Jesus is God !

[Trump Gurl]

Do you understand the incredible damage you do to scriptures, in the eyes of Trinitarians?

I can say the same thing in regard to Trinitarians.

I don't think so since Trinitarians gave you the scriptures. Do you understand that the New Testament was canonized decades after the Council of Nicea which authoritatively declared that Jesus was fully God and fully Man?

 

[NWL]

Except for the fact that the triune God is, in fact, taught in and throughout scripture, and even by Jesus Himself. Just because you can't see it there doesn't mean it's not there, and just because you can't understand it doesn't make it false.

I'd be more than happy to hear where you believe scripture teaches the trinity, please just take into account what teach actually means.

Please show us where Jesus or anyone else 'taught' the trinity JR, if you will?

 

[NWL]

I don't think so since Trinitarians gave you the scriptures. Do you understand that the New Testament was canonized decades after the Council of Nicea which authoritatively declared that Jesus was fully God and fully Man?

No, trinitarians did not give anyone the scriptures, the people who wrote the scriptures gave us the scriptures.

Just because people who belonged to the church collected the writings and books of people and compiled them all together does not mean the writings are from them.

If I got the quaran, the bible, the book of mormon and other alleged holy books and complied them all together and called it the the "complete bible" and printed it, I'd have no write to claim the writings are from me, as all I've done is complied the writings of others. Likewise, trinitarians did not write the NT, they merely compiled the writings of others into a single document.

 

[Lon]

My previous...question: ... if there are others who are called G-god who are not the 'one God' and who the originator of creation is.

1 Corinthians 8:5 We know that an idol is nothing at all in the world, and that there is no God but one. 5For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as there are many so-called gods and lords), 6yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we exist. And there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we exist.

To me, this part of the discussion seems clear. Isaiah says there is not God but Himself as well. It has to be seen, without our reasoning, what is meant, because I do agree with you "ye are gods" is said, but it doesn't literally mean we create worlds, are perfect, are without beginning or end. Thus there is a huge huge set of differences, especially when scripture itself says we wither today and are gone tomorrow and 'what is man, that You are mindful of him?'

You've previously stated Jesus is the originator of creation as scripture states "all things" (panta) have been created through him. Because of the language used you no doubt conclude he cannot be part of creation as "all things" were created through him, he therefore cannot be part of creation with contradicting verse ("All things came into existence through him, and apart from him not even one thing came into existences" John 1:3).

Yes, you are correct. I do believe that.

My question is this, in Hebrews 2:8 it states God subjected "all things" under man and "left nothing that is not subject to him

", since God and the Angels would no doubt be included in the "all things",

How come? Isn't it 'all things' the 'work of His hands' only? Hebrews 2:7 How do you see 'under his feet'? as figurative or literal?

according to your own reasoning, does this mean God and the Angels subject to Man,

Why? If it is only 'all things that are the physical works of His hands' wouldn't it only be Earth as he was placed caretaker of the Garden?

or is the "all things" and God "leaving nothing NOT subject to Man" not inclusive of God himself and the Angels?

Yes, if 'all' is understood as all of a something. This may be too crude analogy but it may suffice: "I've used all the sugar in my home."

Two points, there is much more than sugar in my cupboards and all the sugar in my home isn't all the sugar in the world. Then, if you pressed me, I suppose you could catch me on a technicality if I have chocolate chips or ice cream yet, but it'd depend on the context. If you asked, to borrow a cup, you'd certainly not want a cup of chocolate chips. All, always means 'everything of a specific or broad something.' Hopefully, scripture itself tells us the breadth or narrowness of its use of all. Thankfully, both of your passages do so. John 1:3 says "and without Him, not one thing was made, that was made." That's really clear. In your Hebrews example, there is a narrower scope "works of His hands."

 

[Lon]

I can say the same thing in regard to Trinitarians.

One set of scriptures at a time. I appreciate you believe that, but you have to (please) try and remember we are 'partially' arian in our name. It means we don't quite trample as bad as Unitarians do, us. You already believe Jesus is God in some qualified sort. It is the "Jesus is not God" that it troubling, thus you offend more than you are offended. Further, this is talking about some very specific doctrines that precisely tie Thomas into outright blasphemy ONLY to save Arian/Unitarian theology. I'm glad it isn't you, but it is still awful and part of 'your' crowd, not mine.

So let me address, in this specific scripture, if you can 'possibly' be offended when I say 'Thomas said literally to Jesus: you are the Lord of me and God of me,' word for word. How could you possibly be offended by me telling you only and no more, than what scripture actually, word for word, says? :idunno:

I can say the same thing in regard to Trinitarians.

Yet it isn't an invitation to response "well he hit me first." This conversation isn't supposed to work that way. It is asking about specific instances and asking if you follow the offense or not. Further, I don't believe it honest because the offense is incomparable. You certainly cannot be offended by what scripture 'actually' says verse when someone makes up that Thomas is blasphemying God. You can't possibly think that puts us on equal troublesome terms. It is like the difference between me reading to you scripture if you ask me not to, and me hearing foul language I've no desire to ever hear. The difference is that stark. Why would you WANT to compare at that point? Why not simply do as you did below and say "Their dirty mouths and blasphemous words offend me too!" Why not just say that?

I don't have that understanding. A number of unitarians do not share in all the same beliefs as me the same way a number of Trinitarians do not share in all the same beliefs as you. Perhaps you should complain to the one who made such a comment, if you haven't already, rather than complaining to me.

Fair enough. On paper (computer) it looks as if you share my grievance? That isn't a poor thing. Would you then 'complain' with me to other Unitarians/Arians if given the opportunity? It isn't all just complaining, some of this is 'explaining' why something things are rough in conversation.

You literally believe in a doctrine that was not taught by Jesus or the apostles, everything I believe the scriptures literally state.

You'd have to show it. Above YOU agree with me, that Thomas saying "Oh my G--!" is blasphemy and offensive. You'll have to work hard to ever show me saying anything that wicked about an apostle or the Lord Jesus Christ. It means, I believe, your grievance isn't in the same category of problem. Which 'doctrine' are you talking about? That Jesus is God? That He "and the Father are one?" How could you NOT believe that scripture. How could that possibly NOT be something He didn't teach? He literally taught it. How about John 1:1? How could you "Not" believe it? I'm just not seeing this statement above 1) anywhere near the same and 2) not at the moment substantiated.

 

[NWL]

1 Corinthians 8:5 We know that an idol is nothing at all in the world, and that there is no God but one. 5For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as there are many so-called gods and lords), 6yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we exist. And there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we exist.

To me, this part of the discussion seems clear. Isaiah says there is not God but Himself as well. It has to be seen, without our reasoning, what is meant, because I do agree with you "ye are gods" is said, but it doesn't literally mean we create worlds, are perfect, are without beginning or end. Thus there is a huge huge set of differences, especially when scripture itself says we wither today and are gone tomorrow and 'what is man, that You are mindful of him?'


Yes, you are correct. I do believe that.


How come? Isn't it 'all things' the 'work of His hands' only? Hebrews 2:7 How do you see 'under his feet'? as figurative or literal?

Why? If it is only 'all things that are the physical works of His hands' wouldn't it only be Earth as he was placed caretaker of the Garden?

Yes, if 'all' is understood as all of a something. This may be too crude analogy but it may suffice: "I've used all the sugar in my home."

Two points, there is much more than sugar in my cupboards and all the sugar in my home isn't all the sugar in the world. Then, if you pressed me, I suppose you could catch me on a technicality if I have chocolate chips or ice cream yet, but it'd depend on the context. If you asked, to borrow a cup, you'd certainly not want a cup of chocolate chips. All, always means 'everything of a specific or broad something.' Hopefully, scripture itself tells us the breadth or narrowness of its use of all. Thankfully, both of your passages do so. John 1:3 says "and without Him, not one thing was made, that was made." That's really clear. In your Hebrews example, there is a narrower scope "works of His hands."

Are not the Angels the work of God's hands? I think you would agree they are. The verse makes no mention of only physical creation being mentioned and rather seems to include the invisible creation by mentioning that man was created lower than Angels. Also, I'm not suggesting whether the verse does or doesn't imply the Angels and God were subject to Man, I'm asking YOU if the "all things" is inclusive of God and the angels. So the question still stands and technically remain unanswered from what I can see; you've asked me questions relating to my question and given an illustration but nowhere do I see you expressing whether or not you you understand the "all things" to be including God or the Angels in the statement or excluding them.

Does the "all things" in Hebrews 2:8 include God and the angels or are you suggesting the they are not included in the "all things" based on the preceding context?

 

[Lon]

Are not the Angels the work of God's hands? I think you would agree they are.

Yes I do. 1 Corinthians 6:3, but for now, Hebrew 2:7,9 says we are lower (and disqualified now in sin as Hebrews 2 continues).

The verse makes no mention of only physical creation being mentioned and rather includes the invisible creation by mentioning that man was created lower than Angels.

Rather 'the work of His hands.' I can see angels in that, but we also have to draw, I believe in this instance, from Genesis because it is when man was 'put in charge.' Genesis 1:26 You'll observe with me, that everything there, is earth and angels aren't mentioned. While you may have a good argument concerning angels, at least some time in the future, and while I know you are working on a train of thought between 'all' from one to the other passage, I don't believe it helps much with your case when specifically the scripture itself gives one without any restriction, and the other gives a qualified 'all.' So in the first, even if you proved something from Hebrews as limiting, is nonextistent in John. You want to be as Biblical as I am, so I know you have to agree on this particular. While I don't generally go down rabbit holes, specifically because can anticipate where the questions are headed, and why they are being asked, I can entertain some of it in courtesy, but the gist is that we cannot rationalize our way. Scripture itself qualifies the extent of all in both passages. Further? Eisegesis is going on when we scripture hop. Going to Genesis isn't best either, but it does help a little and is much more directly related to the scope of man's dominion.

Also, I'm not suggesting whether the verse does or doesn't imply the Angels and God were subject to Man, I'm asking YOU if the "all things" is inclusive of God and the angels.

As I said, I can anticipate, but your argument breaks down on this: The first goes so far as to literally say "AND without Him, nothing was made that was made." It literally explains the extent of 'all.' Then in Hebrew, 'all' is literally confined with 'work of His hands.' That IS the answer: "Scripture tells us clearly."

So the question still stands and technically remain unanswered from what I can see.

You've asked me questions relating to my question and given an illustration but nowhere do I see you expressing whether or not you you understand the "all things" to be including God or the Angels in the statement of excluding them.

I believe I've been clear: No. The text says 'all the work of His hands' alone. Regardless, I have clearly answered this question: the scripture itself 'all' is specificaly qualified as 'everything' and Hebrews is specifically not just 'any and all' but given with a narrow scope of understanding. So, if God tells you "No limit' in the first and then 'within this limit' in the second, you should listen to God. Your reasoning and trying to find a loophole to jump through isn't working.

Does the "all things" in Hebrews 2:8 include God and the angels or are you suggesting the they are not included in the "all things" based on the preceding context?

Correct. It isn't 'all things' BUT "all things under the works of His hands." The answer then, as badly as you want to say they are the same "all things," clearly, Scripturally, and clearly discussed by God very God, they are not. One says "all things" no qualifications. The second "all things" within a specific set of qualifications." Let me ask you a question back: Why DO YOU want the Lord Jesus Christ 'bound up' and 'limited' by what He can do? What is the point of diminishing the Creator? Why do it? To what Holy, Christ-honoring end?

 

[JudgeRightly]

I'd be more than happy to hear where you believe scripture teaches the trinity, please just take into account what teach actually means.

Please show us where Jesus or anyone else 'taught' the trinity JR, if you will?

Gladly.

But first, since you insist, I just did a quick google search for "teach definition". This is a portion of the result:

Teach - show or explain to (someone) how to do something.
* give information about or instruction in (a subject or skill).

If you prefer, here is Merriam-Webster's entry:

Definition of TEACH

to cause to know something; to cause to know how; to accustom to some action or attitude… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

Now, with that out of the way, I can give you a few example of scripture that teach (when looking at the big picture) that God is triune:

Let's start by first pointing out Moses' use of the plural form of "God," while simultaneously using a singular verb, in the very first verse of the Bible.

In the beginning God (Elohim) created (bara - He created) the Heavens and the earth.
Genesis 1:1

Either that's a typo in the very first verse in the Bible that NO ONE has caught, even though it's literally the most studied verse in all of theology, OR it's a statement of the plurality of God (one Being, but a plurality of persons). We see this throughout scripture, where every time God is referred to as doing something, it is almost if not always the plural form of "God" accompanied by the singular form of a verb.

Next, we have Deuteronomy 6:4.

Hear, O Israel, the LORD [YHWH] our God (Elohim), the LORD [YHWH] is one [echad - one of unity, not of singularity].

Here we have YHWH defined as Elohim, and described as being one, not as a singular entity, but as a united entity. Note that the same word, echad, is used in Genesis 2 to describe how man and woman become "one flesh." They are still two individual persons, but they (all things being perfect) act as one united entity.

What about examples where God is described of in two locations simultaneously, as two distinct Entities (trying not to beg the question here, so I'm using Entities rather than Persons)?

Then the LORD [YHWH] rained brimstone and fire on Sodom and Gomorrah, from the LORD [YHWH] out of the heavens.

Perhaps a better way of putting it is that the LORD [YHWH] is localized to two specific locations, the LORD in the heavens, and the LORD on earth, probably somewhere just outside of Sodom and Gomorrah, likely in the appearance of a man, as described in Genesis 18.

But that's all Old Testament stuff. How about stuff from the New Testament?

First, as I've pointed out before (and as the article https://kgov.com/deity explains), over 400 times in the Old Testament, the chosen prophets of God use the phrase "Thus says the LORD," when they are about to relay a message to Israel that comes directly from God. Yet, in the New Testament, especially in the Gospels where Jesus speaks the most, we do not find a single instance of "Thus says the LORD." Instead, it is replaced with Jesus saying, "I say unto you."

In addition to Him using that phrase, which in and of itself, if He is not God, is blasphemy, as the Bible describes God as speaking by His Son, because Jesus, in uttering such a phrase, is not saying "what I'm about to say is straight from God," but rather, "I am God, and here is what I say," Jesus also makes several other statements that things ONLY God has the right to say, focusing His message, not on God, as every prophet in the OT did, but on Himself, such as:

• "Follow Me" 19x Mt. 4:19; 8:22; 10:38; 16:24; 19:21; Mk. 1:17; 2:14; 8:34; 10:21; Lk. 5:27; 9:59; 18:22; Jn. 1:43; 8:12; 10:27; 12:26; 13:36; 21:19, 22
• Pray and act "in My name" 18x Mt. 7:22; 18:5; 18:20; [24:5]; Mk. 9:37, 39, 41; [13:6]; Lk. 9:48; [21:8]; 24:47; Jn. 14:13-14; 15:16; 16:23-24, 26; Acts 9:15
• "the Holy Spirit" comes "in My name" Jn. 14:26
• "for My name's sake" leave family and property Mt. 19:29; or even be killed 5x Mt. 24:9; [Lk. 21:12, 17;] Jn. 15:21; Acts 9:16
• Believe in the "name of the… Son" and "in the Son" 3x Jn. 3:18, 36; 9:35 and "in Him [Jesus]" 4x Jn. 3:18; 6:29, 40; 8:31
• "believe in Me" 14x Mt. 18:6; Mk. 9:42; Jn. 3:15-16, 18; 6:35, 47; 7:38; 11:25, 26; 12:44, 46; 14:1, 12; 16:8; 17:20
• You "are sanctified by faith in Me" Acts 26:18
• Live "in Me" Jn. 11:26
  "come after Me" Mk. 8:34; Lk. 14:27
• Abide "in Me" Jn. 15:2, 4:5, 7 "abide in Me" or else Jn. 15:6 "abide in My love" Jn. 15:9-10
• "where two or three are gathered" Jesus is "there in the midst of them" Mt. 18:20
• So too: "I [Jesus, will abide] in you" Jn. 15:4-5
• "know that I am He" Jn. 8:28 or "if you do not believe that I am He you will die in your sins" Jn. 8:24
• Do things "for My sake" Mt. 10:22, 39; even lose your life "for My sake" 4x Mt. 16:25; Mk. 8:35; 10:29; Lk. 6:22
• "I never knew you, depart from Me" Mt. 7:23
• "I am willing; be cleansed" Mt. 8:3; Mk.. 1:41
• "confess Me" Mt. 10:32; Lk. 12:8
• Do not deny "Me" 7x Mt. 10:33; 26:34; Mk. 14:30, 72; Lk. 12:9; 22:34; Jn. 13:38
• Do not be "ashamed of Me" Mk. 8:38; Lk. 9:26 nor "My words"
• "love Me" 5x Jn. 14:15, 21, 23-24, 28
• Do not reject "Me" Lk. 10:16; Jn. 12:48
• "He who is not with Me is against Me" Lk. 11:23
• Love Me "more than" your family members Mt. 10:37; [Lk. 14:26]
• "I… have loved you" Jn. 15:9, 12
• Be "worthy of Me" Mt. 10:37-38
• "Come to Me" 5x Mt. 11:28; Lk. 6:47; Jn. 5:40; 6:35; 7:37
• "I will give you rest" Mt. 11:28
• "For My yoke is easy and My burden is light" Mt. 11:30
• I am "greater than the temple" "than Jonah" "than Solomon" Mt. 12:6, 41-42
• I am "Lord even of the Sabbath" Mt. 12:8; Mk. 2:28; Lk. 6:5 [Lord of God's Ten Commandments]
• Thus He says keep "My commandments" 4x Jn. 14:15, 21; 15:10, 12
• "You are My friends if you do whatever I command you" Jn. 15:14
• "keep My word" Jn. 14:23-24
• "He who is not with Me is against Me" Mt. 12:30
• The angels are "His angels" Mt. 13:41; 16:27 and He commands "His angels" Mt. 24:31; Mk. 13:27
• The kingdom is "His kingdom" Mt. 13:41 and He calls it "My kingdom" Lk. 22:30
• Jesus called it "My church" Mt. 16:18 and believers are "My sheep" Jn. 10:14, 27 and they are "His elect" Mt. 24:31; Mk. 13:27
• Paul is a "vessel of Mine to bear My name" Acts 9:15
• "all Mine are Yours, and Yours are Mine" Jn. 17:10
• "My peace I give" Jn. 14:27 "in Me you may have peace" Jn. 16:33
• "My joy" should fill you Jn. 15:11
• "Who do men say that I am?" Mt. 16:13; Mk. 8:27
• "who do you say that I am?" Mt. 16:15
• Receive "Me" Mt. 18:5; Mk. 9:37; Lk. 9:48
• Heaven and earth will pass away but "My words" will never Mt. [5:18] 24:35; Mk. 13:31; Lk. 21:33
• Tell others about Jesus Mk. 5:19
• "you belong to Christ" Mk. 9:41
• Hear "My sayings" and do them Lk. 6:47
• Jesus has "His own glory" Lk. 9:26; [Jn. 2:11; 16:14] The Son is "glorified" 8x Jn. 11:4; 12:23; 13:31-32; [17:1, 5, 10 24]
• "He who hears you hears Me" Lk. 10:16
• Jesus expects praise, from stones if necessary Lk. 19:37-40
• Return "to Me" Lk. 22:32
• Be "My disciple" Lk. 14:27; Jn. 8:31; 15:8 Forsake all to "be My disciple" Lk. 14:33 "you are My disciples" Jn. 13:35
• "I shall send… the [Holy] Spirit" Jn. 15:26; 16:7
• The Holy Spirit "will testify of Me" Jn. 15:26
• We read in John 5 and Luke 24 that "the Scriptures… testify of Me" Jn. 5:39; [Lk. 24:44]
• "You [Apostles] also will bear witness [of Me] because you have been with Me" Jn. 15:27
• Paul gives "testimony concerning Me" Acts 22:18; 23:11
• "the Son gives life to whom He will" Jn. 5:21
• "seek Me" Jn. 6:26
• Serve "Me" Jn. 12:26
• "all should honor the Son just as they honor the Father" Jn. 5:23
• "I am the bread of life," "of heaven," "of God" Jn. 6: 32-33, 35, 41, [48,] 51
• Just seeing Christ is reason enough to believe in Him Jn. 6:36 [56]
• Drink "My blood" and eat "My flesh" Jn. 6:53-54, 56
• "I will raise him up at the last day" Jn. 6:40 for He is the resurrection
• "The world… hates Me" Jn. 7:7
• "I am the light of the world" Jn. 8:12; 9:5; 12:46
• "I bear witness of Myself" Jn. 8:13-14, 18
• "know… Jesus Christ" for "eternal life" Jn. 17:3; [8:19; 10:10, 14]
• "the Son makes you free" Jn. 8:36
• "Abraham rejoiced to see My day" Jn. 8:56;
• "Before Abraham was, I AM" Jn. 8:58
• Of believers, Christ said, "I know them" Jn. 10:27
• "I give them eternal life" Jn. 10:28
• "I am the resurrection and the life" Jn. 11:25
• I "will draw all peoples to Myself" Jn. 12:32
• "I will… receive you to Myself" Jn. 14:3
• Be "Mine" Jn. 14:24
• "I am the vine" Jn. 15:5
• "without Me you can do nothing" Jn. 15:5
• "You did not choose Me, but I chose you and appointed you" Jn. 15:16
• Those who oppress Christians are "persecuting Me" Acts 9:4-5; 22:7-8; 26:14-15
• "because they have not known… Me" Jn. 16:3
• The Spirit "will glorify Me, for He will take of what is Mine and declare it" Jn. 16:14
• "All things that the Father has are Mine" Jn. 16:15
• "the Father… loves you, because you have loved Me" Jn. 16:27
• "If I will that he remain" Jn. 21:22
• "I have overcome the world" Jn. 16:33
• "I am the way" Jn. 14:6
• "I am… the truth" Jn. 14:6
• "I am… the life" Jn. 14:6
• "I will… manifest Myself" Jn. 14:21

Hebrews also teaches us that Christ is God, John 1:1, 20:28; Hebrews 1:1-14.

And then we have the Holy Spirit being called God, Acts 5:3-4.

And of course, no one would deny that the Father is God, 1 Thessalonians 1:1

Shall I go on?

All of this and more, when you stand back and try to get the big picture, teaches that Jesus is God, and that God is triune.

So, three questions for you, NWL.

THREE QUESTIONS TO DETERMINE IF THE TRINITY IS BIBLICALLY TRUE OR FALSE. If any one of these questions can be answered 'no,' then the Trinity can be rejected as an unbiblical belief. But if all three can be answered 'yes,' then the concept of the Trinity can be accepted as true. 1. Does the Bible mention three distinct persons? 2. Does the Bible refer to each of these persons as God? 3. Does the Bible teach there is only one God?

 

[NWL]

Yes I do. 1 Corinthians 6:3, but for now, Hebrew 2:7,9 says we are lower (and disqualified now in sin as Hebrews 2 continues).

Rather 'the work of His hands.' I can see angels in that, but we also have to draw, I believe in this instance, from Genesis because it is when man was 'put in charge.' Genesis 1:26 You'll observe with me, that everything there, is earth and angels aren't mentioned. While you may have a good argument concerning angels, at least some time in the future, and while I know you are working on a train of thought between 'all' from one to the other passage, I don't believe it helps much with your case when specifically the scripture itself gives one without any restriction, and the other gives a qualified 'all.' So in the first, even if you proved something from Hebrews as limiting, is nonextistent in John. You want to be as Biblical as I am, so I know you have to agree on this particular. While I don't generally go down rabbit holes, specifically because can anticipate where the questions are headed, and why they are being asked, I can entertain some of it in courtesy, but the gist is that we cannot rationalize our way. Scripture itself qualifies the extent of all in both passages. Further? Eisegesis is going on when we scripture hop. Going to Genesis isn't best either, but it does help a little and is much more directly related to the scope of man's dominion.


As I said, I can anticipate, but your argument breaks down on this: The first goes so far as to literally say "AND without Him, nothing was made that was made." It literally explains the extent of 'all.' Then in Hebrew, 'all' is literally confined with 'work of His hands.' That IS the answer: "Scripture tells us clearly."


I believe I've been clear: No. The text says 'all the work of His hands' alone. Regardless, I have clearly answered this question: the scripture itself 'all' is specificaly qualified as 'everything' and Hebrews is specifically not just 'any and all' but given with a narrow scope of understanding. So, if God tells you "No limit' in the first and then 'within this limit' in the second, you should listen to God. Your reasoning and trying to find a loophole to jump through isn't working.

Correct. It isn't 'all things' BUT "all things under the works of His hands." The answer then, as badly as you want to say they are the same "all things," clearly, Scripturally, and clearly discussed by God very God, they are not. One says "all things" no qualifications. The second "all things" within a specific set of qualifications." Let me ask you a question back: Why DO YOU want the Lord Jesus Christ 'bound up' and 'limited' by what He can do? What is the point of diminishing the Creator? Why do it? To what Holy, Christ-honoring end?

You've answered exactly how I wanted you to answer. If I wanted to use a verse that restricts the understanding of panta (all things) I would've used Col 1:18 that suggests Jesus is first in "all things" without much qualification. Instead, I used Hebrews 2:8 which uses strong definite language, similar to that of John 1:3, but to which the context limits the extent of what "all things" can be applied to.

John 1:3 states "Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made", the "all things" here is limited to the context and does not necessarily exclude Jesus. This is because the "all things" relates to physical creation, much like Hebrews 2:8, as you correctly deduced. John 1:1 states, "in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God"; the "beginning" in John 1:1 is a parallel and reference to the beginning in Gen 1:1, as most scholars agree.

Therefore, when John 1:3 states, "Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made", this must be understood in light of the preceding context, just as you correctly deduced was the case in Hebrews 2:8.

This all being taken into account, it demonstrates Jesus can be considered part of creation without it contradicting John 1:3 since the "all things" only relates to the creation of the "heavens and Earth" and the things therein and not all of creation outside the Genesis context.

To sum up, John 1:3 does not imply Jesus is not part of creation or that he is the originator of entirely everything, rather, it only expresses he participated in the creation of the heaven and earth, and that nothing that has been made on in heaven and earth has been made except through him.

Why DO YOU want the Lord Jesus Christ 'bound up' and 'limited' by what He can do? What is the point of diminishing the Creator? Why do it? To what Holy, Christ-honoring end?

I'm not, I'm merely trying to express what the scriptures say about him. I have applied no concepts to him or limited him in anyway which is not cearly expressed in scripture. What I'm not doing is allowing my personally beliefs to effect what the scriptures say.

 

[Trump Gurl]

No, trinitarians did not give anyone the scriptures

That is just a denial of simple history. The new testament was canonized in the late 4th century.

 

[NWL]

That is just a denial of simple history. The new testament was canonized in the late 4th century.

I clearly did not deny the church, or people within, brought the NT books together. What I denied is your claim the 4th century church "gave" people scripture, they did not. Again, the people who wrote the letters and books of the NT were the ones who gave the scriptures. Compiling books together does not equate authorship.

 

[JudgeRightly]

No, trinitarians did not give anyone the scriptures, the people who wrote the scriptures gave us the scriptures.

The people who wrote the scriptures were trinitarians. They may have not gone by that name, but they understood that there was a plurality in the Godhead, while still believing in only one God, and the nature of God was further revealed in NT times, especially at points such as at Jesus' baptism by John, where God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit were clearly made known, the Father by His voice, the Son in the Flesh, and the Holy Spirit taking the form of a dove.

So yes, trinitarians DID, in fact, give us the scriptures, just not how TG puts it.

 

[NWL]

Let's start by first pointing out Moses' use of the plural form of "God," while simultaneously using a singular verb, in the very first verse of the Bible.

In the beginning God (Elohim) created (bara - He created) the Heavens and the earth.
Genesis 1:1

Either that's a typo in the very first verse in the Bible that NO ONE has caught, even though it's literally the most studied verse in all of theology, OR it's a statement of the plurality of God (one Being, but a plurality of persons). We see this throughout scripture, where every time God is referred to as doing something, it is almost if not always the plural form of "God" accompanied by the singular form of a verb.

Next, we have Deuteronomy 6:4.

Hear, O Israel, the LORD [YHWH] our God (Elohim), the LORD [YHWH] is one [echad - one of unity, not of singularity].

Here we have YHWH defined as Elohim, and described as being one, not as a singular entity, but as a united entity. Note that the same word, echad, is used in Genesis 2 to describe how man and woman become "one flesh." They are still two individual persons, but they (all things being perfect) act as one united entity.

I never understand when I trinitarian tries to use the plurality argument with the word "elohim". You are trinitarian, you only believe in ONE GOD, if the Elohim in reference to the one God should be understood in the plural sense then it implies not one God but GODS; "in the beginning, GODS created the heavens and the earth".

"This use of the plural expresses intensification rather than number and has been called the plural of majesty, or of potentiality. -The NIV Study Bible says about elohim in its footnote for Gen. 1:1.There is a vast amount of scholarly work confirming the plurality relates to the majesty and not a plurality of persons when applied to the one God.

Simply comparing the Hebrew scriptures to the Septuagint reveals how ancient scribes understood the term Elohim; when clearly applying to YHWH, they translated it as a singular (as in the Greek NT): thoes. Whenever elohim clearly refers to a plural noun, it is always found to be plural in number in Greek (just as in the New Testament Greek): "gods" theoi or theois. In Genesis 1:1 the Septuagint says, “In the beginning God [theos, the singular word for “God”) made the heavens and the earth.”

The plurality argument with Elohim makes no sense as it infers 'Gods' in relation to the 'one God', with the Septuagint making no such distinction; it's never been a good argument and it will never be a good argument.

What about examples where God is described of in two locations simultaneously, as two distinct Entities (trying not to beg the question here, so I'm using Entities rather than Persons)?

Then the LORD [YHWH] rained brimstone and fire on Sodom and Gomorrah, from the LORD [YHWH] out of the heavens.

Perhaps a better way of putting it is that the LORD [YHWH] is localized to two specific locations, the LORD in the heavens, and the LORD on earth, probably somewhere just outside of Sodom and Gomorrah, likely in the appearance of a man, as described in Genesis 18.

Again, you seem to not realize your vital errors in your reasoning; the term LORD in capitals in the OT refers to Gods name YHWH, Deut 6 :4 reads "Listen, O Israel: Jehovah our God is one Jehovah", and Gen 19:24, "Then Yahweh rained on Sodom and on Gomorrah sulfur and fire from Yahweh out of the sky". The argument you make does not work, why? Because there is only one YHWH! The name YHWH to a trinitarian is synonymous to the word "trinity", the trinity = the Father/Son/HS, likewise YHWH= the Father/Son/HS. Thus to say YHWH rained down fire from YHWH in the sky is an oxymoron as it expresses the Father/Son/HS rained down fire from the Father/Son/HS. YHWH raining down fire from himself in the heaven simply relates to the angels who were acting as Gods representative and were sent to destroy the city; Gen 19:13 "for we will destroy this place, because the outcry against them has grown great before Yahweh that Yahweh has sent us to destroy it", notice what v13 says "we will destroy this place...Yahweh has sent us to destroy it". Gen 19:1 expresses the ones that were speaking in v13 were angels, "Now the two angels came to Sodom in the evening". So it is clear these two angels were the ones that destroyed the city, and acting as God's representatives it is said about them and YHWH in Deut 6:4 "Yahweh rained on Sodom and on Gomorrah sulfur and fire from Yahweh out of the sky".

The Bible often refers to God's angelic representatives as YHWH speaking and acting himself as they are acting on his behalf, simply reading Exo 3:2-4 demonstrates this.

Deut 6:4 nowhere speaks of a "united" entity, you are simply reading your beliefs into the verse JR. The Pagan gods surrounding the nation of Israel were polytheistic gods, consisting of multiple gods; Deut 6:4 was simply reminding the nation of Israel that YHWH was not a God that consisted of many beings or persons, but rather a single deity, "Listen, O Israel: Jehovah our God is one Jehovah".

Let me also remind you the trinity doctrine teaches 'God is one being who is three separate persons who are co-equal and co-eternal', I don't see how anything you've shown said teaches or expresses that?

But that's all Old Testament stuff. How about stuff from the New Testament?

First, as I've pointed out before (and as the article https://kgov.com/deity explains), over 400 times in the Old Testament, the chosen prophets of God use the phrase "Thus says the LORD," when they are about to relay a message to Israel that comes directly from God. Yet, in the New Testament, especially in the Gospels where Jesus speaks the most, we do not find a single instance of "Thus says the LORD." Instead, it is replaced with Jesus saying, "I say unto you."

In addition to Him using that phrase, which in and of itself, if He is not God, is blasphemy, as the Bible describes God as speaking by His Son, because Jesus, in uttering such a phrase, is not saying "what I'm about to say is straight from God," but rather, "I am God, and here is what I say," Jesus also makes several other statements that things ONLY God has the right to say, focusing His message, not on God, as every prophet in the OT did, but on Himself, such as:

• "Follow Me" 19x Mt. 4:19; 8:22; 10:38; 16:24; 19:21; Mk. 1:17; 2:14; 8:34; 10:21; Lk. 5:27; 9:59; 18:22; Jn. 1:43; 8:12; 10:27; 12:26; 13:36; 21:19, 22
• Pray and act "in My name" 18x Mt. 7:22; 18:5; 18:20; [24:5]; Mk. 9:37, 39, 41; [13:6]; Lk. 9:48; [21:8]; 24:47; Jn. 14:13-14; 15:16; 16:23-24, 26; Acts 9:15
• "the Holy Spirit" comes "in My name" Jn. 14:26
• "for My name's sake" leave family and property Mt. 19:29; or even be killed 5x Mt. 24:9; [Lk. 21:12, 17;] Jn. 15:21; Acts 9:16
• Believe in the "name of the… Son" and "in the Son" 3x Jn. 3:18, 36; 9:35 and "in Him [Jesus]" 4x Jn. 3:18; 6:29, 40; 8:31
• "believe in Me" 14x Mt. 18:6; Mk. 9:42; Jn. 3:15-16, 18; 6:35, 47; 7:38; 11:25, 26; 12:44, 46; 14:1, 12; 16:8; 17:20
• You "are sanctified by faith in Me" Acts 26:18
• Live "in Me" Jn. 11:26
  "come after Me" Mk. 8:34; Lk. 14:27
• Abide "in Me" Jn. 15:2, 4:5, 7 "abide in Me" or else Jn. 15:6 "abide in My love" Jn. 15:9-10
• "where two or three are gathered" Jesus is "there in the midst of them" Mt. 18:20
• So too: "I [Jesus, will abide] in you" Jn. 15:4-5
• "know that I am He" Jn. 8:28 or "if you do not believe that I am He you will die in your sins" Jn. 8:24
• Do things "for My sake" Mt. 10:22, 39; even lose your life "for My sake" 4x Mt. 16:25; Mk. 8:35; 10:29; Lk. 6:22
• "I never knew you, depart from Me" Mt. 7:23
• "I am willing; be cleansed" Mt. 8:3; Mk.. 1:41
• "confess Me" Mt. 10:32; Lk. 12:8
• Do not deny "Me" 7x Mt. 10:33; 26:34; Mk. 14:30, 72; Lk. 12:9; 22:34; Jn. 13:38
• Do not be "ashamed of Me" Mk. 8:38; Lk. 9:26 nor "My words"
• "love Me" 5x Jn. 14:15, 21, 23-24, 28
• Do not reject "Me" Lk. 10:16; Jn. 12:48
• "He who is not with Me is against Me" Lk. 11:23
• Love Me "more than" your family members Mt. 10:37; [Lk. 14:26]
• "I… have loved you" Jn. 15:9, 12
• Be "worthy of Me" Mt. 10:37-38
• "Come to Me" 5x Mt. 11:28; Lk. 6:47; Jn. 5:40; 6:35; 7:37
• "I will give you rest" Mt. 11:28
• "For My yoke is easy and My burden is light" Mt. 11:30
• I am "greater than the temple" "than Jonah" "than Solomon" Mt. 12:6, 41-42
• I am "Lord even of the Sabbath" Mt. 12:8; Mk. 2:28; Lk. 6:5 [Lord of God's Ten Commandments]
• Thus He says keep "My commandments" 4x Jn. 14:15, 21; 15:10, 12
• "You are My friends if you do whatever I command you" Jn. 15:14
• "keep My word" Jn. 14:23-24
• "He who is not with Me is against Me" Mt. 12:30
• The angels are "His angels" Mt. 13:41; 16:27 and He commands "His angels" Mt. 24:31; Mk. 13:27
• The kingdom is "His kingdom" Mt. 13:41 and He calls it "My kingdom" Lk. 22:30
• Jesus called it "My church" Mt. 16:18 and believers are "My sheep" Jn. 10:14, 27 and they are "His elect" Mt. 24:31; Mk. 13:27
• Paul is a "vessel of Mine to bear My name" Acts 9:15
• "all Mine are Yours, and Yours are Mine" Jn. 17:10
• "My peace I give" Jn. 14:27 "in Me you may have peace" Jn. 16:33
• "My joy" should fill you Jn. 15:11
• "Who do men say that I am?" Mt. 16:13; Mk. 8:27
• "who do you say that I am?" Mt. 16:15
• Receive "Me" Mt. 18:5; Mk. 9:37; Lk. 9:48
• Heaven and earth will pass away but "My words" will never Mt. [5:18] 24:35; Mk. 13:31; Lk. 21:33
• Tell others about Jesus Mk. 5:19
• "you belong to Christ" Mk. 9:41
• Hear "My sayings" and do them Lk. 6:47
• Jesus has "His own glory" Lk. 9:26; [Jn. 2:11; 16:14] The Son is "glorified" 8x Jn. 11:4; 12:23; 13:31-32; [17:1, 5, 10 24]
• "He who hears you hears Me" Lk. 10:16
• Jesus expects praise, from stones if necessary Lk. 19:37-40
• Return "to Me" Lk. 22:32
• Be "My disciple" Lk. 14:27; Jn. 8:31; 15:8 Forsake all to "be My disciple" Lk. 14:33 "you are My disciples" Jn. 13:35
• "I shall send… the [Holy] Spirit" Jn. 15:26; 16:7
• The Holy Spirit "will testify of Me" Jn. 15:26
• We read in John 5 and Luke 24 that "the Scriptures… testify of Me" Jn. 5:39; [Lk. 24:44]
• "You [Apostles] also will bear witness [of Me] because you have been with Me" Jn. 15:27
• Paul gives "testimony concerning Me" Acts 22:18; 23:11
• "the Son gives life to whom He will" Jn. 5:21
• "seek Me" Jn. 6:26
• Serve "Me" Jn. 12:26
• "all should honor the Son just as they honor the Father" Jn. 5:23
• "I am the bread of life," "of heaven," "of God" Jn. 6: 32-33, 35, 41, [48,] 51
• Just seeing Christ is reason enough to believe in Him Jn. 6:36 [56]
• Drink "My blood" and eat "My flesh" Jn. 6:53-54, 56
• "I will raise him up at the last day" Jn. 6:40 for He is the resurrection
• "The world… hates Me" Jn. 7:7
• "I am the light of the world" Jn. 8:12; 9:5; 12:46
• "I bear witness of Myself" Jn. 8:13-14, 18
• "know… Jesus Christ" for "eternal life" Jn. 17:3; [8:19; 10:10, 14]
• "the Son makes you free" Jn. 8:36
• "Abraham rejoiced to see My day" Jn. 8:56;
• "Before Abraham was, I AM" Jn. 8:58
• Of believers, Christ said, "I know them" Jn. 10:27
• "I give them eternal life" Jn. 10:28
• "I am the resurrection and the life" Jn. 11:25
• I "will draw all peoples to Myself" Jn. 12:32
• "I will… receive you to Myself" Jn. 14:3
• Be "Mine" Jn. 14:24
• "I am the vine" Jn. 15:5
• "without Me you can do nothing" Jn. 15:5
• "You did not choose Me, but I chose you and appointed you" Jn. 15:16
• Those who oppress Christians are "persecuting Me" Acts 9:4-5; 22:7-8; 26:14-15
• "because they have not known… Me" Jn. 16:3
• The Spirit "will glorify Me, for He will take of what is Mine and declare it" Jn. 16:14
• "All things that the Father has are Mine" Jn. 16:15
• "the Father… loves you, because you have loved Me" Jn. 16:27
• "If I will that he remain" Jn. 21:22
• "I have overcome the world" Jn. 16:33
• "I am the way" Jn. 14:6
• "I am… the truth" Jn. 14:6
• "I am… the life" Jn. 14:6
• "I will… manifest Myself" Jn. 14:21

I had a scan through your list, I don't see any verses that indicate that 'God is one being who is three persons who are co-equal and co-eternal'?

Hebrews also teaches us that Christ is God, John 1:1, 20:28; Hebrews 1:1-14.

I agree that Jesus is God in some sense according to those verses, but being called a G-god in scripture does infer you are the 'one God' or part of a trinity, and there lies the issue. Also, none of those verses express 'God is one being who is three persons who are co-equal and co-eternal', I'm still waiting for you to produce where in the bible it teaches such a thing.

And then we have the Holy Spirit being called God, Acts 5:3-4.

Hold on, Ananias and his wife lied to Peter, Peter claimed they lied to "not to men, but to God", using the same logic you are using I could equally say Peter was calling himself God here when he says "you have not lied to men but to God"! The Holy Spirit is not called God here, you are assuming this; throughout scripture, there are numerous instances where the following principle is used: Actions by, for or against "A" are logically equivalent to actions by, for or against "B".

For example in 1 Samuel 12:1 it states "Finally Samuel said to all Israel: “Here I have done all that you asked of me, and I appointed a king to reign over you", however in v13 it states "Look! Jehovah has appointed a king over you". One verse states Samuel appointed a king but the other Jehovah, is Samuel YHWH? No, Samuel appointing a king was equivalent to YHWH appointing a king.

We see this over and over, compare:

Philippians 3:6 with Acts 9:5
2 Samuel 5:3 with 2 Samuel 12:7
Exo 32:33,35 with Nehemiah 9:11,12
Psalms 77:20 with PSalms 77:20
Numbers 14:2 with Num 14:26,27

Peter was given the gift of HS so he could read and know Ananias was lying according to his heart, Ananias, lied to Peter and the Holy Spirit that God had given to the apostles through Jesus, so was ultimately lying to God.

(John 20:22, 23) "..After saying this he blew on them and said to them: “Receive holy spirit. 23 If you forgive the sins of anyone, they are forgiven; if you retain those of anyone, they are retained..”

All of this and more, when you stand back and try to get the big picture, teaches that Jesus is God, and that God is triune.

Wrong! Nothing you've shown has expressed anything about 'God being one being who is three persons who are co-equal and co-eternal'. You've shown scriptures that Trinitarians often use to try and show Jesus and the HS are God, but after being scrutinized they are hardly evidence at all.

1. Does the Bible mention three distinct persons?

2. Does the Bible refer to each of these persons as God?

3. Does the Bible teach there is only one God?

1. Does the Bible mention three distinct persons?
No, the bible does not speak of three separate persons, it speaks of the Father and Son and refers to them as persons, but I do not accept the HS as a person.

2. Does the Bible refer to each of these persons as God?
No, it refers to the Father as the 'one God', it refers to Jesus as God, nowhere calls the HS God, and mentions that many others persons are God(s). See Exo 7:1, 2 Cor 4:4, Ps 8:5, John 10:34 for some examples. Trinitarians first need to explain why people such as Moses are called God ("I have made you GOD to Pharoah" Exo 7:1), prior to them assuming Jesus being called GOD implies he is the 'one God', since 1 Cor 8:6, among other scripture, clearly teaches the Father is the 'one God'.

3. Does the Bible teach there is only one God?
THe bible teaches there is only one God in an ultimate sense, however, it clearly teaches there are other beings that are correctly called G-god, the term "G-god" when applied to these ones only relates to them in a secondary lesser sense; simple read 1 Cor 8:4-6 to see this.

“there is no God but one.” For although there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth—as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords”— 6 yet for us there is one God, the Father" (1 Cor 8:4-6)

 

[Lon]

First, as I've pointed out before (and as the article https://kgov.com/deity explains), over 400 times in the Old Testament, the chosen prophets of God use the phrase "Thus says the LORD," when they are about to relay a message to Israel that comes directly from God. Yet, in the New Testament, especially in the Gospels where Jesus speaks the most, we do not find a single instance of "Thus says the LORD." Instead, it is replaced with Jesus saying, "I say unto you."

Excellent job. Bob Hill or Bob Enyart's? Who is the author and let them know they did an exceptional job for me. -Lon

 

[Lon]

You've answered exactly how I wanted you to answer. If I wanted to use a verse that restricts the understanding of panta (all things) I would've used Col 1:18 that suggests Jesus is first in "all things" without much qualification. Instead, I used Hebrews 2:8 which uses strong definite language, similar to that of John 1:3, but to which the context limits the extent of what "all things" can be applied to.

John 1:3 states "Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made", the "all things" here is limited to the context and does not necessarily exclude Jesus. This is because the "all things" relates to physical creation, much like Hebrews 2:8, as you correctly deduced. John 1:1 states, "in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God"; the "beginning" in John 1:1 is a parallel and reference to the beginning in Gen 1:1, as most scholars agree.

Therefore, when John 1:3 states, "Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made", this must be understood in light of the preceding context, just as you correctly deduced was the case in Hebrews 2:8.

This all being taken into account, it demonstrates Jesus can be considered part of creation without it contradicting John 1:3 since the "all things" only relates to the creation of the "heavens and Earth" and the things therein and not all of creation outside the Genesis context.

If you'll also recall, I said that it cannot be because John 1:3 Emphatically says these 3 things:
1) Through him all things were made
While you 'might' have been able to suggest a broader or limited sense with just this first part of the verse, note one thing from here: The Greek uses Auto "Him" so any misrepresented idea that the Word is not an actual person in John 1:1 must be rejected on the grounds of the language itself: "His."
2) without him nothing was made
The word for word is literally: Not one thing, literally. John says it, not me, or other trinitarians, but the one inspired by God, to accurately give truth: Not even remotely one thing (emphasis but very true to the meaning), it means literally that, so you have both the thought STRONGLY conveyed by John himself AND the word for word that makes impossible to try and put any limitation on it. Then:
3) that has been made
This is a double-emphasis. The above in translation and conveyance is already clear, but John doubled-down to completely erase any 'possibility' even of contentions. Grammar is so incredibly important. I'm VERY convinced if Unitarians took grammatical lessons, they couldn't possibly make an argument against John's scripture truth here. It is a) literal and b) clear, even if one doesn't quite grasp the logic. I absolutely empathize with anyone saying "What???" in John 1:1 when it says emphatically "was with" AND "was" God. Such is by all natural inclination and mathematical logic, not possible. I agree BUT it is exactly what John says SO I'm Triune as I understand scripture and cannot help but be, because it is exactly what John (God inspiring Him with His own thoughts and own book) says. I 'literally' cannot be anything else but what scripture demands that point. I simply and happily embrace the confusion of it.

Like you and Modalists, I truly believe there is One God, alone. Yet right in front of me, with no scruples whatsoever is: "Was with" God AND 'was God!' I could try and come to some conclusion BUT listen to what I just said: I could try to come to a conclusion. The problem? 1) me (as a fallible human, despite how intelligent I am, just got in God's way. I cannot possibly know His nature without the scriptures specifically because I am not Him, Not eternal, do not have the wherewithall, AND am a fallen being. I literally, as intelligent as I am, don't know unless He alone tells me (and He has). I don't WANT my-ology. I want His-ology. There is no point and definitely nothing good from me asserting anything.

If you can follow: A Trinitarian, unless he/she doesn't grasp something and is going beyond the text, will only give and insist, that what we say or know about God MUST NOT be derived from human intellect. While we grasp Him with our minds, going beyond the text to "Fill in the gaps" no matter how logical it might seem, is 1) not scripture at that point and 2) Is certainly open to criticism as wrong specifically because it is 'man-made' at that point. For us: John 1:1 says two things literally: 1) was with God AND 2) was God. We simply, with NO other thought, accept what is told without reservations. It is 'just scripture' and 'scripture alone without man gunking it up' at that point.

To sum up, John 1:3 does not imply Jesus is not part of creation or that he is the originator of entirely everything, rather, it only expresses he participated in the creation of the heaven and earth, and that nothing that has been made on in heaven and earth has been made except through him.

Incorrect. That is YOUR (a man, however intelligent you imagine you are) statement. John actually doubled-down. It really leaves no such option (again if you conceive correctly the nature of grammar). The Apostle completely eliminated that conjecture/summation. It isn't possible from the text.

I'm not, I'm merely trying to express what the scriptures say about him.

There is a logical leap then. This idea had to come from your head because it isn't in the text AND the text by intent, disallows it as a viable option.

I have applied no concepts to him or limited him in anyway which is not cearly expressed in scripture.

This is why I DO suspect most Unitarians didn't do well in English class and most didn't read/take another language. The simplest I can say this is: If there is no direct indication for an idea from scripture (and John doubles down against the notion) then it HAS to have come from your or another's head. There is no other option: If it didn't come from scripture, it had to be imported in from somewhere else.

What I'm not doing is allowing my personally beliefs to effect what the scriptures say.

Oddly, this is exactly what I'd have said you HAD to have done. There is NO other way for an idea to come 'from' scripture if it isn't given expressly in the passage. It literally HAS to come from somewhere else. Take for instance "Trinitarian/Trinity." I will always see it as a biblical concept because of John 1:1 BUT the term isn't there, just the description. Rather, if someone such as you is hung up on a term, then I simply have to explain 'what is' in the scripture and let the other come to a term that is appropriate for what is there. While I believe triune does the trick, I also know that many see "Tri" and believe we are then polytheists. I've even seen some argue for that in threads inadvertently. We are not at all supposed to be 'tri'theists. RATHER we are monotheists BUT see three distinct representations that all have claim to One deity. How? I don't know, but 'god' doesn't put it to rest. That too becomes polytheism. I simply cannot be a polytheist, scripture forbids it. So, I'm stuck (happily so if God Himself doesn't clarify/until He clarifies). I simply 'believe' "Was with God and was God." It is literally what it says.

Please listen to this: It is the Unitarian that doesn't believe and even rewrote John 1:1. Why? Because you EITHER have to make a lot of extra-biblical ideas string across John 1, OR you have to rewrite it without the grammatical support to make it fall in line with your belief if you don't accept it, as it is written. You either have to rewrite scripture to say what you (or me, mere men) want God to have said, OR we have to add a lot of extrabiblical thought and explanation if we won't believe it as it sits. These are the only options: Believe, rewrite and or come up with your own idea that makes sense (which ceases to be Biblical on all our parts and shaky ground). In a nutshell, THIS IS the huge huge difference between a Unitarian/Arian and a Trinitarian.

 

[NWL]

If you'll also recall, I said that it cannot be because John 1:3 Emphatically says these 3 things:
1) Through him all things were made
While you 'might' have been able to suggest a broader or limited sense with just this first part of the verse, note one thing from here: The Greek uses Auto "Him" so any misrepresented idea that the Word is not an actual person in John 1:1 must be rejected on the grounds of the language itself: "His."
2) without him nothing was made
The word for word is literally: Not one thing, literally. John says it, not me, or other trinitarians, but the one inspired by God, to accurately give truth: Not even remotely one thing (emphasis but very true to the meaning), it means literally that, so you have both the thought STRONGLY conveyed by John himself AND the word for word that makes impossible to try and put any limitation on it. Then:
3) that has been made
This is a double-emphasis. The above in translation and conveyance is already clear, but John doubled-down to completely erase any 'possibility' even of contentions. Grammar is so incredibly important. I'm VERY convinced if Unitarians took grammatical lessons, they couldn't possibly make an argument against John's scripture truth here. It is a) literal and b) clear, even if one doesn't quite grasp the logic. I absolutely empathize with anyone saying "What???" in John 1:1 when it says emphatically "was with" AND "was" God. Such is by all natural inclination and mathematical logic, not possible. I agree BUT it is exactly what John says SO I'm Triune as I understand scripture and cannot help but be, because it is exactly what John (God inspiring Him with His own thoughts and own book) says. I 'literally' cannot be anything else but what scripture demands that point. I simply and happily embrace the confusion of it.

Regarding your first point, I have nowhere made the argument the "Word" is not an actual person. I believe the Word to be the pre-incarnate Jesus as most Trinitarians believe; this changes nothing about what I've argued.

Regarding your second point: You are making the mistake of having tunnel vision once again; you were perfectly able to deduce context changes the use of strong definite language and negative phrases, such in Heb 2:7,8, but with John 1:3 you're ignoring the context of John 1:1 (Gen 1:1) simply because of strong language used. I could just as well say that the writer of Hebrews wanted to further define his use of "all things" in Hebrews 2:8a by the modification "By subjecting all things to him, God left NOTHING that is not subject to him", as to express he meant entirely everything.

The argument you make is weak and ignores the immediate context. It is perfectly acceptable for John to say in regards to the physical creation of the heavens and the earth "not one thing in all creation was made without him", as the creation is in relation to the physical earth and heavens. You repeating the verse word for word and claiming it should be understood in relation to literally everything, SIMPLY BECAUSE YOU SAY IT DOES, does not negate the context of John 1:1 and Gen 1:1. You'll have to try harder.

Regarding your third point: I again could say Hebrews 2:8 has a double emphasis just as you are trying to argue, and it was the writer of Hebrews way of clarifying he 'literally' meant God subjected "all things" under man, including himself and the angels. The double emphasis does not change the context at all. Hebrews 2:8 "You gave them authority over all things.” Now when it says “all things,” it means nothing is left out." Did you notice the double emphasis and further modification? Should we assume God did in fact subject himself and the angels under Man?

The Genesis account was about the physical creation of the heaven and the earth, John used the phrase "in the beginning" so that the Jewish reader or hearer would think back to Gen 1:1 and understand it in relation to that verse, John easily could have written it as follows and it would have the same intended meaning:

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, and the Word was with God, and the Word was theos...All things were created through him [the Word], and apart from him not one thing was created that has been created"

Again, the "creation" in the above was in relation to the creation of the heaven and the earth, any claim the "creation" in John 1:3 is speaking about anything else other than the creation outlined in Genesis 1 is reading presupposed theology into the verse.

Like you and Modalists, I truly believe there is One God, alone. Yet right in front of me, with no scruples whatsoever is: "Was with" God AND 'was God!' I could try and come to some conclusion BUT listen to what I just said: I could try to come to a conclusion. The problem? 1) me (as a fallible human, despite how intelligent I am, just got in God's way. I cannot possibly know His nature without the scriptures specifically because I am not Him, Not eternal, do not have the wherewithall, AND am a fallen being. I literally, as intelligent as I am, don't know unless He alone tells me (and He has). I don't WANT my-ology. I want His-ology. There is no point and definitely nothing good from me asserting anything.

Whether or not it was on purpose or not, this is a strawman. The question and points we are currently discussing have nothing to do with John 1:1c. The rest of the paragraph is fluff imo.

If you can follow: A Trinitarian, unless he/she doesn't grasp something and is going beyond the text, will only give and insist, that what we say or know about God MUST NOT be derived from human intellect. While we grasp Him with our minds, going beyond the text to "Fill in the gaps" no matter how logical it might seem, is 1) not scripture at that point and 2) Is certainly open to criticism as wrong specifically because it is 'man-made' at that point. For us: John 1:1 says two things literally: 1) was with God AND 2) was God. We simply, with NO other thought, accept what is told without reservations. It is 'just scripture' and 'scripture alone without man gunking it up' at that point.

Again, we are not currently discussing John 1:1c. You complain conversations spiral out of control in various other side-arguments develop and yet here you are trying to discuss John 1:1c despite your previous complaint that made me reduce the list of questions you mostly refused to answer to a single one. Let's try and stay focus and concentrate on the matter at hand.

Incorrect. That is YOUR (a man, however intelligent you imagine you are) statement. John actually doubled-down. It really leaves no such option (again if you conceive correctly the nature of grammar). The Apostle completely eliminated that conjecture/summation. It isn't possible from the text.

No, it is your false assumption that John emphasis was for the sake of eliminating the immediate context from the statement; nothing in the text suggests John was trying to do this, you simply have a presupposition the "all things" relates to literally all things and thus 'want' to ignore the immediate context.

Does the double emphasis and further modification in Hebrews 2:8 suggest literally 'all things' were subjected to mankind?

Hebrews 2:8 "..You gave them authority over ALL THINGS.” Now when it says “ALL THINGS” it means nothing is left out..."

If your answer is in the negative, then why do you demand it needs to be the case in John 1:3? Lon, is it possible according to the grammar and context John was NOT trying to claim he meant literally 'all things' by the double emphasis? Imo you are stuck, as any denial John might NOT have been trying to claim "all things" meant literally all things, and that the double emphasis demands it, means you have to accept the implication of the double emphasis in Hebrews 2:8.

Oddly, this is exactly what I'd have said you HAD to have done. There is NO other way for an idea to come 'from' scripture if it isn't given expressly in the passage. It literally HAS to come from somewhere else. Take for instance "Trinitarian/Trinity." I will always see it as a biblical concept because of John 1:1 BUT the term isn't there, just the description. Rather, if someone such as you is hung up on a term, then I simply have to explain 'what is' in the scripture and let the other come to a term that is appropriate for what is there. While I believe triune does the trick, I also know that many see "Tri" and believe we are then polytheists. I've even seen some argue for that in threads inadvertently. We are not at all supposed to be 'tri'theists. RATHER we are monotheists BUT see three distinct representations that all have claim to One deity. How? I don't know, but 'god' doesn't put it to rest. That too becomes polytheism. I simply cannot be a polytheist, scripture forbids it. So, I'm stuck (happily so if God Himself doesn't clarify/until He clarifies). I simply 'believe' "Was with God and was God." It is literally what it says.

Please listen to this: It is the Unitarian that doesn't believe and even rewrote John 1:1. Why? Because you EITHER have to make a lot of extra-biblical ideas string across John 1, OR you have to rewrite it without the grammatical support to make it fall in line with your belief if you don't accept it, as it is written. You either have to rewrite scripture to say what you (or me, mere men) want God to have said, OR we have to add a lot of extrabiblical thought and explanation if we won't believe it as it sits. These are the only options: Believe, rewrite and or come up with your own idea that makes sense (which ceases to be Biblical on all our parts and shaky ground). In a nutshell, THIS IS the huge huge difference between a Unitarian/Arian and a Trinitarian.

I know of no unitarian, or anyone for that matter, that has re-written John 1:1. If you're speaking in regards to translating John 1:1 into English in a manner other than the traditional way, then this is not re-writing it, but rather, translating it according to one's own understanding of the grammar and context. But let's not get distracted, let's focus on the matter under question.

I've made my point regarding John 1:3 and how it doesn't necessitate Jesus is the creator, which leaves the door open for the possibility he might be included in creation as it's not excluding him. It seems your only defense against my argument is John's double emphasis; what you seem to ignore however is the reason why I used Hebrews 2:8 specifically, it uses the same sort of negative and definite phrases as John 1:3. On one hand you believe John's emphasis in John 1:3 infers "all things" literally meant all things, yet on the other hand you'll no doubt reject the double emphasis in Hebrews 2:8 and deny the emphasis there infers "all things" literally means all things. I contend John's language in John 1:3 was him enveloping all creation into his statement, and rather, the idea you are pushing is a presupposition that ignores the context of both John 1:1 and Gen 1:1 that both show the creation was limited to physical creation. What are your thoughts?

 

[Caino]

Even some of his followers don't believe in Jesus! What does a God have to do to reveal things to us while simultaneously respecting his plan for his children to grow up by faith?

 

[Right Divider]

Even some of his followers don't believe in Jesus!

Like you?

What does a God have to do to reveal things to us while simultaneously respecting his plan for his children to grow up by faith?

"a God"? There is only THE God.

 

[Caino]

Like you?

"a God"? There is only THE God.

You cant help yourself can you? You cant help being nasty and argumentative towards anything I say? That's your own insecurity. I see I've been blocked from the Creation Science thread because you guys cant deal with the truth of radiometric dating. Why have a forum if you cant deal with reality???

"God" is spirit, as such God is comprised of plural spiritual beings which can only be known as One God to the personality of humans.

 

[Right Divider]

You cant help yourself can you?

Not with a guy like you, no. This is a CHRISTIAN site. If you want to keep disparaging the LORD JESUS CHRIST, you should expect push back.

You cant help being nasty and argumentative towards anything I say?

There was nothing "nasty" about telling that truth.

That's your own insecurity.

Nope... no insecurity here.

I see I've been blocked from the Creation Science thread because you guys cant deal with the truth of radiometric dating.

It is YOU that is challenged by the truth of radiometric dating.

It's been discussed before and YOU did not discuss it at all.

Why have a forum if you cant deal with reality???

We are fine with reality. It is YOU that lives on a planet far, far away.

"God" is spirit, as such God is comprised of plural spiritual beings which can only be known as One God to the personality of humans.

"As such"...

God has revealed Himself in the way that He wanted to... Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

God's CREATION (everything including individual PEOPLE) are NOT God.