.

God does not become less than God.
God sent His son.

April 24, 2009 at 3:05 pm#128814

Participant

Quote (Nick Hassan @ April 24 2009,07:10)

Hi TT,
He did ask to return to that glory but was given greater glory.
Now seated with the Father God.

God does not become less than God.
God sent His son.

God became a servant. Is this so hard to comprehend? Maybe modern culture prevents some from comprehending.

thinker

April 24, 2009 at 7:34 pm#128833

Participant

Hi TT,
Where is God said to be a servant and Whom does God serve?
Is any greater?

April 24, 2009 at 9:45 pm#128840

SEEKING

Participant

Quote (thethinker @ April 22 2009,17:22)

Thinker said

Quote

Seeking,
The statement “we shall be like Him” refers to “God” and not the Father specifically. It says that we shall be like “Him” (God).

For those of us who do not endorse your several God's concept (trinity) “God” must refer to the father because He is the ONLY God.

Thinker said

Quote

So “God” is Jesus. Why do you need to have it repeatedly spelled out?

Allow me to submit, “for the same reason you need it continually spelled out that Jesus is NOT “God.” That's not a difficult one, is it!

Thinker said

Quote

The transformation includes the body (1 Cor. 15) and the Father does not have a body.

Correct. That is why OUR body will be transformed into the likeness of His (the Father's) SPIRITUAL BODY.

1Co 15:40 There are heavenly bodies and earthly bodies, but the glory of the heavenly is of one kind, and the glory of the earthly is of another.
1Co 15:41 There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for star differs from star in glory.
1Co 15:42 So is it with the resurrection of the dead. What is sown is perishable; what is raised is imperishable.
1Co 15:43 It is sown in dishonor; it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness; it is raised in power.
1Co 15:44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body.
1Co 15:45 Thus it is written, “The first man Adam became a living being”; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit.

1Co 15:44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body.

Your point that God the Father does not have a physical body is irrelevant.

Thinker said

Quote

It does NOT say that we shall be made like the Father. Paul said that we shall be made in the image of the Son (Rom. 8:29; 2 Corinthians 3:7-17).

thinker

And the son is the image of the Father! Moot point.

1Jn 3:1 See what kind of love the Father has given to us, that we should be called children of God; and so we are. The reason why the world does not know us is that it did not know him.
1Jn 3:2 Beloved, we are God's children now, and what we will be has not yet appeared; but we know that when he appears we shall be like him, because we shall see him as he is.

Blessings,

Seeking

May 3, 2009 at 11:26 pm#129838

Participant

Seeking said:

Quote

For those of us who do not endorse your several God's concept (trinity) “God” must refer to the father because He is the ONLY God.

Brother Seeking,
I would like to submit for your consideration the following Greek grammar:

Special use of the Greek article:

1. With the conjunction kai

When two nouns are joined by the conjunction kai:

a. If both nouns have the definite article they refer to different persons (or things). THE apostle and (kai) THE disciple.
These are two different people.

b. If the first of the two nouns has the article and the second does not, the two are one person (or thing). THE apostle and (kai) disciple. This is one person, (Essentials of New testament Greek, Ray Summers, Broadman Press, p. 130).

Therefore, Titus 2:13 declares Jesus is God

Quote

Looking for that blessed hope of the great God and (kai) our Savior Jesus Christ

The absence of the definite article before “Savior” means that “great God” and “Savior” are one person.

Another thing for you to consider is this: There is no such teaching in Scripture which says that the Father will “appear.”

Therefore, “God” in 1 John 3 is Jesus for it says that when “He shall appear….” The Father will not appear.

blessings,
thinker

May 3, 2009 at 11:36 pm#129840

Participant

Hi TT,
When Jesus returns he will still be as a vessel for God.

May 30, 2009 at 1:32 pm#131980

Tim Kraft

Participant

JUSUS IS HERE NOW to all who accept and believe. He and the Father have made their abode/home/church in us, if we believe. If you don't believe it's still true they are within but if you don't believe you will not experience their presence.With Love, TK

July 28, 2010 at 11:57 pm#206594

Participant

This post is about Trinitarians that agree that John 1:1c is talking about the Word having the nature or substance of God, rather than the Word actually being identified as God. Their testimonies as well as mine disagree completely with Isaiah's view, (see his first post). He argues that the Word is being identified as God whereas I said that the Word is being qualified as theos, in other words the Word is said to have divine nature or is the same essence as God. This is because of the lack of definite article preceding the word Theos in John 1:1c shows that the Word is not being identified as God, whereas it is present in the other parts of John 1:1.

So the Word was with God, but the Word is not God, rather the Word is divine.

Some Trinitarians who agree with what I have said are quoted below. NOTE: I do not necessarily agree with their conclusions as to what it means that the Word shares the same nature as God, but I agree that it is talking qualitatively and is not identifying the Word as God.

C. K. Barrett: “The absence of the article indicates that the Word is God, but is not the only being of whom this is true; if ho theos had been written it would have implied that no divine being existed outside the second person of the Trinity.”
The Gospel According to St. John (S.P.C.K., 1955), p.76.

C. H. Dodd: “On this analogy, the meaning of theos en ho logos will be that the ousia [substance (“what”)] of ho logos, that which it truly is, is rightly denominated theos…That this is the ousia of ho theos (the personal God of Abraham, the Father) goes without saying. In fact, the Nicene homoousios to patri is a perfect paraphrase.”
New Testament Translation Problems II,” The Bible Translator, 28, 1 (Jan. 1977), p. 104.

James Moffatt: “'The Word was God…And the Word became flesh,' simply means “.the word was divine…And the Word became human.' The Nicene faith, in the Chalcedon definition, was intended to conserve both of these truths against theories that failed to present Jesus as truly God and truly man…”
Jesus Christ the Same (Abingdon-Cokesbury, 1945), p.61.

Philip B. Harner: “Perhaps the clause could be translated, 'the Word had the same nature as God.” This would be one way of representing John's thought, which is, as I understand it, that ho logos, no less than ho theos, had the nature of theos.”
“Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns: Mark 15:39 and John 1:1,” Journal of Biblical Literature, 92, 1 (March 1973, p. 87.

Henry Alford: “Theos must then be taken as implying God, in substance and essence,–not ho theos, 'the Father,' in person. It does not = theios, nor is it to be rendered a God–but, as in sarx egeneto, sarx expresses that state into which the Divine Word entered by a definite act, so in theos en, theos expresses that essence which was His en arche:–that He was very God. So that this first verse might be connected thus: the Logos was from eternity,–was with God (the Father),–and was Himself God.
” Alford's Greek Testament: An Exegetical and Critical Commentary, Vol. I, Part II (Guardian Press, 1975; originally published 1871), p. 681

B. F. Westcott: “The predicate (God) stands emphatically first, as in v.24. It is necessarily without the article (theos not ho theos) inasmuch as it describes the nature of the Word and does not identify His Person… No idea of inferiority of nature is suggested by the form of expression, which simply affirms the true deity of the Word.”
The Gospel According to St. John (Eerdmans, 1958 reprint), p. 3.

The article sometimes distinguishes the subject from the predicate in a copulative sentence. In Xenophon's Anabasis, 1:4:6, emporion d' en to korion, and the place was a market, we have a parallel case to what we have in John 1:1, kai theos en ho logos, and the word was deity. The article points out the subject in these examples. .Neither was the place the only market, nor was the word all of God, as it would mean if the article were also used with theos. As it stands, the other persons of the Trinity may be implied in theos.
(H. E. Dana, Julius Mantey, A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament, (New York: The MacMillan Company, 1950) pp. 148-149).

“The Word was God. Here the word “God” is without the article in the original. When it is used in this way, it refers to the divine essence. Emphasis is upon the quality or character. Thus, John teaches us here that our Lord is essentially Deity. He possesses the same essence as God the Father, is one with Him in nature and attributes.” (Kenneth Wuest, Word Studies in the Greek New Testament, vol. 3, “Golden Nuggets,” p. 52).

”In the beginning the Word was existing. And the Word was in fellowship with God the Father. And the Word was as to His essence absolute deity”
(Wuest, Word Studies, vol. 4, p. 209).

“The structure of the third clause in verse 1, theos en ho logos, demands the translation “The Word was God.” Since logos has the article preceding it, it is marked out as the subject. The fact that theos is the first word after the conjunction kai (and) shows that the main emphasis of the clause lies on it. Had theos as well as logos been preceded by the article the meaning would have been that the Word was completely identical with God, which is impossible if the Word was also “with God”. What is meant is that the Word shared the nature and being of God, or (to use a piece of modern jargon) was an extension of the personality of God. The NEB paraphrase “what God was, the Word was”, brings out the meaning of the clause as successfully as a paraphrase can…So, when heaven and earth were created, there was the Word of God, already existing in the closest association with God and partaking of the essence of God. No matter how far back we may try to push our imagination, we can never reach a point at which we could say of the Divine Word, as Arius did, “There was once when he was not”
(F. F. Bruce, The Gospel of John, (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1983), p. 31).

March 25, 2011 at 4:11 am#240421

Participant

Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ May 04 2009,10:26)

Brother Seeking,
I would like to submit for your consideration the following Greek grammar:

Special use of the Greek article:

1. With the conjunction kai

When two nouns are joined by the conjunction kai:

a. If both nouns have the definite article they refer to different persons (or things). THE apostle and (kai) THE disciple.
These are two different people.

b. If the first of the two nouns has the article and the second does not, the two are one person (or thing). THE apostle and (kai) disciple. This is one person, (Essentials of New testament Greek, Ray Summers, Broadman Press, p. 130).

Therefore, Titus 2:13 declares Jesus is God

That is funny because you also say that John 20:28 proves Jesus is God and yet that has 2 definite articles. So you are not consistent with this rule KJ.

John 20:28, literally says “the lord of me and the god [theos] of me”.

So according to your rule, Thomas was talking to Jesus and to another called God who must then be the Father.

March 25, 2011 at 6:20 am#240441

SimplyForgiven

Participant

Where is “kia” in your example?

March 26, 2011 at 12:20 pm#240600

Participant

There is no kia.

Kai is there.

May 24, 2011 at 11:06 pm#246770