NB has been banned. Sock account for a previously banned member.
Is Jesus God?
- Thread starter Bright Raven
- Start date
7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
I kinda wondered if that might be the case. I guess, nowadays, when one is down to his/her last Tide Pod, one is forced to make a choice: Do I eat it, or do I use it to launder my sock? Judging from the contents of his/her posts, I'd say NB likely chose the former.
Lon
Well-known member
Again, this is one of my degrees. Nevertheless, "Messiah" and "Son of God" are not hard to figure out. Look for instance, where any other is called 'Son of God, Son of man," aw well as "Messiah."
Correct. Only Begotten means literally God's only offspring. Any of the rest of us, are sons by adoption. In further terms then, the Lord Jesus Christ is literally the only one to inherit deity. We are made, He was born. We can make assumptions from there, but lets never jump the gun. John 17:5 was brought up as one contested item you asserted otherwise. I too prefer to stay in the text of question:
Read with me?
[FONT="]John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.[/FONT][FONT="] [/FONT][FONT="]2 He was in the beginning with God.[/FONT][FONT="] [/FONT][FONT="]3 All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made.
Who do we know, per fact, made all things? Genesis 1:1 Colossians 1:15 (not to distract, just asking Who we know this is and necessarily must be talking about.
[/FONT][FONT="]John 1:4[/FONT][FONT="] In him was life,[a] and the life was the light of men.[/FONT][FONT="] [/FONT][FONT="]5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.
[/FONT]Skipping a few verses talking about John the Baptist, then:
[FONT="]John 1:9 The true light, which gives light to everyone, was coming into the world.[/FONT][FONT="] [/FONT][FONT="]10 He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet the world did not know him.[/FONT][FONT="] [/FONT][FONT="]11 He came to his own,[b] and his own people[c] did not receive him.[/FONT][FONT="] [/FONT][FONT="]12 But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God,[/FONT][FONT="][/FONT][FONT="]13 who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.
[/FONT]You've asked about the concept/title "Son of God" Only begotten is reiterated here. What do we know? God is not physical. How is the Only One born? --> Physically. Does this Only One pre-exist, or is this His beginning of life and existence?
John 1:14[FONT="] And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.[/FONT][FONT="]
[/FONT]You asked if this was the Lord Jesus Christ. 1) You will me already have said this book is specifically about Him. 2) John the Baptist, John 1:15 says 'this is Him!" Who? --> the Lord Jesus Christ. There is no other 'Him' here. BUT John also says this Word is Jesus in John 1:17.
Let me stop for now and ask: Can you possibly disagree with anything I've written here without it being driven by anything other than the text in question? I don't believe it is possible. The text simply is this clear. "If" you disagree, explain from this text and make sure it is consistent and possible. I don't believe any other interpretation is possible. -Lon
Greetings again Lon,
Kind regards
Trevor
I appreciate your detailed response, but even in the above portion I am not sure if we agree or what you exactly believe or state. Are you saying that you have a Degree in Biblical Hebrew? If so do you agree with Tyndale and the RV and RSV margins which suggest “I will be” instead of “I AM”? Also I agree and use the titles associated with Jesus, but I do not know what you exactly mean by these titles. Yes I believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Christ, the Son of God and the Son of Man. Jesus is unique to combine all of these and is unique in EVERY one of these.
At the end you ask: “Can you possibly disagree with anything I've written here” and I hope you do not mind if I am too pedantic or picky or try to be too precise. Now I agree with your definition: “Only Begotten means literally God's only offspring”. But I disagree with your statement or further elaboration of this that “In further terms then, the Lord Jesus Christ is literally the only one to inherit deity”. I believe that “only begotten” has reference to the fact that God the Father was the father of Jesus in the conception / birth process Matthew 1:20-21, Luke 1:34-35, and as such the child born was a human, not “inherit deity”. When does the term “Only Begotten” apply to Jesus, at his conception/birth? And lastly I am absolutely confused by your statement: “We are made, He was born.” Both we and Jesus are conceived and born, but Jesus is unique in having God the Father as his father. Could you please explain your statement? Have we got off to a good start?
God the Father is the Creator. There is one God the Father. I will separate Colossians 1:15 at this time, except to say God created all things with Jesus in mind. Jesus is the Creator of the New Creation. I use Psalm 8 in support of my position.
Some translations have “it” instead of “him”, consistent with the concept “WORD”. I have clipped the other verses.
The WORD pre-existed, not Jesus. It is talking about a moral quality, not a pre-existing Divine Being.
Yes John 1:14 is all about Jesus, the Son of God.
I am not sure if you accept some of my comments and questions, and whether these are up to your English Teacher standards. I expect a low mark and many red lines and comments on my examination paper.
Kind regards
Trevor
Speaking of Colossians 1:15. The Word (Jesus), is not a created being.
Jehovah's Witnesses' New World Translation Bible has added the term, "other" to the text, four times - to suit their interpretation that Jesus is a created being.
Col 1 (NWT)
15 He is the image of the invisible God,+ the firstborn of all creation;+
16 because by means of him all other things were created in the heavens and on the earth, the things visible and the things invisible,+ whether they are thrones or lordships or governments or authorities. All other things have been created through him+ and for him.
17 Also, he is before all other things,+ and by means of him all other things were made to exist,
https://carm.org/col-115-firstborn-all-creation
How does Psalm 8 support Jesus and the New Creation?
Psalm 8 refers to GOD......unless you're now saying Jesus and God are One and the same?
Can you explain, pls?
Anyway....
Of course Jesus is the Creator of the New Creation, because He is God Himself!
One of the support for this is Isaiah 65:
Isaiah 65
The Glorious New Creation
17 “For behold, I create new heavens and a new earth;
And the former shall not be remembered or come to mind.
Jesus is the human name of The WORD.
Jesus is God's name as man.
No, The Word isn't a moral quality - He is the only begotten! He is also God.
John 1
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
John 1
14 And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.
John 1:1 clearly declares The Word was God.
John 1:3 reinforces that The Word was The Creator.
John 1
3 All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.
Without a Creator, there wouldn't be any creation.
John 1:14 describes the only begotten (offspring), as being full of grace and truth (the moral quality of GOD/Jesus) - as witnessed by disciples.
Last edited:
Greetings again betsy123,
Kind regards
Trevor
I appreciate your response, but I will only mention a few things. I am not a JW and do not agree with their alteration of Colossians 1:16 or their explanation.
Yes, Yahweh our Lord Psalm 8:1 is speaking about God the Father, the Creator of heaven and earth. Psalm 8 uses the framework of language and ideas from the Genesis creation to speak about the New Creation, with Christ’s suffering, exaltation and being granted dominion and subjection of all things to Jesus in the future as the central focus of this Psalm.
Could you explain the term “the only begotten of the Father”. How can someone be begotten by God and also be God at the same time? When was Jesus begotten and what is the full range of meaning of this term “only begotten” as used in John 1:14 and John 3:16?
Kind regards
Trevor
Lon
Well-known member
You have to agree: Being born of God means that He is deity. Whatever flesh is, is a creation. God is Spirit. Flesh is a creation. The hinge point is whether the scriptures refer to the Lord Jesus Christ as existing before His inception (birth). You certainly can adhere to Hebrews which states He is a man familiar with our flesh and the perfect Mediator between God and man because He is familiar with our flesh and He is also God.
Hebrews says this too. It is a bit off of John 1 but I'm saying another book agrees with you, just be sure to agree with all of it.
:nono: See here. None here.
No, there is nothing in the text to allow this. It is a made-up concept. You'd suggest the 'trinity' isn't in the bible, but John 1:1 is close enough.
You've said a LOT here that simply is not in the scripture, literally. It is what you decided it meant and it is 'deductive' reasoning that you and a few others 'decided' it must/have to have meant. What is very important here, is that you recognize that it is, however tangible to you, 'made-up.'
I simply cannot do theology this way. Scripture has to say it or its just one guy's interpretation or another. We have to get away from all that and simply read it for what it says. Nothing made up. Just what it says.
This is THE problem with every unbiblical doctrine: It simply cannot be shown from the Bible AND it disagrees with other very pedantic passages (such as Colossians 1:15-20).
Let me ask: What is driving this interpretation? A desire to not worship any but the one true God? Something is driving this 'deductive' reasoning on your part. It is a 'principle' inside of you that is causing it to happen. The principle may be good, but I'd suggest its allowing you to make-it-up and drives your deductions of scripture, perhaps in a bad way (to be seen).
Well, yes, but as I've said, I try to stay of the pedestal. Our degrees do qualify us for what we are doing so there is a pedestal that is needed respective to our degrees, but I'm not trying to use it in any untoward fashion. "All about" leaves 'it' off the table, doesn't it? From my Greek studies, I've not seen αὐτός translated 'it.' αὐτός is a personal pronoun (he she, they, them).
Similar to John 1:1 --> I don't understand how you, for instance, could be 'with' you. You aren't able really to be 'with' yourself. John 1:1 provides two states of being that we cannot grasp from our limitation and physical constraints. Remembering God is not physical, but Spirit, helps, but still remains a difficult concept. We can either leave it a mystery, or come at it to try to ensure whatever we 'deduce' matches carefully with scripture but very very often, such 'speculation' (deduction) leads to heresy (meaning it might look right with some scriptures, but it completely discounts or would ruin other scripture truths). In Him -Lon
Greetings again Lon
Luke 1:34–35 (KJV): 34 Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man? 35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.
Romans 1:1–4 (KJV): 1 Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God, 2 (Which he had promised afore by his prophets in the holy scriptures,) 3 Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh; 4 And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead:
Hebrews 5:1–9 (KJV) 1 For every high priest taken from among men is ordained for men in things pertaining to God, that he may offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins: 2 Who can have compassion on the ignorant, and on them that are out of the way; for that he himself also is compassed with infirmity. 3 And by reason hereof he ought, as for the people, so also for himself, to offer for sins. 4 And no man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron. 5 So also Christ glorified not himself to be made an high priest; but he that said unto him, Thou art my Son, to day have I begotten thee. 6 As he saith also in another place, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec. 7 Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he feared; 8 Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered; 9 And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;
Proverbs 8:27–31 (KJV): 27 When he prepared the heavens, I was there: when he set a compass upon the face of the depth: 28 When he established the clouds above: when he strengthened the fountains of the deep: 29 When he gave to the sea his decree, that the waters should not pass his commandment: when he appointed the foundations of the earth: 30 Then I was by him, as one brought up with him: and I was daily his delight, rejoicing always before him; 31 Rejoicing in the habitable part of his earth; and my delights were with the sons of men.
Kind regards
Trevor
This has confused me. Jesus was flesh and blood. His conception was unique because God the Father was His father, but his conception did not make him God or a God-man. God could have made anything, a robot or any other thing, but he conceived Jesus by means of the Holy Spirit to start the process of the egg of Mary forming in the womb and growing until birth. I imagine that you would like to superimpose your view from John 1:14, that “Son of God” means that He is Deity, upon the following:
Luke 1:34–35 (KJV): 34 Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man? 35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.
Romans 1:1–4 (KJV): 1 Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God, 2 (Which he had promised afore by his prophets in the holy scriptures,) 3 Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh; 4 And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead:
The following gives the detail of his qualifications to be High Priest. It does mention that He is the Son of God, but there is no proof here that Jesus is Deity:
Hebrews 5:1–9 (KJV) 1 For every high priest taken from among men is ordained for men in things pertaining to God, that he may offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins: 2 Who can have compassion on the ignorant, and on them that are out of the way; for that he himself also is compassed with infirmity. 3 And by reason hereof he ought, as for the people, so also for himself, to offer for sins. 4 And no man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron. 5 So also Christ glorified not himself to be made an high priest; but he that said unto him, Thou art my Son, to day have I begotten thee. 6 As he saith also in another place, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec. 7 Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he feared; 8 Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered; 9 And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;
I am not sure why you are quoting John 1:14 here.
I could narrate my understanding of this subject from my youth, my understanding for example of Matthew 1:20-21 and Luke 1:34-35, my introduction to the Yahweh Name when I was 19 and contact with a Plymouth Brother in my early 20s, when he did raise John 1:1,14. In other words, this is my environment and my thinking and that of my fellowship to this day. I was disappointed that you would not answer my question concerning “I will be” rather than “I AM” for Exodus 3:14. This teaching more than anything else has supplanted any feasibility of the Trinity in my mind and most of my fellowship.
John 1:1-4 (Tyndale): 1 In the beginnynge was the worde and the worde was with God: and the worde was God. 2 The same was in the beginnynge with God. 3 All thinges were made by it and with out it was made nothinge that was made. 4 In it was lyfe and the lyfe was ye lyght of men and the lyght shyneth in the darcknes but the darcknes comprehended it not.
The Wise Woman WISDOM was with God in the creation:
Proverbs 8:27–31 (KJV): 27 When he prepared the heavens, I was there: when he set a compass upon the face of the depth: 28 When he established the clouds above: when he strengthened the fountains of the deep: 29 When he gave to the sea his decree, that the waters should not pass his commandment: when he appointed the foundations of the earth: 30 Then I was by him, as one brought up with him: and I was daily his delight, rejoicing always before him; 31 Rejoicing in the habitable part of his earth; and my delights were with the sons of men.
Kind regards
Trevor
Psalm 8
The Glory of the Lord in Creation
To the Chief Musician. On the instrument of Gath. A Psalm of David.
8 O Lord, our Lord,
How excellent is Your name in all the earth,
Who have set Your glory above the heavens!
2
Out of the mouth of babes and nursing infants
You have ordained strength,
Because of Your enemies,
That You may silence the enemy and the avenger.
3
When I consider Your heavens, the work of Your fingers,
The moon and the stars, which You have ordained,
4
What is man that You are mindful of him,
And the son of man that You visit[c] him?
5
For You have made him a little lower than [d]the angels,
And You have crowned him with glory and honor.
6
You have made him to have dominion over the works of Your hands;
You have put all things under his feet,
7
All sheep and oxen—
Even the beasts of the field,
8
The birds of the air,
And the fish of the sea
That pass through the paths of the seas.
9
O Lord, our Lord,
How excellent is Your name in all the earth!
Psalm 8 speaks of mankind (Genesis creation), and Jesus as the "representative" of mankind.
Jesus Christ (as a human), was made lower than the angels.
BUT, as the SON of God, He was not!
Hebrews 1 attests to that!
In fact, Hebrews 1, also identifies Jesus as God Himself (He and God as One and the same), referring to Jesus as "GOD."
Hebrews 1
God’s Supreme Revelation
1 God, who at various times and in various ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets,
2 has in these last days spoken to us by His Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the worlds;
3 who being the brightness of His glory and the express image of His person, and upholding all things by the word of His power, when He had by Himself purged our sins, sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, 4 having become so much better than the angels, as He has by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.
Hebrews 1 affirms THE WORD is Jesus Christ.
God made the worlds through Him - through THE WORD!
God SPOKE His creation into existence.
Hebrews 1
The Son Exalted Above Angels
5 For to which of the angels did He ever say:
“You are My Son,
Today I have begotten You”?
And again:
“I will be to Him a Father,
And He shall be to Me a Son”?
6 But when He again brings the firstborn into the world, He says:
“Let all the angels of God worship Him.”
7 And of the angels He says:
“Who makes His angels spirits
And His ministers a flame of fire.”
8 But to the Son He says:
“Your throne, O God, is forever and ever;
A scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Your kingdom.
9
You have loved righteousness and hated lawlessness;
Therefore God, Your God, has anointed You
With the oil of gladness more than Your companions.”
10 And:
“You, Lord, in the beginning laid the foundation of the earth,
And the heavens are the work of Your hands.
11
They will perish, but You remain;
And they will all grow old like a garment;
12
Like a cloak You will fold them up,
And they will be changed.
But You are the same,
And Your years will not fail.”
13 But to which of the angels has He ever said:
“Sit at My right hand,
Till I make Your enemies Your footstool”?
14 Are they not all ministering spirits sent forth to minister for those who will inherit salvation?
How can there be two Gods?
How can God be everywhere? (Omnipresence)
How can His knowledge and understanding be infinite? (Omniscience)
With God, anything is possible!
Matthew 19
24 Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.”
25 When the disciples heard this, they were greatly astonished and asked, “Who then can be saved?”
26 And looking at them Jesus said to them, "With people this is impossible, but with God all things are possible."
Jesus had described the power of God with that statement.
It is a sweeping statement. It doesn't pertain only to that event in Matthew 19.
All things are possible with God - therefore, nothing is impossible with Him!
Luke 1
36 And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren.
37 For with God nothing shall be impossible.
- because with God nothing shall be impossible.
Again, a sweeping statement that describes the power of God.
God Himself, had spoken of His power:
Jeremiah 32:27
"Behold, I am the LORD, the God of all flesh; is anything too difficult for Me?"
Being unable to grasp the concept of OMNIPOTENCE of God, is a common problem by non-believers and non-Trinitarians.
The term ALMIGHTY, has been used numerous times to describe the power of God.
I hope this explanation helps:
https://www.gotquestions.org/only-begotten-son.html
Thus Jesus (as Son and human), had shown us by example what true obedience is to the Father.....for we are required to be obedient! That requirement is a must!
Obedience comes hand-in-hand with faith in God.
Greetings again betsy123,
Kind regards
Trevor
There is only One God the Father. Our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God is seated at the right hand of God.
Kind regards
Trevor
Well of course there can only be one God the Father!
That's not the point, is it?
Both the Father and the Son are being called, "GOD!"
That's the big issue!
Therefore, they're One and the Same!
That is a fact, because there can't be two Gods!
Because if we do have two Gods, that would make YHWH irrational, and the Bible unreliable!
Just imagine that - YHWH calling Jesus "God!"
Wouldn't that be irrational if Jesus is not God Himself?
Who'd benefit from that? Satan!
That would be to the best interest of Satan - whose goal is to have mankind turn away from the Bible and God!
Greetings again betsy123,
Kind regards
Trevor
I believe in the omnipotence of God, but I do not believe that Jesus is both God in the sense of being from eternity and also begotten by God in the sense of being derived from God. Something that is fully contradictory is impossible.
Yes I agree with this.
I agree with this in part, but in another sense Isaac is the only truly spiritual son of Abraham. I understand the term “only begotten” w.r.t. Jesus only refers to the fact that God the Father was the father of Jesus in the conception / birth process.
Yes.
We can play with words, but Trinitarians claim that there is One God, the Father, The Son and The Holy Spirit, while I believe that there is One God, the Father and that our Lord Jesus Christ is not God in the English sense of the word, but he is God (Hebrew Elohim) in the Bible sense of the word because he represents God the Father. Jesus is the Son of God, by birth, by moral character, by resurrection.Well of course there can only be one God the Father!
Kind regards
Trevor
Lon
Well-known member
Somebody had a hold of you, long before I ever came on the scene. What you HAVE to figure out, is which one of us is correct. The guy with no degree, or the one with two? Better would be just listening to those scriptures. If you are born, you are exactly half your father and half your mother. Scripture, further, states unequivocally that the Lord Jesus Christ is the Son of God. An attempted stoning occured specifically because they believed implicitly, He claimed to be God. It is that clear. You make huge mistakes here: Jesus didn't deny it. He didn't say "I never said that!" Every cult must worry that their doctrine cannot stand against scripture.
Side note, my comment was not to get us off John 1....
The Plymouth Brethren are Trinitarians.
Because it is a distraction. Every cultist I ever talk to, distracts instead of addressing the text. You asked why I'd use John 1:14 -- because we are addressing whether John 1 says the Lord Jesus Christ is God. Yep. It does.
It doesn't do anything. John 1:1 says "with" AND 'was.' How? I don't know BUT to ignore one in PREFERENCE of the other is scripturally wrong. It is you being obstinant against the teachings of God. John is quite clear, even if it confuses. It is STILL to be believed, not explained away or ignored. You do that to your own demise and MUST answer to God for it. He said plainly: "was" AND 'was with.' Your denial is your problem, not mine. I believe. You explain it away and don't read scripture context very well (neither do any of the other cultists, they are terrible at English and languages).
lain: See here and here "He." Tyndale was no great scholar. He was labelled a heretic, not because he wrote an English Bible, but because he did it alone and with no other input. It is more of a paraphrase than a proper translation. While 'it' is available such is the exception than the rule and Tydale (and you) failed to read the very next line of verse 14 where the "Word" was expressly Jesus Christ: "He." Hebrew is an entirely different subject than Greek and this passage. IOW, you can't use it as a talking point for its mere coincidence. It isn't proper inductive Bible study, but is deductive. If you want all your theology built off your own deductions, you become the author of your own God, regardless of what He says. Me? I want to follow Him, NOT be self-willed in my understanding and follow Him (not attempt to have He follow me). You have to decide who gets to be God and who gets to listen in your theology. This is your only choice, Trevor. You or Him. Choose this day whom you will serve. I know what John 1 says. You have to know or are left to deductive mistakes and guessing. -Lon
Greetings again Lon,
Exodus 3:12-14 (Tyndale): 12 And he sayde: I wilbe with the. And this shalbe a token vnto the that I haue sent the: after that thou hast broughte the people out of Egipte, ye shall serue God vppon this mountayne. 13 Than sayde Moses vnto God: when I come vnto the childern of Israell and saye vnto them, the God of youre fathers hath sent me vnto you, ad they saye vnto me, what ys his name, what answere shall I geuethem? 14 Then sayde God vnto Moses: I wilbe what I wilbe: ad he sayde, this shalt thou saye vnto the children of Israel: I wilbe dyd send me to you. 15 And God spake further vnto Moses: thus shalt thou saye vnto the children of Israell: the Lorde God of youre fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Iacob hath sent me vnto you: this is my name for euer, and this is my memoriall thorow out all generacyons.
846 αὐτός [autos /ow·tos/] pron. From the particle au [perhaps akin to the base of 109 through the idea of a baffling wind] (backward); GK 899; 5118 occurrences; AV translates as “him” 1947 times, “them” 1148 times, “her” 195 times, “it” 152 times, not translated 36 times, and translated miscellaneously 1676 times. 1 himself, herself, themselves, itself. 2 he, she, it. 3 the same.
Revelation 2:1 (Tyndale) Unto the messenger of the congregacion of Ephesus wryte: These thynges sayth he that holdeth the vii. starres in his right honde and walketh in the myddes of the vii. golden candlestyckes.
Seeing you also contribute to Calvinism, you would be against the concept of “The Clarity of the Scriptures” and the ploughboy and non-conformists. This seems to be what you are saying next:
Kind regards
Trevor
I suggest that your trust in your two degrees may be an impediment when it comes to considering what the Bible actually says. If Matthew and Luke were written before John’s record, then the early disciples may have understood Matthew 1:20-21 and Luke 1:34-35 some years before they compared John 1:1-14. My early education was in the earlier two and only in my mature years did I consider the latter. Most Trinitarians seem to start with John 1 and ignore Matthew and Luke. But as you suggest in the following, let us look at the Scriptures.
I doubt that many Trinitarians would support your conjecture that because God the Father was the father of Jesus that this made him exactly half God. I thought that Trinitarians believed that the 2nd Person of the Trinity was somehow incarnated in this process and Jesus thus possessed two natures. You then state that this is why Jesus is the Son of God and you then move to your next deduction that Son of God=God. I will remain in my cult instead of accepting your logic. Also you have not explained WHEN Jesus was begotten John 1:14,3:16.
Yes, this was my first real encounter with the Trinitarian view of John 1:1,14. I wrote a reply including the reference Psalm 33:6-9 and Isaiah 55:8-11 including the sense of partial personification. We did not progress any further, but we remained friends. He was close to retirement and I was in my early 20s.
As you stated before, someone got to me early, while Trinitarians are told to start in John’s Gospel and virtually ignore Matthew and Mark. While looking at Tyndale in response to you comment below, I couldn’t help myself, and I copied Exodus 3:14 and its CONTEXT. Perhaps when we fail to progress on John 1:1 you may like to consider this. My cult youth leader introduced me to some of these concepts at a Youth Study Weekend when I was 19.
Exodus 3:12-14 (Tyndale): 12 And he sayde: I wilbe with the. And this shalbe a token vnto the that I haue sent the: after that thou hast broughte the people out of Egipte, ye shall serue God vppon this mountayne. 13 Than sayde Moses vnto God: when I come vnto the childern of Israell and saye vnto them, the God of youre fathers hath sent me vnto you, ad they saye vnto me, what ys his name, what answere shall I geuethem? 14 Then sayde God vnto Moses: I wilbe what I wilbe: ad he sayde, this shalt thou saye vnto the children of Israel: I wilbe dyd send me to you. 15 And God spake further vnto Moses: thus shalt thou saye vnto the children of Israell: the Lorde God of youre fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Iacob hath sent me vnto you: this is my name for euer, and this is my memoriall thorow out all generacyons.
Perhaps I am slow or dumb, but you seem to be replacing the “WORD” with “Jesus” or the 2nd Person of the Trinity.
But neither of these two references seem to demand that we use “he” rather than “it” in John 1. Here is my Enhanced Strong’s Lexicon:
846 αὐτός [autos /ow·tos/] pron. From the particle au [perhaps akin to the base of 109 through the idea of a baffling wind] (backward); GK 899; 5118 occurrences; AV translates as “him” 1947 times, “them” 1148 times, “her” 195 times, “it” 152 times, not translated 36 times, and translated miscellaneously 1676 times. 1 himself, herself, themselves, itself. 2 he, she, it. 3 the same.
Tyndale was persecuted for a number of reasons, and one was that he worked outside the established Church. Perhaps for one thing, they did not like his use of the word “Congregation” rather that “Church”.
Revelation 2:1 (Tyndale) Unto the messenger of the congregacion of Ephesus wryte: These thynges sayth he that holdeth the vii. starres in his right honde and walketh in the myddes of the vii. golden candlestyckes.
Seeing you also contribute to Calvinism, you would be against the concept of “The Clarity of the Scriptures” and the ploughboy and non-conformists. This seems to be what you are saying next:
Seems a valid deduction to me. The NT is based upon the OT, not Greek philosophy.
Kind regards
Trevor
Lon
Well-known member
"Your" deduction. I didn't say that. I find those who draw conclusions of this nature, do so with scriptures as well. What being the offspring of God does, indeed ensure, is that He inherits deity. Is this the part where we trample one-another's education and where-with-all? So be it. God does cover our mistakes, but it is problematic if they are arrogant and willful. We have to own our own. I'll leave you to your's.
It isn't that easy. We know He became man to understand man, thus, though God knows His creation, we simply have to read, listen, and watch what He means. Every Trinitarian understands this.
"Son of God" means that He God's Son, yes, and that He is close to Him as well.
It is inductive as well.
Or God's? Seems like, Trevor. Stay in it then. Why come to a Triune (Trinitarian) board and argue about it then? I'm definitely not, as a well-educated scholar, going to see anything one who has no degree in any of this, has to say. Tell me: Why would I even want to listen to a laymen not nearly as vested in this as I am? I mean you don't care as much about this kind of study (not a slam, just a recognition that you didn't care to get this degree), why should one who cares less, be listened to? What is my motivation? What is the point?
Er, you think 'created' means 'begotten?' I realize a lot of cultists confuse the two, not having an adequate English degree nor Bible degree, but why is this means for an odd cult? Why not listen to your pastors, who are all Trinitarian, instead?
Poor deductive reasoning on your part. I've read Matthew and Mark AND before I read John. You are simply grasping at straws here. The reason? Isn't this the place where you take exception, become indignant, and belligerent because you cannot accept you are wrong? Isn't it acting out? Let me state this. CLEARLY: "IF" I ever were convinced of the Unitarian/ Arian position, FROM scripture, I'd change on a dime. The fact of the matter is I'm very well versed in my bible and know exactly what it says. I cannot be but a trinitarian because it is the ONLY mediating position between Modalism and Arian (polytheism) heresies. Modalists believe (rightly) that Jesus is God, but wrongly believe "He and the Father are One (and the same). I've more patience with Modalists because they are more biblical and deny much less of the given scriptures (try to remember you are pitting Matthew and Mark against John). Modalists don't do that. I don't do that. Arians and Unitarians do that! There are several on here that don't accept Paul as an Apostle :noway:
A youth leader does not a studied theologian make. You are preferring 'ad hoc' to 'tried, studied, and proven.'
▲notice above that 'it' is rarely used? Look again "him" almost 2000 times. "Them" over 1000. "it" less than 200. I ALREADY told you why AND how one would be able to use 'it' (impersonal pronoun). Autos is a 'personal' pronoun, buddy.
Look: If 'it' were acceptable, you'd have to follow 'it' as the translation down to John 1:12 "It gave to all who believed in 'its' name...
"It" doesn't make sense because 'it' doesn't have a name to believe in, nor can 'it' give a 'right to become children of God.'
John 1:14 gets worse: we have seen 'its' glory, the "Glory of the of the Only Son of the Father." :doh:
TRY TREVOR! TRY~!
No. Not kind at all, Trevor. Your unstudied angst is showing. I'm a bit confrontational, but only in the sense that you are literally trying to post your imagined prowess as if it were a pearl of great price you've spent literally nothing on obtaining. No degree. Proverbs 4:7 Why do you disdain GOOD teaching? I'm not teaching you anything bad!
Is this the part where we leave John 1 behind so you can prognosticate and try to use your backyard studying for no other purpose than to be arrogant and disdainful? There are a lot of scholars that ignore this kind of thing and try the gentle approach, but I'm one of those who believes it a problem, if not a sin, to be this arrogant, disdainful, and forgive, ignorantly willful. My 'Calvinism' is smoke and mirrors. It is of no consequence in this discussion (whether I am one or not). It is just again, your use of unfair play, ignorance, and disdain without any regard for the Lord and His scriptures, Trevor. No, it isn't kind of you at all in regards. I'm sorry to be this confrontational, but you need to take a solid look inward for awhile. You've no intention of EVER changing, even should the Lord Jesus Christ come and rebuke you Himself. You are posturing. I wish it were 'for' the Lord Jesus Christ rather than against Him here.
In sorrow -Lon
Last edited:
It's your statement that's contradictory!
You say you believe in the omnipotence of God and yet you couldn't believe that Jesus is God Himself (as human) because as you say, Jesus, "being from eternity and also begotten by God in the sense of being derived from God," is impossible!
So, on one hand you say you believe in the omnipotence of God, and yet on the other you're saying God cannot do the impossible!
If you get the concept of omnipotence, you'd know that nothing is impossible with God!
We've got 3 verses - 2 from Jesus, and I from God (describing the power of God) - supporting that! Your belief disagrees with Them!
God even challenged by asking, "Is there anything too hard for the Lord?" (Gen 18:14)
Make that a question of God to you.
You're saying yes!
You're saying, He can't be Jesus too - because that'll be too hard for Him!
It's impossible!!
And yet you say you believe He's omnipotent?
Lol. You're now full of contradictions!
Do you believe He's omnipotent, or not?
You can't have it both ways!
Evidences were given to show you that it's what you believe that's fully contradictory to the Scriptures, too.
Notice how you simply just dig in your heels and keep insisting that it's "contradictory" without giving any rebuttals to the evidences given?
Ask yourself:
why can't you give any sound rebuttals to the evidences given?
If your belief rests on solid ground - you'd be able to defend it easily!
But as we all see, as I've noted above - you're full of contradictions!
How can your belief be The Truth?
You don't believe - despite the evidences from the Scriptures that show Jesus/God
are One and the Same.
It brings to mind this:
John 12
Belief and Unbelief Among the Jews
37 Even after Jesus had performed so many signs in their presence, they still would not believe in him. 38 This was to fulfill the word of Isaiah the prophet:
“Lord, who has believed our message
and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?”[h]
39 For this reason they could not believe, because, as Isaiah says elsewhere:
40
“He has blinded their eyes
and hardened their hearts,
so they can neither see with their eyes,
nor understand with their hearts,
nor turn—and I would heal them.”
What you believe wouldn't matter - it would've been just petty differences - IF IT DOESN'T GO AGAINST GOD'S STIPULATION.
But it does goes against the very First Commandment: idolatry!
That's what makes your belief dangerous, and self-destructive.
Last edited:
truly SPIRITUAL son - what on earth do you even mean by that?
Explain what you mean by this so-called, "conception process!"
UNLESS you're saying God had sex with Mary and actually fathered Jesus -
wouldn't this so-called, "SPIRITUAL SON," fit Jesus more than Isaac?
After all, Isaac was actually fathered by Abraham with Sara! Theirs involved physical union!
Lol. If Abraham was able to physically father Ishmael - we know that he was still physically capable of it, don't we?
Contradictions again, Trevor.
There's no playing with words, here Trevor. You said there is only one God the Father! I was simply agreeing with you. The other two distinctions of God, is that of The Son and The Holy Spirit.
It's not about what we prefer to believe, Trevor.
It's all about what's in the Scriptures.