Home Christian Writings Supporting the Trinity Doctrine? – The Trinity Doctrine John 1:1 Page 82

John 1:1

John 1:1 says the Word was God. Does that mean that Jesus is God because he is the Word?
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

a) In the beginning was the Word, (en arch hn o logoV)
b) and the Word was with God, (kai o logoV hn proV ton qeon)
c) and the Word was God. (kai qeoV hn o logoV).

John 1:1b says that the Word was with God and John 1:1c says that the Word was God, so how can the Word be God and be with God at the same time? Well part of the answer to discovering the meaning of this verse is found in 1 John 1:1-2

“That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon and touched with our hands, concerning the word of life and the life was manifested, and we saw it, and testify to it, and proclaim to you the eternal life that was with the Father and was made manifest to us”.

First when we read 1John 1:2, it suggests to us that the God in John1:1b is the Father himself.

Secondly, we see In John 1:1c, the last word God is missing the definite article, (THE). The definite article is before all other instances of the word ‘God’ and ‘Logos’ in John 1:1. (e.g., the Word, The God.), yet is absent in the last mention of God. Read on because this can be significant as you are about to find out.

Greek sentence construction affirms that if a noun doesn’t have a preceding article, (THE) it can be read as an adjective (a predicate adjective); and if such a noun does have a preceding article it should be considered a noun (a predicate nominative). Understanding this is a game changer. Scholars see the benefit of the rule for affirming the deity of Christ in John 1:1, but haven’t made the difference clear regarding the difference between identity and nature or definite and qualitative. Don’t worry if this makes no sense to you. It will.

Look at the difference between these two sentences.

1) You are an angel
2) You are THE angel.

Notice how the first one is using the word angel in a qualitative way while the second is definite. Hence the term ‘definite article’.

In John 1:1, all instances of the word ‘God” are preceded by the definite article ‘THE’, except the last one.

So it literally says:

John1:1
a) In the beginning was THE God.
b) THE Word was with THE God
c) And THE Word was god.

Why is the last word not capitalised? Where Greek uses the definite article in English we capitalise the word. e.g., the god = God.

So it is grammatically correct to read John 1:1c with a qualitative sense rather reading it as identifying the Word as God himself. It is not only grammatically correct to read it this way, it is also theologically correct because if we read it as THE Theos, then that would be saying that the Logos is exclusively God even to the exclusion of the Father. Now we have two good reasons for reading the last word ‘god/theos’ as qualitative and not as THE God or God.

In rebuttal to this, some say that God in the New Testament doesn’t always have a preceding definite article which is true, however looking at the verse contextually, we understand that there is clearly two being spoken of, i.e., one God and one called the Word with is clearly another who is next to God and is not that God he is with.

Let’s look at Adam and Eve as an example of two beings that were with each other. Before I give an example, it is important for you at this point to understand that the Hebrew word for ‘man’ is ‘adam’. This means that qualitatively, Adam and Eve are both adam. This is similar to the word theos which is translated as the ‘God’ & god. The absence of the definite article can qualify just as the word adam qualifies. As I said before, in English we use capitals to denote when being definite. So the difference between ‘Adam’ and ‘adam’ is that Adam refers to a specific man called Adam while the latter could refer to him as well as Eve and any other member of mankind. This is clearly stated in scripture in Genesis 1:27:

So God created man (adam) in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.

The word for man is adam, so it says: God created ‘adam’ male and female. So saying that ‘Eve is adam’ is a true saying.

In English, If I said “John is the man”, then I am identifying John as  a definite and particular person of the human race. But if I omit the definite article and say “John is man,” then I do not identify him, I classify him. I say “John is human; he belongs to the sphere/nature of man.” Can you see the difference now?

To understand how the article can make a big difference to a piece of text, look at this example. Have a guess as to which one is correct.

a) In the beginning was THE woman
b) and THE woman was with THE man
c) and THE Woman was THE man

a) In the beginning was THE woman
b) and THE woman was with THE man
c) and THE Woman was man

The correct one is the second example because it is saying that the woman belongs to mankind or man. Look at the next example:

a) Tools were used by man.
b) Tools were used by the man.

See how the first example is talking about mankind whereas the second example is talking of a specific man.

In other words the word ‘man’ can be used as an attribute or to describe one’s nature. It is not always used to identify a particular person and it can even refer to more than one person.

Now let’s have a look at the above example, but using Adam and Eve instead. Notice in English that we do not have the definite article preceding Adam or Eve, because capitalising both Adam and Eve leads us to view these words in a definite sense, the same way that Greek requires the definite article. Essentially THE adam/man in Greek is the same as Adam in English.

a) In the beginning was Eve,
b) and Eve was with Adam
c) and Eve was Adam

a) In the beginning was Eve,
b) and Eve was with Adam
c) and Eve was adam

Notice that the second example is still the correct one.

To further understand the important difference between identity and nature, take a look at John 6:70. When speaking of his betrayer Judas Iscariot, Jesus said, “One of you is a devil.” Did Jesus mean that Judas is actually Satan the Devil? No! He merely meant to say that Judas is like (class) a devil, or that he had the qualities or nature of a/the devil. The word “devil” here has no article in the Greek as you have probably guessed, but most translators deem it necessary to add the indefinite article “a” to complete the thought in English even though it is not present in Greek or any Greek. Greek has no indefinite articles, (a,an).

So Judas wasn’t Satan himself, rather he was diabolical, like the Devil. He had the qualities of the Devil. But that doesn’t rule out the fact that Satan is the Devil because it is not actually saying that Judas was the Devil himself. Rather Judas thought as the Devil; and acted as the Devil. He was not the Devil (definite), (Satan is); he was not an actual devil or demon, he was a devil (qualitative). He was one who had the mental disposition, the nature, of the Devil, who is Satan. So it is with John 1:1c.

The Logos was God has no definite article. It is really saying, The Logos was god. This is why the New English Bible and the Revised English Bible translate John 1:1 as “what God was, the Word was.” The TEV (1976) translates it, “the Word was the same as God.” Goodspeed translates this, “the Word was divine.” And Moffatt translates this, “the logos was divine.”

So what kind of being is Jesus then if the Word was theos (without the definite article)? The answer according to John 1:1 is that he must be a divine being if Jesus is the Word of God that was with God. In other words he is a being with God’s nature. A son possessing the nature of his Father. Not just an image, but THE image of God. He is the prototype, the firstborn. He is the mystery that was hidden but has been revealed in our time. He is all these things, but he is not THE God that he is the son of. That God is exclusively the Father and there are many scriptures to prove that which we will look at later in this page.

Many think that the word ‘theos’ and ‘elohim’ always refer to YHWH. They take instances of their choosing to try and prove that Christ is YHWH. In their ignorance they cannot see that there are indeed many god (theos) and many lords, but for true believers there is one God (theos) the Father.

In fact, the word ‘theos’ and ‘elohim’ in scripture are used in reference to God (YHWH), Christ, Man, angels, Satan and idols. So when we see the word ‘theos’ or ‘elohim’, we should ask ourselves what kind of god is being referenced. The god of this age? The Most High God? The Almighty God? The mighty god? A false god? A human? An angel? We must also understand that the word ‘theos’ proceeded by the article (the) is talking of a noun and without the article, it can be an adjective or used to describe or qualify.

Let us now look at some quotes from scholars and writers that understand this. NOTE: this is not an endorsement with all that these authors have written, rather I am appealing to their view regarding John 1:1.

One prominent scholar called Origen is sometimes quoted by Trinitarians who appeal to his wisdom for other purposes. However, they avoid this particular quotation for obvious reasons. Origen wrote in the early 200’s A.D and was a noted expert in Koine Greek.

“We next notice John’s use of the article [“the”] in these sentences. He does not write without care in this respect, nor is he unfamiliar with the niceties of the Greek tongue. In some cases he uses the article, and in some he omits it. He adds the article to the Word, but to the name of theos he adds it sometimes only. He uses the article, when the name of theos refers to the uncreated cause of all things, and omits it when the Word is named theos. Does the same difference which we observe between theos with the article and theos without it prevail also between the Word with it and without it? We must enquire into this. As the theos who is over all is theos with the article not without it, so the Word is the source of that reason (Logos) which dwells in every reasonable creature; the reason which is in each creature is not, like the former called par excellence the Word. Now there are many who are sincerely concerned about religion, and who fall here into great perplexity. They are afraid that they may be proclaiming two theos [gods] and their fear drives them into doctrines which are false and wicked. Either they deny that the Son has a distinct nature of His own besides that of the Father, and make Him whom they call the Son to be theos all but the name, or they deny divinity of the Son, giving Him a separate existence of His own, and making His sphere of essence fall outside that of the Father, so that they are separable from each other. To such persons we have to say that “the theos” on the one hand is Autotheos [God of himself] and so the Saviour says in His prayer to the Father, “That they may know Thee the only true theos [God]; “but that all beyond the theos [God] is made theos by participation in His deity, and is not to be called simply “theos” but rather “the theos “. And thus the first-born of all creation, who is the first to be with the theos , and to attract to Himself deity, is a being of more exalted rank than the other theos [gods] beside Him, of which theos is the theos [God], as it is written, “The theos [God] of theos [gods], the Lord, hath spoken and called the earth.” It was by the offices of the first-born that they became theos [gods], for He drew from the theos [God] in generous measure that they should be made theos [gods], and He communicated it to them according to His own bounty. The true theos [God], then, is “the theos ,” [“the God” as opposed to “god”] and those who are formed after Him are theos [such as the Son of God], images, as it were, of Him the prototype. But the archetypal image, again, of all these images is the word of the theos [God], who was in the beginning, and who by being with the theos [God] is at all times deity, not possessing that of Himself, but by His being with the Father, and not continuing to be theos , if we should think of this, except by remaining always in uninterrupted contemplation of the depths of the Father.”
(Origen’s Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book II, 2)

“Irenaeus [in the second century] could still interpret MK. Xiii, 32 in the following manner: the Son confessed not to know that which only the Father knew; hence ‘ we learn from himself that the Father is over all’, as he who is greater also than the Son. But the Nicene theologians had now suddenly to deny that Jesus could have said such a thing about the Son. In the long-recognized scriptural testimony for the Logos-doctrine provided by Prov. Viii, 22 ff. The exegetes of the second and third centuries had found the creation of the preexistent Logos-Christ set forth without dispute and equivocation. But now, when the Arians also interpreted the passage in this way, the interpretation was suddenly reckoned as false…. A theologian such as Tertullian by virtue of his Subordinationist manner of thinking, could confidently on occasion maintain that, before all creation, God the Father had been originally ‘alone’, and thus there was a time when ‘the Son was not’. When he did so, within the Church of his day such a statement did not inevitably provoke a controversy, and indeed there was none about it. But now, when Arius said the same thing in almost the same words, he raised thereby in the Church a mighty uproar, and such a view was condemned as heresy in the anathemas of Nicaea.” e.a.]
-pp. 155-8. The Formation of Christian Dogma, by Martin Werner, D.D.

When the writers of the New Testament speak of God they mean the God and Father of Our Lord Jesus Christ. When they speak of Jesus Christ, they do not speak of him, nor think of him as God. He is God’s Christ, God’s Son, God’s Wisdom, God’s Word. Even the prologue to St. John {John 1:1-18} which comes nearest to the Nicene Doctrine, must be read in the light of the pronounced subordinationism of the Gospel as a whole; and the Prologue is less explicit in Greek with the anarthrous theos [the word “god” at John 1:1c without the article] than it appears in English… The adoring exclamation of St. Thomas “my Lord and my god” (Joh. xx. 28) is still not quite the same as an address to Christ as being without qualification [limitation] God, and it must be balanced by the words of the risen Christ himself to Mary Magdalene (verse. 17) “Go unto my brethren and say to them, I ascend unto my Father and your Father, and my God and your God.” Jesus Christ is frequently spoken of in the Ignation Epistles as “our God”, “my God”, but probably never as “God” without qualification.
– John Martin Creed in The Divinity of Jesus Christ.

The word for “god” in Greek is QEOS. In John 1:1 the last occurrence of QEOS is called “a predicate noun” or, “a predicate nominative”. Such a noun tells us something about the subject, instead of telling what the subject is doing. This use of QEOS has reference to the subject, the Word, and does not have the article preceding it; it is anarthrous. This indicates that it is not definite. That is to say, it does not tell what position or office or rank the subject (the Word) occupies. The verb HN “was” follows the predicate noun QEOS; this is another factor in identifying QEOS here as qualitative. This discloses the quality or character of the Word. Of course, the gentleman up above disagrees with me, and he has used Moulton and Colwell to buttress his argument. But what have other Grammarians said about this same type of construction? There is no basis for regarding the predicate theos as definite. In John 1:1 I think that the qualitative force of the predicate [noun] is so prominent that the noun cannot be regarded as definite.
-Philip Harner, Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 92:1, 1973, pp. 85, 7.

We must, then take Theos, without the article, in the indefinite [“qualitative” would have been a better word choice] sense of a divine nature or a divine being, as distinguished from the definite absolute God [the Father], ho Theos, the authotheos [selfgod] of Origen. Thus the Theos of John [1:1c] answers to “the image of God” of Paul, Col. 1:15.
-G. Lucke, “Dissertation on the Logos”, quoted by John Wilson in, Unitarian Principles Confirmed by Trinitarian Testimonies, p. 428.

As mentioned in the Note on 1c, the Prologue’s “The Word was God” offers a difficulty because there is no article before theos. Does this imply that “god” means less when predicated of the Word than it does when used as a name for the Father? Once again the reader must divest himself of a post-Nicene understanding of the vocabulary involved.
-Raymond E. Brown, The Anchor Bible, p. 25.

The most natural reading of John 1:1 shows that there are two being mentioned (not three): God and a second who was ‘theos’. They are not presented as two coequal persons in a Binity or Trinity. What we really have is one with the character of THEOS who is with TON THEOS (the God), thus he cannot be the God he is with! The LOGOS is unique however. He/it is identified further in the gospel as “a son from a father, begotten, as a visible being verses the unseen God, Now, without redefining the word THEOS we need to explain how we can have two who are both referred to as “theos.” Either there were two equal Gods or persons called God, or it is talking about a godlike one that is with the Almighty God. When we read all the scriptures we see that the scriptures including the Book of John backs up the last view, that the Father is greater than the Son; that the Father is the only God and the Son is the image of The God.

So what conclusion are we to draw from John 1:1 and the Book of John? In John’s own words he explains the conclusion for his Book. This conclusion is not the Trinity Doctrine. Read the verse below to see what the conclusion is.

John 20:30-31.
30 And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book:
31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name. “

So John wrote this gospel so that we may come to the conclusion that Jesus is truly the Christ and the Son of God. In addition to this important truth we are also told that we may receive life through his name. The Trinity Doctrine is not the conclusion that one should draw from this writing. Belief that Jesus is the Christ and the Son is the foundation of true faith and Jesus built his Church on this truth. The Trinity Doctrine is not that foundation, rather it is another foundation.

So why don’t translations of the bible translate John 1:1 as the Word was divine. Well first of all it is not incorrect to say that the Word was god, but Trinitarians translators say the Word was God which makes readers think that Jesus is the God (the person). However, in order to bring out the true meaning, some translations actually use the word ‘divine’. See below:

“In the beginning the Word existed. The Word was with God, and the Word was divine.”
An American Translation, Edgar Goodspeed and J. M. Powis Smith, The University of Chicago Press, p. 173

“The Logos (word) existed in the very beginning, and the Logos was with God, the Logos was divine”
by Dr. James Moffatt

So the idea that Jesus Christ is God is often and supposedly supported by John 1:1. However the rest of John’s Gospel makes careful distinctions between Jesus and his Father as well as Jesus and God. This same distinction and separation is found throughout the rest of the New Testament too. The New Testament actually goes much further than merely distinguishing and separating the two. In John 17:3 Jesus, in prayer to his Father, refers to him as “the only true God”. In John 20:17 the resurrected Jesus refers to his Father as “my Father, and your Father; and… my God, and your God.” In I Corinthians 8:6 the Apostle Paul says of Christians, “to us there is but one God, the Father.” In I Timothy 2:5 Paul states, “For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.” In Ephesians 1:17 Paul refers to the Father as “the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory.” And in Revelation 3:12 the resurrected and glorified Jesus says, “Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and I will write upon him my new name.”

We must also remember that the judges of Israel were called gods/theos. This doesn’t mean that they were part of God or part of the Trinity, it just means that they had authority given to them by God. It is also written that we can partake of divine nature, so that could also make us divine just as partaking in flesh makes us man. It must be noted though, that being divine or partaking in divine nature is different to actually being the Divine himself.

Also see John 10:34-35:
34 Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, I have said you are gods” (theos).
35 If he called them gods (theos), to whom the word of God (ho theos) came, and the Scripture cannot be broken,

2 Peter 1:4
Through these he has given us his very great and precious promises, so that through them you may participate in the divine nature and escape the corruption in the world caused by evil desires.

Also Jesus said that he was one with his Father and he also prayed that we would be one with them. See John 17:21
that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me.

We humans were intended to share in the divine nature too, yet we are not the God. John 1:1 shows us that the Word was god (divine), not (the Word was/is the God, Yahweh) which many seem to think it says. The Word came from God, is of God, is like God, and this is consistent with the scriptures we have looked at thus far. 1 Corinthians 11:3 reinforces this statement because the word “head” in the Greek is translated “from”, source or authority. Remember that the woman came from Man and Man came from Christ and Christ came from God. This is the divine order.

Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.

Jesus Christ is the Word of God, Jesus wasn’t created, rather the Word was born from God in eternity and that is why Jesus is called the Only Begotten of the Father. (John 1:14) (John 1:18) (John 3:16 ) (John 3:18 ) (1 John 4:9 ). The word begotten means (only child, single of its kind). Notice that our spirits are born from God, but through his Word, and our spirits will go back to God who gave it (Ecclesiastes 12:7) . But Jesus was not begotten through the Word because he is the Word, this is why Jesus is unique because he is the only one begotten of the Father and therefore he is the image of his Father. That is why he is called the Image of God and the Firstborn of all creation (Colossians 1:15) and it is also why the Bible says in (Hebrews 1:5) For to which of the angels did God ever say, “You are my Son; today I have become your Father” Or again, “I will be his Father, and he will be my Son”

Unlike his Father who is the invisible Spirit, Jesus does have a body and is visible. Jesus was born from God. We must remember that although his Father is greater than himself, he is also not just a man like us. Yes he partook of flesh and came as a man like us, but he also existed in the form of God as the Word or Logos. We are told that he resides between God and Man and as a man he is our mediator to God. It was indeed the Word that became flesh. God did not  become flesh, instead God resided in Christ who came in the flesh. So just like us, God can be in us who are made of flesh, but God himself did not become flesh. God is not a man and never will be a man. It was the Word who came to us as a man and it was the Word that all things  were created though. See John 1:3.
Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.

And to compliment the fact that God made all things through his Word, and that Jesus is the Word of God, even ignoring the fact that Jesus wears a title, “The Word of God” as recorded in the Book of Revelation, we are specifically told, that God created everything through Jesus Christ. See :Hebrews 1:2
but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe. 

So Jesus was begotten not created and again, this is why he is called God’s only begotten Son and this is why he is unique. He is seated at the right hand of God and situated between God & Man. This is also why he is the only mediator between God & Man and the only name under heaven whereby Man can be saved. God made creation through him and for him and God redeemed creation through him too. God cannot fellowship with sin that is why he sent his Son into the world, so he could bring us back to himself through his mediator. Jesus came from God and he was in the beginning with God. So what does it mean when it says ‘beginning’? The Greek word for beginning, in John 1:1 “In the beginning was the Word” is ‘arche’ and this word means the following:

1) beginning, origin
2) the person or thing that commences, the first person or thing in a series, the leader
3) that by which anything begins to be, the origin, the active cause
4) the extremity of a thing
4a) of the corners of a sail
5) the first place, principality, rule, magistracy
5a) of angels and demons

Below I will show you a verse where the word “beginning” or ‘arche’ is also mentioned and I think you will agree that it is rather obvious from this verse that it does not mean eternity or eternal. The verse is John 8:44
You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desire. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him.

Just for good measure, I will also throw in the first verse in the bible, which also uses the word beginning (note that this a Hebrew word). I am sure we can all agree that the earth has not been in existence for all of eternity.

Genesis 1:1
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

Certainly if we read John 1:1 correctly and in context with all scripture, we see that it is not teaching that God is a Trinity.

← Go back to ‘Supporting the Trinity Doctrine‘.

Discussion

Viewing 20 posts - 1,621 through 1,640 (of 26,000 total)
123…818283…1,2981,2991,300
  • Author
    Posts
  • October 7, 2008 at 12:42 am#109911
    david
    Participant

    Quote
    I have written on this topic here.


    WJ, I'm confused by this. Is that your website?

    October 7, 2008 at 12:46 am#109912
    NickHassan
    Participant

    Hi WJ,
    You ask
    “So can you name one attribute scripturally that the Father has that Yeshua who is the “image of the invisible God”, does not have?”

    Yes He is not our God or the God of himself.
    The Father is his God and our God[jn20]

    Do you get muddled between the vessel and the Contents that give him his amazing abilities?

    October 7, 2008 at 1:03 am#109915
    Worshipping Jesus
    Participant

    Quote (david @ Oct. 07 2008,12:42)

    Quote
    I have written on this topic here.


    WJ, I'm confused by this.  Is that your website?


    Hi David

    No!

    That is the writers quote, I just included his own link to his quote.

    WJ

    October 7, 2008 at 1:14 am#109917
    Worshipping Jesus
    Participant

    Quote (david @ Oct. 07 2008,12:40)

    Quote
    So how many Gods or gods are there for you brother David;
    one is almighty and other is small 'god' or mighty god. Am I correct ?


    Golli, I think if we understood what “god” means, this would be easier to understand.  It is a word that means “strong one” or “powerful one.”
    And while many have certain degrees of power, some more than others, there is only one who is above all, only one who is AL mighty.  Hence, while Jesus is called a god, he is not the God of Jehovah.  Rather, it is the reverse.  Compared to Jesus, Jehovah is mighty and hence, God.  In the days of Israel, the judges were called gods (compared to the other Israelites because of the power they had.)  The angels were called gods, because they obviously have more power or strenght than humans.  And Jesus, of course, if these ones have power and strength, Jesus has a lot more and hence, can obviously be called a God.  But this doesn't make him the Almighty God, “the” God of the Bible.
    I think we often think of a


    Hi David

    Quote (david @ Oct. 07 2008,12:40)

    Golli, I think if we understood what “god” means, this would be easier to understand.  It is a word that means “strong one” or “powerful one.”

    Can you tell me where this definition for “theos” comes from?

    Quote (david @ Oct. 07 2008,12:40)
    In the days of Israel, the judges were called gods (compared to the other Israelites because of the power they had.)  The angels were called gods, because they obviously have more power or strenght than humans.


    Since t8 believes the same as the JWs here then maybe you can list some scriptures to prove these statements.

    t8 only list John 10 which can be read as a derogatory statement about evil and wicked kings. Ambiguous.

    I would like to see how you come to this opinion using scriptures.

    Thanks! WJ

    October 7, 2008 at 1:37 am#109921
    NickHassan
    Participant

    Hi WJ,
    Are your troubled by ambiguity when truth disproves your hopes?

    October 7, 2008 at 3:57 am#109932
    malcolm ferris
    Participant

    Hi WJ
    Long post
    I’ll break it into smaller chunks as time allows…

    Quote
    Really? And just how is it that two separate beings can be “Omnipotent”? Two separate beings cannot have all power. How can a “finite being” have infinite power? However one can. The point is the attribute that the Father has “omnipotence’, Yeshua also has. They are One!

    The question was…“Can you name one attribute scripturally that the Father has of which Yeshua who is the “image of the invisible God”, does not have?”. You have not answered the question for Yeshua has all authority and power.

    1 – I did not say 2 separate beings were omnipotent. That is the point – Jesus can hardly be called omnipotent if he needed to have all authority handed to him…
    2- you begin your statement by rightly illustrating the impossibility for more than one to be truly omnipotent, then end it by saying that 2 (the Father and Yeshua) both share omnipotence. It can hardly be omnipotence if it is shared – it is co-nipotence at best (just made that word up btw ;))
    3 – you can run this same simple truth over omniscience and the attribute of being eternal also.
    4 – Yeshua has all authority (exuousia) why? Because it has been given to him by the Father, the like figure of which Joseph received all authority to govern Egypt on behalf of and by Pharaoh.

    Quote
    Post incarnation. Paul in Phil 2 disagrees with you and says that Yeshua who is in the “form of God” emptied himself and did recieve it again.

    As I understand it is is GOD who emptied Himself into Jesus to fully indwell him at Jordan.
    Jesus on the other hand was willing to relinquish any position he had with GOD in the SPIRIT in order to be formed into flesh to be the tabernacle for GOD on earth.
    Essentially it was a shifting of the Heavenly pattern onto the earth.
    What Jesus received back was that former position with GOD, only now with the added authority of intercession between the fallen sons of Adam and his Father.
    When it says he was in the ‘form of  GOD’ you have to bear in mind it is not saying he IS GOD.
    ‘Form of’ and ‘Image of’ do not mean ‘is GOD’.

    Quote
    This is truly a fallacious argument for it does not speak to the ontological nature of Yeshua who is the Word/God.


    All sons of GOD are WORD children by HIS SPIRIT. That is how we can be one as he is one with his Father. Yet I do not see that as millions of GODs, it is ONE GOD and HIS Family.
    Imo 😉

    October 7, 2008 at 4:05 am#109933
    malcolm ferris
    Participant

    Hi WJ

    Quote
    Post incarnation. Phil 2 disagrees with you.

    My question was… “Can you name one attribute scripturally that the Father has of which Yeshua who is the “image of the invisible God”, does not have?”

    The scriptures say… The Father loveth the Son, and “hath given all things into his hand”. John 3:35

    For the Father loveth the Son, and “sheweth him all things that himself doeth”: and he will shew him greater works than these, that ye may marvel.

    [color=blue]Jesus knowing that “the Father had given all things into his hands”, and that he was come from God, and went to God; John 13:3

    In whom (Yahshua) “are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge”. Col 2:3

    Again the question was…“Can you name one attribute scripturally that the Father has of which Yeshua who is the “image of the invisible God”, does not have?”

    You do a pretty good job of doing that for me really.
    GOD GAVE all things into his hands…
    GOD  SHOWED him all things that HE (GOD) does.
    Jesus aware that the Father had GIVEN all things into his hands (in other words handed him them to deal with on HIS behalf)
    In whom (Jesus) are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. Whose? Wisdom and whose knowledge? GOD’s which Jesus has been given knowledge of as the previous statements clearly show…
    You say that my argument that GOD cannot die is fallacious – how so? The death we are referring to here is death in the flesh. At the death of Jesus we either witness the complete separation of Jesus from his Father or his words “my God my God why have you forsaken me” are no better than a pantomime.
    imo

    October 7, 2008 at 4:05 am#109934
    epistemaniac
    Participant

    Quote (malcolm ferris @ Oct. 07 2008,09:24)
    Hi Ken
    Hope you are well

    Quote
    To see Jesus, is to see God.  Therefore Paul's words in 1 Tim. must refer to God the Father, who is spirit, and the human eye cannot see “spirit”, and not to Jesus, further reinforcing the doctrine of the Trinity, as there is a distinction being made in reference to the Father, which humans are physically unable to see, and Jesus, who's role it was to make God visible to us.


    To see Jesus is to see GOD.  amen to that


    1 Timothy 6:15-16
    15 which God will bring about in his own time, God, the blessed and only Ruler, the King of kings and Lord of lords,
    16 who alone is immortal and who lives in unapproachable light, whom no one has seen or can see. To him be honor and might forever. Amen.

    Therefore Paul's words in 1 Tim. must refer to God the Father, who is spirit, and the human eye cannot see “spirit” amen to that also.
    and not to Jesus  I agree with that also.
    verse 16 reiterates the thought of John 1:18 which tells us no man has seen GOD at any time
    yet the only begotten which is in the bosom of the Father has declared HIM.
     further reinforcing the doctrine of the Trinity, as there is a distinction being made in reference to the Father, which humans are physically unable to see, and Jesus, who's role it was to make God visible to us.
    How so? If they are distinct then they are not the same, if they vary in their essential and intrinsic nature, even in purpose how can they be identical in every way?
    Mortal (able to taste of death) and immortal are not the same
    One begotten and one eternal are not identical as to origin
    If anything a distinction being made between the Father and the Son only serves to further weaken the idea of a trinity of 3 co-equal, co-eternal, co-omnipotent, co-ominscient persons.
    imo


    Hi there… hope you are well too….

    How so? Well, I tried to explain how, now you may not agree…. but IMHO, the Bible teaches that Jesus and the Father are distinct, yet they are, in a very profound way that I freely admit I do not fully understand, they are one as well. Not just one in purpose, not one in the way that Jesus says that He and His followers are to be, for He is said to be like God in ways that are never said be the case for the ordinary believer, so trying to compare how believers are one with God the Father or with Christ Jesus with how Jesus and the Father are one, is the biggest case of comparing apples and oranges there could possibly be. So I'll never buy the comparison.
    Secondly, I never said that they are identical in every way. You may disagree with me, but it is probably best not to put words in my mouth, or to erect straw men. We have enough disagreements, apparently, without creating ones that do not exist. Most obviously, if the Father is spirit, and invisible, then of course it is a no-brainer that since Jesus is both physical and spiritual, that they cannot be identical in every way.

    You say “Mortal (able to taste of death) and immortal are not the same”
    No offense, but are you really serious? Do you think I am stupid or something? Firstly, I know what the word “mortal” means, but even if I didn't, anyone that can read could tell that “mortal” and “immortal” are not the same. Frankly, that is just a ridiculously inane (something that lacks sense or substance) thing to say.

    Jesus' being begotten only means that his human nature is not eternal. In any case, there is nothing logically contradictory about saying that He could have an aspect of his nature that was eternal, while also adding to this nature humanity, an aspect that came into being in time and space at a particular moment. That is what Paul says here: Philippians 2:5-8 (ESV) 5 Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, 6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.”
    “2:6 The main verbs are the key to the structure, and Jesus’ attitude is presented in the first. Jesus “did not consider equality with God something to be grasped.” Precise knowledge of why that was so remarkable comes from the phrases which modify and explain the significance of his attitude.
    Two parallel statements show the exemplary nature of Jesus’ thoughts. The first is “being in very nature God,” which is compared to the second, “equality with God.” The former is normally translated by the English word “form,” which is true to the literal meaning of the Greek morphē. Commentators have debated hotly the meaning of the word “form.” Basically, the word means “form, outward appearance, shape”; but since it occurs only in 2:6 and 2:7 in the New Testament, the context must determine its precise meaning. Clearly, the “form of God” and the “form of a servant” must mean the same thing. Some take that to mean that the visible appearance of God is not a factor because he is invisible, and therefore the text calls for a nuance of the word. This meaning should not be dismissed too quickly, however. The hymn called the readers to consider the preexistent state of Jesus, when he was in the form of God. Physical eyes cannot see spiritual realities, only spiritual eyes can. Given the context, it would not be uncommon to use the term to state that he actually “appeared as God” to those who could see him. Nothing in the context requires that human eyes see the form. Similarly, the “very nature of a servant” does not require that human eyes be able to see that form, although with spiritually enlightened eyes one sees it. The question is whether he had that form. Surely the actions described of him here are appropriate to the servant role, and they appear in his death on the cross. The word “form” means an outward appearance consistent with what is true. The form perfectly expresses the inner reality.
    The description “very nature of God” parallels “equality with God.” “Equality with God” is, therefore, another explanation of Jesus’ nature. The form of the expression stresses the manner of his existence since the word “equal” is actually an adverb showing how he existed. In the Greek text, the phrase is introduced with an article so that it should read “the equality with God,” referring back to something already identified as equality. Thus “form of God” and “equality with God” refer to the same state of existence, and the NIV correctly translates “in the form of God” as “in very nature God.”
    Two other matters relate to Jesus’ preexistent state. The first is the meaning and force of the participle “being.” The word basically meant “to exist originally” but later was used as an intensive form which meant “really exist.” The result is that Jesus “really existed” in that form. The force of the participle (“being”) is debated as well. Most interpreters take it with a concessive force (“although being”), and that stresses the dramatic nature of Christ’s humility.
    The second matter is the meaning of “something to be grasped.” Some understand the words to mean “something to hold on to,” while others take them to mean “something to rob.” Often Jesus
    is contrasted with Adam, who selfishly attempted to rob God of what he had no right to possess. He wanted to be “like God.” This contrast may have been in Paul’s mind, but any suggestion that requires the sense of aspiration to “equality with God,” as though it were not Jesus’, cannot fit the passage. With this understanding, Christ would have refused to do what Adam did. He refused to grab what was not his. Two factors speak against that understanding. First, the text more naturally reads “not to be clutched.” Since he already possessed “equality with God,” Jesus had nothing to grasp. He was able to release the appearance of deity. Second, when the word “grasped/clutched” is studied with words like “consider” (hēgeomai, 2:3, 6) the “idiomatic expression refers to something already present and at one’s disposal.” The passage may mean, therefore, that Christ did not think of his equality as “something to use for his own advantage.”
    2:7 The hymn moves from attitude to actions. Two verbs describe successive actions as Jesus gave himself for humanity: “He made himself nothing” and “he humbled himself.” Each has a phrase modifying it. The first of Jesus’ choices was to empty himself. The NIV translation “made himself nothing” captures the spirit of the passage but overlooks many theological discussions of the past. Historically, interpreters have wondered of what did Jesus empty himself? The question shows that a theological interest predominates in the passage. Most modern interpreters, however, point out that the hymn does not speak to that point. The contrasts between “Lord” (v. 11) and “servant,” (v. 7) and “very nature of God” (v. 6) and “human likeness” (v. 7) express the emptying. Thus the emptying is that God became human, Lord became servant, and obedience took him to death. The verb “emptied” (NASB) does not require a knowledge of what was emptied (Rom 4:14; 1 Cor 1:17; 9:15). Often it is translated simply “to render void, of no effect.” This passage affirms simply that Christ left his position, rank, and privilege. They were “of no effect.”
    Two ideas modify the verb “made himself nothing.” They are: taking the very nature of a servant and being made in human likeness. These statements explain both how this took place and what it means. Paradoxically, being “made nothing” means adding humanity to deity rather than subtracting deity from his person.……
    The description “human likeness” really stresses Jesus’ humanity. While on the surface it may seem to say that Jesus was not really man, that conclusion finds almost no support. In fact, likeness “does not suggest any degree of unreality in Christ’s humanity; the word is almost a synonym for ‘form’ (morphē) and ‘image’ (eikōn); but it leaves room for the thought that the human likeness is not the whole story.” It must be seen in light of the next statement, that he was found “in appearance as a man” (v. 8). The change from the plural (“human likeness”) to the singular (“appearance as a man”) may reinforce that conclusion. Finally, the verb “being made” (v. 7) contrasts with “being” (2:6). He existed originally in the form of God; but at a specific point, he became human.
    With these words, the text praises the attitude of Jesus. The hymn was to be used in worship, and as such, it was doxological. The total impact was to move the church to appreciate and imitate Jesus’ actions. Each word contributes to the meaning. Certainly interpreters need not read more into the text than was intended, but overtones of Christology exist which cannot be dismissed. First, it affirms Jesus’ preexistence. Before he came to earth, he existed fully as God, in essence and appearance. Second, he became human. Like the movement from riches to poverty in 2 Cor 8:9, this text follows the movement from the exercise of lordship to the obedience of the servant. The hymn teaches that Jesus added servanthood to lordship as he added humanity to deity. In so doing, he elevated humanity beyond what it had known before, as Heb 2:6–8 affirms (quoting a fulfillment of Ps 8:5–6, LXX). Paul easily affirmed both the deity and humanity of Jesus by using (and not correcting) this hymn. The words convey significant theological meaning that adds reality to the impact of the worship experience. Recalling this servanthood also exhorted the believers to unity.
    —New American Commentary

    Finally, any distinction made between the father and the Son in no way weakens the doctrine of the Trinity, for distinctions do not exclude attributes of sameness. IOW, the fact that there are differences between the Father, Son and Holy Spirit in no way detracts from their unity, they just can't be distinct from one another in every single way eg, as long as the attribute of deity joins them, then we can speak of distinctions and/or differences among the various roles of the members of the Trinity, while also asserting that it is still God to whom we refer when speaking of the Father or the Son o the Holy Spirit.

    blessings,
    Ken

    October 7, 2008 at 4:13 am#109935
    malcolm ferris
    Participant

    Hi WJ

    Quote
    Again the question was…“Can you name one attribute scripturally that the Father has of which Yeshua who is the “image of the invisible God”, does not have?”

    The question was not what attributes Yeshua has that the Father doesn’t.

    But, the Word/God came in the flesh therefore becoming God in the flesh, the “image of the invisible God”.


    By that line of reasoning if Jesus has more attributes than His Father (which I do not believe he does have) then is he not greater than him? After all if he is everything the Father is plus is able to be human then is he not different and beyond HIM…
    The WORD was made flesh when the Dove descended upon the Lamb, before that Jesus was the Son of GOD but did not declare his Fathers’ name. GOD was not made manifest in flesh until Jesus began his ministry which began after his baptism at Jordan (imo)

    October 7, 2008 at 4:40 am#109937
    malcolm ferris
    Participant

    WJ

    Quote
    Quote (malcolm ferris @ Oct. 07 2008,01:11)
    Add to this the fact that he has a father. Everyone I know of that has a father had a beginning in that father.

    No, the beginning is in the mother. You use the term son as if it means he is not by nature God. If you have a son he is ontologically identical in nature as a human.

    Unless I am mistaken it is the Father that has the seed that is required for a living offspring, forgive me for being not 100% clear in my statement. When I say every child has their beginning in the Father I am not speaking of the manifestation which begins when that is deposited in the mother, I am speaking of that which GOD refers to when HE says that Levi paid tithes to Melchizedek in the loins of his great grandfather, which is an analogy of our unmanifested origins in GOD before  the foundation of the worlds, when we existed only as a thought in HIS mind (imo). This is why the seed lineage of men is recorded from the father not the mother, also why the woman takes the husband’s name, for it is his line, the life of his loins that carries the name.
    Jesus as the Son of GOD is a son by SPIRIT, not by any natural means – yet you are correct the character of CHRIST is as the SPIRIT of GOD. Yet even in the natural likeness which from which we draw comparison – a son may have the life and nature (through the genes) of his father, yet he is not his father.

    October 7, 2008 at 5:21 am#109940
    epistemaniac
    Participant

    Quote (malcolm ferris @ Oct. 07 2008,01:11)
    Been busy last few days…
    Hi WJ
    Some thoughts on some of your comments.

    Quote
    Really? Can you name one attribute scripturally that the Father has of which Yeshua who is the “image of the invisible God”, does not have?


    Only one?
    How about a few?
    Omnipotence – Jesus does not have omnipotence of himself – he was given it by GOD – after he rose from the grave. If it was an intrinsic part of himself he could not have it then not have it then have it again…
    Also he said himself that his Father was greater than him (Mt 14:28)
    Omniscience – Jesus did not know everything that the Father did (Mk 13:32) Now as with the previous point – he cannot have omniscience then lose it then gain it again.
    Jesus could die – GOD is eternal – therefore cannot die.
    Jesus could be a man – GOD is not a man.
    There is no such thing as an eternal son, and the son of God is not a second GOD.
    If Jesus ever was eternal then he could not die.
    The fact that he was GOD’s son meant he could not stay dead, GOD raised him up again.

    Quote
    There is no unambiguous scripture that says Yeshua had a beginning and especially that he was born or created from an asexual God.


    There is nothing ambiguous about the title son – it clearly denotes the following
    Offspring – and therefore the fact that Jesus (as all offspring of a parent do) had a beginning.
    Add to this the fact that he has a father. Everyone I know of that has a father had a beginning in that father.
    “you are MY Son today I have begotten you” – nothing ambiguous about that.
    What does the word beget mean? Especially when used in context to HIS Son.
    Asexual GOD? Sex and GOD are not relative at all – He can make children of the rocks – He can speak children even as He spoke the entire creation into existence.

    Quote
    YHWH did not bring birth to a lesser god by whom he created all things and then ask us to bow down and worship him calling him our Great God and Savior.


    A lesser GOD – there is but one GOD – one Source and creator of all.
    How HE chooses to do the creating is HIS sovereign prerogative.
    As T8 says Jesus being the image of the invisible GOD does not make him identical
    The meaning of the word image denotes this fact, an image is not the original it is an image.
    Blessings


    you have to remember Philippians which teaches that Jesus willing gave up the attributes of God in order to be made in the likeness of man, and lets face it, one can't very well be made in the likeness of man and be omnipotent, omniscient or omnipresent!!
    ;0 The same goes for mortality, however, you are failing to realize that just because Jesus' human body could cease to function, this hardly means that Jesus ceased to exist. Therefore Jesus' eternality is in no way affected by his bodily death since Jesus went right on existing just as He did prior to the incarnation, that is to say, Jesus was eternal before emptying Himself and taking on human nature, and He went right on being eternal after his physical death on the Cross. Of course the Father cannot experience this, being spirit, He has no physical body which could die!!! lol…. So there is in fact “such thing” as an eternal Son, and Jesus is His name! And God could be a man if he wanted to, who are you to tell God what He can or cannot do!?!? Not only could He, He did, in the person of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, the God-man.

    A particularly glaring error you make is where you say “The fact that he was GOD’s son meant he could not stay dead, GOD raised him up again” While this is partly true, it is, unfortunately, only partly true. God's word also tells us, that is, Jesus Himself tells us in the Scriptures that He will raise Himself from the dead!!!
    John 2:18-21 (ESV) 18 So the Jews said to him, “What sign do you show us for doing these things?” 19 Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” 20 The Jews then said, “It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and will you raise it up in three days?” 21 But he was speaking about the temple of his body.” Calvin writes “Here Christ claims for himself the glory of his resurrection, though, in many passages of Scripture, it is declared to be the work of God the Father. But these two statements perfectly agree with each other; for, in order to give us exalted conceptions of the power of God, Scripture expressly ascribes to the Father that he raised up his Son from the dead; but here, Christ in a special manner asserts his own Divinity. And Paul reconciles both.
    If the Spirit of Him, that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you,
    (Romans 8:11.)
    While he makes the Spirit the Author of the resurrection, he calls Him indiscriminately sometimes the Spirit of Christ, and sometimes the Spirit of the Father.
    —Calvin's Commentaries
    So, it is as you say, GOD raised Jesus from the dead, and since Jesus raised Himself from the dead, Jesus is GOD.

    As far as the “greater than” references go:
    “JOHN 14:28—Did Jesus think of himself as less than God?
    MISINTERPRETATION: Jesus said in John 14:28, “The Father is greater than I.” The Jehovah’s Witnesses say this verse proves that Jesus is a lesser god than the Father. Because Jehovah is “greater” than Jesus, Jesus cannot be God Almighty (Let God Be True, 1946, 110).
    According to Christian Science, this verse proves that “Christ is not God, but an impartation of Him,” just as “one ray of light is light, and it is one with light, but it is not the full-orbed sun” (Eddy, 1901, 8).
    CORRECTING THE MISINTERPRETATION: The Father is greater than the Son by office, but not by nature, since both are God (see John 1:1; 8:58; 10:30; 20:28). Just as an earthly father is equally human with but holds a higher office than his son, even so the Father and the Son in the Trinity are equal in essence, but different in function. There is no contradiction in affirming ontological equality and functional hierarchy. In like manner, we speak of the President of our country as being greater, not by virtue of his character or nature, but by virtue of his position. Jesus cannot ever be said to say that he considered himself anything less than God by nature.
    Geisler, N. L., & Rhodes, R. (1997). When cultists ask : A popular handbook on cultic misinterpretations (184). Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books.

    As far as the whole Jesus had a father, Jesus was a Son thing…. I have one word for you: hermeneutics. Learn to study the Scriptures!!! Learn what metaphors, what figures of speech are for goodness sake. The Scripture also says that Jesus is the door, the rock, the gate, etc…. what is important is what these figures of speech convey about the nature of Christ, not that he is literally a door, or a gate or a rock….. so too when we see the scripture refer to Jesus as “the Son” or that He was “begotten” it does not mean that Jesus is a son in the same way a typical human son is a son, nor is John trying to give us lesson on basic human conception or procreation. What? Sine Jesus was “begotten” by the Holy Spirit are we to suppose that God had sex with Mary and that was how Jesus was conceived? Your overly simplistic superficial approach to interpreting scripture would lead to such far fetched blasphemous conclusions. Or are you a Mormon or something?

    blessings,
    Ken

    October 7, 2008 at 5:55 am#109941
    Tiffany
    Participant

    Quote (epistemaniac @ Oct. 07 2008,17:21)

    Quote (malcolm ferris @ Oct. 07 2008,01:11)
    Been busy last few days…
    Hi WJ
    Some thoughts on some of your comments.

    Quote
    Really? Can you name one attribute scripturally that the Father has of which Yeshua who is the “image of the invisible God”, does not have?


    Only one?
    How about a few?
    Omnipotence – Jesus does not have omnipotence of himself – he was given it by GOD – after he rose from the grave. If it was an intrinsic part of himself he could not have it then not have it then have it again…
    Also he said himself that his Father was greater than him (Mt 14:28)
    Omniscience – Jesus did not know everything that the Father did (Mk 13:32) Now as with the previous point – he cannot have omniscience then lose it then gain it again.
    Jesus could die – GOD is eternal – therefore cannot die.
    Jesus could be a man – GOD is not a man.
    There is no such thing as an eternal son, and the son of God is not a second GOD.
    If Jesus ever was eternal then he could not die.
    The fact that he was GOD’s son meant he could not stay dead, GOD raised him up again.

    Quote
    There is no unambiguous scripture that says Yeshua had a beginning and especially that he was born or created from an asexual God.


    There is nothing ambiguous about the title son – it clearly denotes the following
    Offspring – and therefore the fact that Jesus (as all offspring of a parent do) had a beginning.
    Add to this the fact that he has a father. Everyone I know of that has a father had a beginning in that father.
    “you are MY Son today I have begotten you” – nothing ambiguous about that.
    What does the word beget mean? Especially when used in context to HIS Son.
    Asexual GOD? Sex and GOD are not relative at all – He can make children of the rocks – He can speak children even as He spoke the entire creation into existence.

    Quote
    YHWH did not bring birth to a lesser god by whom he created all things and then ask us to bow down and worship him calling him our Great God and Savior.


    A lesser GOD – there is but one GOD – one Source and creator of all.
    How HE chooses to do the creating is HIS sovereign prerogative.
    As T8 says Jesus being the image of the invisible GOD does not make him identical
    The meaning of the word image denotes this fact, an image is not the original it is an image.
    Blessings


    you have to remember Philippians which teaches that Jesus willing gave up the attributes of God in order to be made in the likeness of man, and lets face it, one can't very well be made in the likeness of man and be omnipotent, omniscient or omnipresent!!
    ;0 The same goes for mortality, however, you are failing to realize that just because Jesus' human body could cease to function, this hardly means that Jesus ceased to exist. Therefore Jesus' eternally is in no way affected by his bodily death since Jesus went right on existing just as He did prior to the incarnation, that is to say, Jesus was eternal before emptying Himself and taking on human nature, and He went right on being eternal after his physical death on the Cross. Of course the Father cannot experience this, being spirit, He has no physical body which could die!!! lol…. So there is in fact “such thing” as an eternal Son, and Jesus is His name! And God could be a man if he wanted to, who are you to tell God what He can or cannot do!?!? Not only could He, He did, in the person of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, the God-man.

    A particularly glaring error you make is where you say “The fact that he was GOD’s son meant he could not stay dead, GOD raised him up again” While this is partly true, it is, unfortunately, only partly true. God's word also tells us, that is, Jesus Himself tells us in the Scriptures that He will raise Himself from the dead!!!
    John 2:18-21 (ESV) 18 So the Jews said to him, “What sign do you show us for doing these things?” 19 Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” 20 The Jews then said, “It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and will you raise it up in three days?” 21 But he was speaking about the temple of his body.” Calvin writes “Here Christ claims for himself the glory of his resurrection, though, in many passages of Scripture, it is declared to be the work of God the Father. But these two statements perfectly agree with each other; for, in order to give us exalted conceptions of the power of God, Scripture expressly ascribes to the Father that he raised up his Son from the dead; but here, Christ in a special manner asserts his own Divinity. And Paul reconciles both.
    If the Spirit of Him, that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you,
    (Romans 8:11.)
    While he makes the Spirit the Author of the resurrection, he calls Him indiscriminately sometimes the Spirit of Christ, and sometimes the Spirit of the Father.
    —Calvin's Commentaries
    So, it is as you say, GOD raised Jesus from the dead, and since Jesus raised Himself from the dead, Jesus is GOD.

    As far as the “greater than” references go:
    “JOHN 14:28—Did Jesus think of himself as less than God?
    MISINTERPRETATION: Jesus said in John 14:28, “The Father is greater than I.” The Jehovah’s Witnesses say this verse proves that Jesus is a lesser god than the Father. Because Jehovah is “greater” than Jesus, Jesus cannot be God Almighty (Let God Be True, 1946, 110).
    According to Christian Science, this verse proves that “Christ is not God, but an impartation of Him,” just as “one ray of light is light, and it is one with light, but it is not the full-orbed sun” (Eddy, 1901, 8).
    CORRECTING THE MISINTERPRETATION: The Father is greater than the Son by office, but not by nature, since both are God (see John 1:1; 8:58; 10:30; 20:28). Just as an earthly father is equally human with but holds a higher office than his son, even so the Father and the Son in the Trinity are equal in essence, but different in function. There is no contradiction in affirming ontological equality and functional hierarchy. In like manner, we speak of the President of our country as being greater, not by virtue of his character or nature, but by virtue of his position. Jesus cannot ever be said to say that he considered himself anything less than God by nature.
    Geisler, N. L., & Rhodes, R. (1997). When cultists ask : A popular handbook on cultic misinterpretations (184). Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             
    As far as the whole Jesus had a father,  Jesus was a Son thing…. I have one word for you: hermeneutics. Learn to study the Scriptures!!! Learn what metaphors, what figures of speech are for goodness sake. The Scripture also says that Jesus is the door, the rock, the gate, etc…. what is important is what these figures of speech convey about the nature of Christ, not that he is literally a door, or a gate or a rock….. so too when we see the scripture refer to Jesus as “the Son” or that He was “begotten” it does not mean that Jesus is a son in the same way a typical human son is a son, nor is John trying to give us  lesson on basic human conception or procreation. What? Sine Jesus was “begotten” by the Holy Spirit are we to suppose that God had sex with Mary and that was how Jesus was conceived? Your overly simplistic superficial approach to interpreting scripture would lead to such far fetched blasphemous conclusions. Or are you a Mormon or something?

    blessings,
    Ken


    Good post, understanding the preexisting of Jesus, for me is important. However I do not believe in the trinity. The one thing that I would like to add is that when all has been accomplished by Jesus,  we too will take on the name God. God will be all in all.
    1 Corinth. 15:28 The Family of God. Jesus gives all back to the Father. That too shows that the Father is greater then He is. You are also asking a real stupid question about having sex with Maria. To me that was done in a very spiritual way. Also
    You need to do a study on Ancient History and see who came up with the trinity doctrine. The Apostle never taught the trinity and you will not find that word in in the Bible. So are you calling Jesus a liar then when He says that ” My Father is greater then I?”

    Peace and Love Irene

    October 7, 2008 at 6:26 am#109942
    NickHassan
    Participant

    Hi E,
    Why should anyone follow your lead in studying hermeneutics
    if it has led you to conclude that God is a trinity
    when scripture never teaches such things?

    How can studying scripture find what is not written??

    October 7, 2008 at 6:42 am#109944
    Proclaimer
    Participant

    Quote (epistemaniac @ Oct. 07 2008,00:34)

    Quote (t8 @ Oct. 06 2008,21:31)

    Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Oct. 05 2008,01:58)
    Hi t8

    Quote (t8 @ Oct. 04 2008,13:44)

    Is the Father the image of the invisible God?

    Yes, if the Father who is invisible makes himself visible. Would the “image” you see not be God? ???

    Again, you reduce Gods image to being less than God therefore creating a false image of God!

    WJ


    Let's put your words to the test.
    The test is scripture.

    1 Timothy 6:15-16
    15 which God will bring about in his own time, God, the blessed and only Ruler, the King of kings and Lord of lords,
    16 who alone is immortal and who lives in unapproachable light, whom no one has seen or can see. To him be honor and might forever. Amen.

    So according to Paul, no one can see God and no one has seen God.

    So your bit about the invisible God being visible is incorrect.

    Jesus is the IMAGE of the invisible God. If Jesus were God, then according to Paul, Jesus would be invisible and no one could see him or has seen him.

    Wake up WJ, it is time for you to put away this folly.
    It is silly to teach that the invisible God is visible.
    I think you can see that it is a is a blatant contradiction.
    At least be honest with yourself if you can't admit it publicly.


    But… here is the rest of the story… “The question why the Son is called “The Word” may be answered by saying that the term expresses both his nature and his office. The word is that which reveals. The Son is the εἰκών and ἀπαύγασμα of God, and therefore his word. It is his office to make God known to his creatures. No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son who is in the bosom of the Father, He hath declared Him. The Son, therefore, as the revealer of God, is the Word.”

    Hodge, C. Systematic Theology (504). Grand Rapids, MI: Christian Classics Ethereal Library.

    So according to all of Scripture, on this issue, no one has seen God, however, the Son has come as a declarer of God…. and the Son is, as the writer of Hebrews also states, the “exact representation of His nature”…. and, those who have seen Christ have seen the Father. For we have the very words of Christ Jesus Himself who said (John 14:9 ESV)  Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you so long, and you still do not know me, Philip? Whoever has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, 'Show us the Father'?”

    To see Jesus, is to see God.  Therefore Paul's words in 1 Tim. must refer to God the Father, who is spirit, and the human eye cannot see “spirit”, and not to Jesus, further reinforcing the doctrine of the Trinity, as there is a distinction being made in reference to the Father, which humans are physically unable to see, and Jesus, who's role it was to make God visible to us.

    blessings,
    Ken


    Hi E.

    You admitted that God is God the Father and that he is invisible.

    That is progress.

    Now read 10 of these verses at random and try and replace the word God with Trinity and watch that doctrine make a complete hash of interpreting the scriptures.

    https://heavennet.net/writings/trinity-11.htm

    In other words the true God mentioned in scripture is the Father.

    God is the Father and he is invisible.
    The Word is Yeshua and he is visible and in body form.

    God is not the Trinity, he is the Father.

    Also if God was the Trinity, then you can't use the word 'him' when referring to him. The trinity Doctrine requires that God is called THEM, not HIM.

    Thanks for listening.

    October 7, 2008 at 6:45 am#109945
    Proclaimer
    Participant

    Quote (epistemaniac @ Oct. 07 2008,00:54)

    Quote (gollamudi @ Oct. 06 2008,22:09)
    Good posts brother T8,
    At the same time please say that there can be no other Gods besides our Father in this whole universe. Please don't be confused with the word 'theos' which is wrongly translated for princes and judges in greek. These so called gods can not be confused with our True God Father.

    Thanks and peace to you
    Adam


    This such a great point… the Bible is so very clear… there is only 1 true God…. but as David and other JW's and other inconsistent Unitarians of various stripes admit, the bible refers to Jesus as being God, or, for the sake of argument, lets say “a god”… But… and here is the crucial point…. if there is only one true God, and Jesus is a god, then by resistless logic, by the application of the law of the excluded middle, Jesus simply HAS to be a false god!! Of course, that cannot be true! Its blasphemous to think so. Therefore, Jesus has to be, in some profound essential way, a part of the one true God's very nature, or as the ancient creed so well puts it, Jesus is:
    “God of God, Light of Light,
    very God of very God,
    begotten, not made,
    being of one substance with the Father;”.
    And this is exactly what the doctrine of the Trinity teaches. It resolves this biblical conundrum, and without it, the Bible explicitly contradicts itself by saying that there can only be 1 true God, and that Jesus is god or a god, yet Jesus is spoken of throughout the bible in a favorable sense, as the Messiah, as the Savior, as God's Son, etc… all positive favorable descriptions…. none of which would lead us to believe that Jesus is a false god. So Jesus is the true God, and the Trinity is what best explains the full counsel of Scripture.

    blessings,
    Ken


    Hi E.

    Jesus is neither called a god or (the) God in John 1:1.

    Both are assumptions.

    October 7, 2008 at 6:50 am#109946
    Proclaimer
    Participant

    Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Oct. 07 2008,08:07)
    NH

    The confusion is in your own theology, for your theology dictates using white out on parts of the scriptures.

    And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and [from] the things which are written in this book. Rev 22:19

    WJ


    Good point WJ, we shall not add or takeaway from what is written in Revelation.

    Revelation 1:1
    The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show to his servants the things that must soon take place. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John….

    Please no adding or taking away, just accept it the way it is written.

    Thanks.

    October 7, 2008 at 8:00 am#109948
    Proclaimer
    Participant

    Quote (malcolm ferris @ Oct. 07 2008,16:05)
    Hi WJ

    Quote
    Post incarnation. Phil 2 disagrees with you.

    My question was… “Can you name one attribute scripturally that the Father has of which Yeshua who is the “image of the invisible God”, does not have?”

    The scriptures say… The Father loveth the Son, and “hath given all things into his hand”. John 3:35

    For the Father loveth the Son, and “sheweth him all things that himself doeth”: and he will shew him greater works than these, that ye may marvel.

    [color=blue]Jesus knowing that “the Father had given all things into his hands”, and that he was come from God, and went to God; John 13:3

    In whom (Yahshua) “are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge”. Col 2:3

    Again the question was…“Can you name one attribute scripturally that the Father has of which Yeshua who is the “image of the invisible God”, does not have?”

    You do a pretty good job of doing that for me really.
    GOD GAVE all things into his hands…
    GOD  SHOWED him all things that HE (GOD) does.
    Jesus aware that the Father had GIVEN all things into his hands (in other words handed him them to deal with on HIS behalf)
    In whom (Jesus) are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. Whose? Wisdom and whose knowledge? GOD’s which Jesus has been given knowledge of as the previous statements clearly show…
    You say that my argument that GOD cannot die is fallacious – how so? The death we are referring to here is death in the flesh. At the death of Jesus we either witness the complete separation of Jesus from his Father or his words “my God my God why have you forsaken me” are no better than a pantomime.
    imo


    Have been reading your posts lately and I encourage you to continue sharing your insights.

    Thanks.

    October 7, 2008 at 10:16 am#109951
    malcolm ferris
    Participant

    Quote
    A particularly glaring error you make is where you say “The fact that he was GOD’s son meant he could not stay dead, GOD raised him up again” While this is partly true, it is, unfortunately, only partly true. God's word also tells us, that is, Jesus Himself tells us in the Scriptures that He will raise Himself from the dead!!!
    John 2:18-21 (ESV) 18 So the Jews said to him, “What sign do you show us for doing these things?” 19 Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” 20 The Jews then said, “It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and will you raise it up in three days?” 21 But he was speaking about the temple of his body.”

    Once again it is the failure to realize the GOD in Christ principle that gives rise to such arguments as this.
    The simple fact is that Jesus as a man was representing two people – Himself and his Father.
    Therefore sometimes it was the Father speaking and sometimes it was the son.
    Remember Jesus was the temple of GOD – he was HIS body. He spoke HIS Fathers words and also (obviously) at times
    his own words.
    It was GOD who raised Christ from the dead as his disciples preached after receiving the Holy Spirit.
    Why would the Holy Spirit contradict the words of Jesus?
    There is no contradiction this was GOD speaking when Jesus said 'I will raise it up again'.

    imo

    October 7, 2008 at 10:40 am#109952
    malcolm ferris
    Participant

    Quote
    As far as the whole Jesus had a father,  Jesus was a Son thing…. I have one word for you: hermeneutics. Learn to study the Scriptures!!! Learn what metaphors, what figures of speech are for goodness sake. The Scripture also says that Jesus is the door, the rock, the gate, etc…. what is important is what these figures of speech convey about the nature of Christ, not that he is literally a door, or a gate or a rock….. so too when we see the scripture refer to Jesus as “the Son” or that He was “begotten” it does not mean that Jesus is a son in the same way a typical human son is a son, nor is John trying to give us  lesson on basic human conception or procreation. What? Sine Jesus was “begotten” by the Holy Spirit are we to suppose that God had sex with Mary and that was how Jesus was conceived? Your overly simplistic superficial approach to interpreting scripture would lead to such far fetched blasphemous conclusions. Or are you a Mormon or something?

    Nope not a Mormon

    The Scripture also says that Jesus is the door, the rock, the gate, etc…. what is important is what these figures of speech convey about the nature of Christ, not that he is literally a door, or a gate or a rock…..

    That's right and these illustrations used by Jesus to show us his role – as a gateway an accessway , a portal, as the source of revelation regarding GOD (rock).
    Tell me did Jesus use these metaphors constantly to refer to himself? Or did others?
    Did his disciples say 'hey look here comes the door, here comes the gate' or 'hello rock'?
    As you say these illustrate the role.
    But when questioned as to who they thought he was (not what he represented) it was a statement of a dual revelation:
    The CHRIST the Son of the Living GOD. (Father and Son)

    As for Jesus not being an actual Son of GOD in any sense than illustratively – sorry have to disagree on that one.

    re the whole sex with Mary idea – you never heard that from me GOD does not need to resort to sexual reproduction to produce a son, how do you think the first Adam was formed?

    as ever imo and most likely contrary to yours 😉

    October 7, 2008 at 11:38 am#109953
    epistemaniac
    Participant

    Quote (Nick Hassan @ Oct. 07 2008,06:00)
    Hi E,
    If the bible does not mention any trinity should we search for support for this theory elsewhere?
    Vain human intellectualism is a futile exercise is it not if truth is what we seek?


    Nick, your superficial reading, and for that matter, responses, ARE most obvious once again lol…. I did not suggest that you go outside of the bible for proof of the Trinity! David has asked for feedback concerning the Sahidic version of John 1:1, I gave it to him. Secondly, I was merely pointing out where the info he was quoting probably originally came from, since the site he said he had originally copied and pasted the material in his post above was gone, I thought that even though I did not and do not agree with him or any antitrinitarians, I would still try and help him out, and any others interested in this subject, by providing a resource for all antitrinitarians. So he additional information is not in support of the Trinity at all!! Its in fact against it!! LOL!

    blessings,
    Ken

  • Author
    Posts
Viewing 20 posts - 1,621 through 1,640 (of 26,000 total)
123…818283…1,2981,2991,300
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

 

CREATE NEW TOPIC
ACTIVE TOPICS
POPULAR TOPICS
SITE SEARCH
SUPPORT US
REGISTER

Recent Replies

ALL REPLIES →

© 1999 - 2026 Heaven Net

Log in with your credentials

or    

Forgot your details?

Create Account