Jesus is God !

[NWL]

It doesn't matter what the reason, it doesn't help anything. I too have seen it plenty on TOL, but such rarely does anything except show a bit of exasperation when someone doesn't get it.

Whilst you're entitled to your opinion, I disagree with you. People need to know when they or their reasoning is stupid, lacking good sense. Beloved57 has again replied to me saying "U can't do it can u?", in reference to me not being able to show a scripture that states Jesus isn't the 'one true' and 'living' God, despite me clearly admitting and explaining the reason why I or anyone could never do such a thing, as literature in general rarely denies the negative. Insanity has been defined as doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results, Beloved57 repeats himself over and over despite me clearly answering his question and explaining why his line of thinking is silly, still, he chooses to persist, he is acting in unintelligent and in a stupid manner, hopefully, me telling him shows this.

Only some of them. If I only read what a Unitarian reads, then I'd agree, but the rest of scriptures give a larger and different picture. To ignore that Thomas, for instance, clearly said "my Lord and my God" "To Jesus" is to ignore the rest of scriptures. I have a bit of empathy, but it stops when scriptures give details. Unitarianism ultimately, becomes polytheism and I'm strictly monotheistic because I believe scripture demands it and that there can be no exceptions. When the Lord Jesus Christ quoted 'ye are gods,' it is caveated in a strict and limited sense as an adjective, not a noun (in some respects, the image of our Creator). Anything further is polytheism and outside of Jewish/Christian monotheism.

As I tried to express in my last reply to you, if you think unitarianism becomes polytheism then what do you do with Exo 7:1 where it calls Moses God, with Ps 8:5 when is calls Angels Gods (compare Hebrews 2:7), when it calls a human King God in Psalms 45:6? Surely you don't see any of these beings as God/god, but rather see them as gods in a different sense, you do this to harmonize the bible calling other beings GODS, and this is where we differ. I accept scripture for what it states, there is "one God the Father", and this is exactly what I believe, you on the other hand see 1 Cor 8:6, as well as John 20:28, and instead of trying to harmonize scripture, as you'll do with Exo 7:1, Ps 8:5 and Ps 45:6, you merge John 20:28, claiming Jesus was almighty God according to the text, despite the outcome being contradictory. Planing stated you rejected the categories Paul speaks about in 1 Cor 8:4-6.

:doh: "Perfectly expressed" then 'not have the same soundness?' :nono: These are in-congruent.

What I said was in regard to your statement, "Most of us are caught between modalism and polytheism/Arian concepts. None of these express clearly what the scriptures convey", calm down.

You don't know what a run-on sentence is? Try not to let pride stand in the way on these issues. There is a strong evidence that Unitarians aren't as adept at grammar. Its a GOOD thing. Why? Because God reaches us through grace. You 'can' get scriptures wrong, and still be His. He makes and molds us in His image. I've met a good many ex-Unitarians/Arians. I admit that there are a few who cannot adequately explain the Triune view (trinitarian) at times. We don't believe in three gods (polytheism) either, just emphasize God's distinctions blurring the lines, but the triune view does see and agree with Modalists about there only being one God and Arians, that the Father is not the Son is not the Spirit.

No, it didn't know what a "R.O sentence" meant, a run-on sentence I do, however, the abbreviation got me. Let's assume my level of English disgustingly poor, lets pretend your ridiculous claim that "Unitarians aren't as adept at grammar" is also incorrect, even though some of the best scholarly work has been produced by unitarians (Thayer) and some of the smartest men in the world became unitarian when reviewing the evidence (Isaac Newton). Let's assume that your comments to me about my grammar isn't an attempt to 'put me down' or 'shame me', most probably because I called Beloved57 stupid, according to his reasoning. Next time you try and hit a nerve try or try and make someone seem stupid, try and use something a bit more damaging than them using a comma over a period/full stop. Usually when I write on these forums its at the dead of night without proofreading, please forgive any grammatical mistakes I make here on out.

Somewhat accurate, I haven't read all of your exchanges, however, I do recognize what he is saying, I believe. It is that 'unless' you could find very very clear proof that Jesus isn't God, that he'd not ever be persuade, such is the strength of his conviction. It isn't necessarily 'stupid' for that, just an insistence I think I understand.

I find it hard to believe you could have come to the conclusion you have based on what he's said, he's not asking for "very very clear proof that Jesus isn't God", he asking for proof where a scriture sttaes Jesus isn't two very specific terms, namely, the "one true" and "living" God. I made this extremely clear in my last reply to you and he's made the point extremely clear too, could it be your readining and comprehending skills are as bad as my writing skills? I think so.

Please find Beloved57 questions to me below, try and read and comprehend them more honestly this time, stop pretending he has a point, you know his reasoning here is dead in the water.

Beloved57 remarks to NWL:
So then you can not find a scripture that explicitly says Christ is not theone true and living God!
Where does it say that Christ is not the One True and Living God?
Show me a scripture that says Jesus is not the one only True God. You can't

Again, he clearly isn't asking for proof Jesus is not God, rather, he asking for 'explicit' texts that state Jesus is not the "one true" and "living God". Now tell me, is his reasoning here smart, or does it lack good sense in establishing whether or not Jesus is the 'one true' and 'living' God?

You are special pleading again. Terms mean something and you've called yourself a unit-arian already.

Rather than asserting I'm special pleading demonstrate how you think I am.

I agree with you, terms mean something, and yes I called myself a unitarian, I don't get your point here. If its to do with me saying in my last reply "the term 'Arianism' is a human invention" please do not take that to mean I do not accept man-made group identifications, since I do. The point I was making had to do with the language you used when you tried to make it seem like it is non-trinitarian groups that push the idea that other beings are referred to as 'GODS/gods' when it was not the case, it's the bible that pushes the idea that other beings are called gods and any other non-trinitarian groups.

The main points I made however you seemed to ignore, its the bible that states other beings exist separate from the 'one God' and yet are also called God and not any non-trinitarian group inventing the idea.

1 Corinthians 8:4So about eating food sacrificed to idols: 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 only 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

Did I 'lie' or do you need to apologize? :think:

It's an important paragraph from scripture and marks a need in your life today. I pray you are open to Him, I'm not really anything but a messenger today. Scripture is our goal and we being changed by it is the need, to be conformed to His image.

What was your quote again, "Scripture calls allother gods 'so-called-gods", such a statement can only be taken to mean that any person called "god" in the bible who isn't the 'one God' are "so-called" gods. Or put more simply, anyone who isn't the 'one God' is not a real God. Now, wherein 1 Cor 8:4-6 does it state this, hmmm, oh that's right, such an idea is nowhere found in the passage.

The passage you read from is poor, since a clear parallel is being made by Paul accompany the term "lord" with "god" in v5. The term "lord" was as common in Jesus day as it is in our day, it could be used in relation to Men, husbands, fathers, elders, kings, slave owners among other things, there were many lords in Jesus day. So it's very unlikely Paul was trying to express that person called "Lords" in his day were 'so-called Lords'. The scripture states when read literally "even truly if indeed there are called gods, whether in heaven or on earth, as there are gods many and lords many yet to us one God the Father", nowhere do we actually see the term 'so-called' anywhere in the verse. Based on the raw form Paul clearly states "there are gods many", this is also what the bible clearly demonstrates.

When Moses was called God in Exo 7:1, or the Angels were called GODS in Ps 8:5 (compare Hebrews 2:7), or when a human king was called GOD in Ps 45:6, are they gods or are they 'so-called' gods?

Paraphrases are just 'okay.' I've no bone to pick when someone is at least trying to give meaning when they try and put it in English, but let's look:
First of all, the KJV is one of your better translations because they do word-for-word from Greek to English when possible. "Son" doesn't appear in the Greek text:
Act 20:28 .. τοῦ Θεοῦ, ἣν περιποιήσατο διὰ τοῦ ἰδίου αἵματος.
"God purchased through his own blood" Literally.

The KJV a better translation, you couldn't be more wrong. I'm aware the term "Son" does not appear in the texts, in fact, every translator would have known that so why do we find it in there verse, why are trinitarian scholars choosing to insert a word which would actually aid them with their theology. Hmm, could it be because they know God wasn't talking about his own blood but rather used blood to express that it was his seed, his own blood (anthropomorphic language), namely Jesus, that gave his life.

This is also where trinitarian logic falls apart, you claim the verse states and refers to God giving his own blood, literally referring to Jesus Christ as almighty God dying for us, but you don't believe God died for us, since, if I ask you how it was possible for God to die, you'll no doubt tell me Jesus divinity, his Godhood did not die, but rather it was his divinity that died. Yet, Acts 20:28 apparently speaking about Jesus as God states "God purchased [the church] through his own blood", expressing it WAS God that shed his blood and not ONLY Jesus humnity.

So which is it Lon, did Jesus in his divinity give his blood for us by dying as Acts 20:28 apparently expresses, or rather, does the "blood" mentioned refer to God the Father purchasing the church by means of his own blood through his son who is his blood?

 

[NWL]

Is it your contention that the rule is not accurate? If so, how?

I explained how in my last reply to you, please refer back to it.

 

[NWL]

U can't do it can u?

Did you see my last post to you where I admitted I can't and explained why its irrevlant to both our points that I can't?

Did you also see where I asked a similar question back to you which you've chosen to ingore several times now?

Do you realize that you look incredibly stupid by saying the same thing over and over and choosing to ignore the things I raise?

 

[beloved57]

Did you see my last post to you where I admitted I can't and explained why its irrevlant to both our points that I can't?

Did you also see where I asked a similar question back to you which you've chosen to ingore several times now?

Do you realize that you look incredibly stupid by saying the same thing over and over and choosing to ignore the things I raise?

You asked me the same question over and over again, so how do you look? You get what you asked for!

 

[NWL]

You asked me the same question over and over again, so how do you look? You get what you asked for!

Stop trying to act like we're the same, we're not comparable in the slightest. I asked you the same question over and over because you refused to answer it, that's not the same as you asking me the same question to me over and over despite me already answering it. Again, you make yourself seem incredibly stupid in almost every given response. The best thing you could do right not is either stop replying to me or admit you weren't paying that much attention and actually deal with the issue I've raised. I highly doubt your previous posts on this thread are good and well thought out reasons as proof regards Jesus divinity as you previously claimed based on the quality of your recent posts to me.

 

[beloved57]

Stop trying to act like we're the same, we're not comparable in the slightest. I asked you the same question over and over because you refused to answer it, that's not the same as you asking me the same question to me over and over despite me already answering it. Again, you make yourself seem incredibly stupid in almost every given response. The best thing you could do right not is either stop replying to me or admit you weren't paying that much attention and actually deal with the issue I've raised. I highly doubt your previous posts on this thread are good and well thought out reasons as proof regards Jesus divinity as you previously claimed based on the quality of your recent posts to me.

Nobody said anything about us being the same. You ask a question, be ready to answer likewise question. Answering that question proves nothing against Jesus being Almighty God !

 

[Lon]

As I tried to express in my last reply to you, if you think unitarianism becomes polytheism then what do you do with Exo 7:1 where it calls Moses God, with Ps 8:5 when is calls Angels Gods (compare Hebrews 2:7), when it calls a human King God in Psalms 45:6? Surely you don't see any of these beings as God/god, but rather see them as gods in a different sense, you do this to harmonize the bible calling other beings GODS, and this is where we differ. I accept scripture for what it states, there is "one God the Father", and this is exactly what I believe, you on the other hand see 1 Cor 8:6, as well as John 20:28, and instead of trying to harmonize scripture, as you'll do with Exo 7:1, Ps 8:5 and Ps 45:6, you merge John 20:28, claiming Jesus was almighty God according to the text, despite the outcome being contradictory. Planing stated you rejected the categories Paul speaks about in 1 Cor 8:4-6.

Thus, and genuinely polytheism. It is 'why' we are having this conversation. 1 Corinthians 8:5For 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. 7But not everyone has this knowledge. Some people are still so accustomed to idols

What I said was in regard to your statemen...calm down.

:dizzy:

No, it didn't know what a "R.O sentence" meant, a run-on sentence I do, however, the abbreviation got me. Let's assume my level of English disgustingly poor, lets pretend your ridiculous claim that "Unitarians aren't as adept at grammar" is also incorrect, even though some of the best scholarly work has been produced by unitarians

WIth run-on sentences, missed capitalization, etc.? Okay, let's assume.

(Thayer) and some of the smartest men in the world became unitarian when reviewing the evidence (Isaac Newton).

He was okay. He spent time writing upon other men's work, thus received the name for the lexicon, but he was simply the last man. Isaac Newton? :think:
See here.

Let's assume that your comments to me about my grammar isn't an attempt to 'put me down' or 'shame me', most probably because I called Beloved57 stupid, according to his reasoning.

Er, ask if you cannot read for context? As I've said, it just doesn't do anything for conversation. I don't have anything else for comment other than that and of course, you are free to disagree. I'm just saying for as long as I've seen it, it doesn't really convince anybody they are stupid. For me, it is better simply to call out the problem and see if the other rises to meet it. If not, exasperation is understood. It reminds me of the Proverb that says "don't correct a fool" and then "correct a fool." Don't, because it is a pain for you and me, do because he/she may be wise in his/her own eyes. In this case, I'd say 'stupid' doesn't accomplish much. We can drop this issue if you like.

Next time you try and hit a nerve try or try and make someone seem stupid, try and use something a bit more damaging than them using a comma over a period/full stop. Usually when I write on these forums its at the dead of night without proofreading, please forgive any grammatical mistakes I make here on out.

As I said, "MY" point was to say God can get a hold of us, even 'if' one doesn't have the where-with-all. Should Thayer have been an Arian? :nono: Nor against inerrancy either, he shouldn't have been. What it means? Most likely you don't agree with Thayer either, despite you believing he's 'one of the smartest.'

There are literally thousands of great scholars and Thayer but one of few who weren't Trinitarian. Most very smart, intelligent scholars, were and insist on a triune view. It means going to the very few that aren't, doesn't help AND that even you don't want to join Thayer on all his heresies. He believed the spirit of the Apostles was 'the Holy Spirit' for instance. :nono: Thayer also didn't believe in inerrancy. If you buy into him, down the line, I guess great, but he 1) didn't write his lexicon by himself but simply finished it. It IS a good source because it wasn't just his hand involved. He allowed, for instance, that Trinitarian theology was tenable (leaving a previous author's statement in tack).

I find it hard to believe you could have come to the conclusion you have based on what he's said, he's not asking for "very very clear proof that Jesus isn't God", he asking for proof where a scriture sttaes Jesus isn't two very specific terms, namely, the "one true" and "living" God. I made this extremely clear in my last reply to you and he's made the point extremely clear too, could it be your readining and comprehending skills are as bad as my writing skills? I think so.

I'd stack my reading comprehension grades up against your's but as I said, this doesn't have to be the thrust of discussion, just whether or not it help to tell someone why they are or are being 'stupid.'

Please find Beloved57 questions to me below, try and read and comprehend them more honestly this time, stop pretending he has a point, you know his reasoning here is dead in the water.

Beloved57 remarks to NWL:
So then you can not find a scripture that explicitly says Christ is not theone true and living God!
Where does it say that Christ is not the One True and Living God?
Show me a scripture that says Jesus is not the one only True God. You can't

Again, he clearly isn't asking for proof Jesus is not God, rather, he asking for 'explicit' texts that state Jesus is not the "one true" and "living God". Now tell me, is his reasoning here smart, or does it lack good sense in establishing whether or not Jesus is the 'one true' and 'living' God?

We can move on...

Rather than asserting I'm special pleading demonstrate how you think I am.

I've done so above. Whenever Arians/Unitarians list an exception (such as Thayer or Newton), they are picking out of a whole tree, one or two odd apples AGAINST every other apple in the tree (seemed an appropriate analogy since Newton was mentioned).

I agree with you, terms mean something, and yes I called myself a unitarian, I don't get your point here. If its to do with me saying in my last reply "the term 'Arianism' is a human invention" please do not take that to mean I do not accept man-made group identifications, since I do. The point I was making had to do with the language you used when you tried to make it seem like it is non-trinitarian groups that push the idea that other beings are referred to as 'GODS/gods' when it was not the case, it's the bible that pushes the idea that other beings are called gods and any other non-trinitarian groups.

There is a lot of confusion between Unitarians and Arians, where the ultimate end leads to polytheism. Thayer believed the Spirit was ALSO the people indwelled, like the Apostles. You'd not want to say he was 'smartest' when he had so many odd ideas just because he agrees with you, on one.

That said, should I bow to you? Do you believe you are a god? :think: Let's see how far you take this. As I said, we likely refer to God/gods differently by definition. It is yet my contention that unless you are able to create, out of your own being and own resources, you cannot rightly be called a god of any sort. In the sense that Moses went to Pharaoh, Moses never referred to himself as YHWH, nor even Elohim (the word God used). Instead he always referred to himself as the messenger of YHWH THUS it is ALWAYS meant not 'god' but clearly, by context alone (where I question your ability, right?) 'MESSENGER" of YHWH. Thus "I will make you a[n] elohime to Pharaoh" never meant that Pharaoh should bow down and worship Moses. The context of all scripture forbids the worship of men, therefore, there is a STRONG qualification on what it means "ye are gods" in Psalms. It clearly doesn't mean what you think and clearly needs to be strongly stated that we are 'gods' as an adjective/description, NOT as a noun. It is exactly this clear.

The main points I made however you seemed to ignore, its the bible that states other beings exist separate from the 'one God' and yet are also called God and not any non-trinitarian group inventing the idea.

Let's walk through this so at least you know why I dismiss this: Logically, Who created everything that exists? How many Gods? If ALL else was created, which 'could' be gods? :nono:

You can move along with disagreement, it just can never make sense to one who believes there is only one God. Genesis 1:1 Colossians 1:16-20 supports only one God.

What was your quote again, "Scripture calls allother gods 'so-called-gods", such a statement can only be taken to mean that any person called "god" in the bible who isn't the 'one God' are "so-called" gods. Or put more simply, anyone who isn't the 'one God' is not a real God. Now, wherein 1 Cor 8:4-6 does it state this, hmmm, oh that's right, such an idea is nowhere found in the passage.

Incorrect. What we do find out is that you don't want to see or care whether another person reads better than you, nor agrees with you. Okay. Fine. You've made your bed and have to lie on it.

The passage you read from is poor, since a clear parallel is being made by Paul accompany the term "lord" with "god" in v5. The term "lord" was as common in Jesus day as it is in our day, it could be used in relation to Men, husbands, fathers, elders, kings, slave owners among other things, there were many lords in Jesus day. So it's very unlikely Paul was trying to express that person called "Lords" in his day were 'so-called Lords'. The scripture states when read literally "even truly if indeed there are called gods, whether in heaven or on earth, as there are gods many and lords many yet to us one God the Father", nowhere do we actually see the term 'so-called' anywhere in the verse. Based on the raw form Paul clearly states "there are gods many", this is also what the bible clearly demonstrates.

I'd suggest our concept and definition of "God" is different. Because Scripture does not stop defining God, I believe it must/necessarily has to include only one who is capable of creating all things. It automatically means "just one."

When Moses was called God in Exo 7:1, or the Angels were called GODS in Ps 8:5 (compare Hebrews 2:7), or when a human king was called GOD in Ps 45:6, are they gods or are they 'so-called' gods?

Prophet/voice of God. Thus "Of God" not "God."

The KJV a better translation, you couldn't be more wrong.

Pure assertion. I didn't say it was superior to all translations, just to all paraphrases (which was all you posted).

I'm aware the term "Son" does not appear in the texts, in fact, every translator would have known that so why do we find it in there verse, why are trinitarian scholars choosing to insert a word which would actually aid them with their theology. Hmm, could it be because they know God wasn't talking about his own blood but rather used blood to express that it was his seed, his own blood (anthropomorphic language), namely Jesus, that gave his life.

Good, ask yourself the same question: they didn't at all mean what you 'paraphrased' it to mean. YOU took a paraphrase (somebody trying to explain something rather than just give word for word) and are trying to FORCE it (the paraphrase which is NOT inspired). Why would a Unitarian Arian NEED to do this? :think:

This is also where trinitarian logic falls apart,

Pure assertion. You aren't the sharpest knife in the drawer. It doesn't mean you are stupid, it means simply that you cannot be depended upon to tell anybody what logic 'falls apart.' It MIGHT to you, but that isn't saying much, is it?

you claim the verse states and refers to God giving his own blood, literally referring to Jesus Christ as almighty God dying for us, but you don't believe God died for us, since, if I ask you how it was possible for God to die, you'll no doubt tell me Jesus divinity, his Godhood did not die, but rather it was his divinity that died. Yet, Acts 20:28 apparently speaking about Jesus as God states "God purchased [the church] through his own blood", expressing it WAS God that shed his blood and not ONLY Jesus humnity.

That IS the trinitarian view. That somehow, there is CLEAR equation of Father and Son and Spirit, yet, I agree with Arians that there is important distinction. I simply believe a lot of what you believe, without drawing SPECIFICALLY, a conclusion that goes against another passage of scripture. This IS the problem with Unitarianism and Modalism: BOTH discount specific scriptures in their postulations and theories.

So which is it Lon, did Jesus in his divinity give his blood for us by dying as Acts 20:28 apparently expresses, or rather, does the "blood" mentioned refer to God the Father purchasing the church by means of his own blood through his son who is his blood?

GOOD! Read it! IF you JUST went with scripture, like you JUST asked, you'd believe like I do and say: "I simply have to believe scripture AND be careful not to trample any of what God is conveying in these scriptures." That's it. In a nutshell, that IS the triune view. Briefly, we just are left more in the dark (purposefully) than you or Modalists. We don't KNOW how it all ties together but we won't trample another scripture given, in order to postulate some idea that does exactly that. Arianism and Unitarianism might have 'seemed' like a good fit when I didn't know scriptures. Today :nono: It can't fit too many passages and looks for excuses when it encounters them. They are simply incapable of honoring all of the Scriptures.

 

[NWL]

There is far too much fluff in our back and forth, I will give a reply to our scriptural discussion only. If you feel like I've skipped past any important points of yours please include them in your next reply.

There is a lot of confusion between Unitarians and Arians, where the ultimate end leads to polytheism. Thayer believed the Spirit was ALSO the people indwelled, like the Apostles. You'd not want to say he was 'smartest' when he had so many odd ideas just because he agrees with you, on one.

That said, should I bow to you? Do you believe you are a god?

​ Let's see how far you take this. As I said, we likely refer to God/gods differently by definition. It is yet my contention that unless you are able to create, out of your own being and own resources, you cannot rightly be called a god of any sort. In the sense that Moses went to Pharaoh, Moses never referred to himself as YHWH, nor even Elohim (the word God used). Instead he always referred to himself as the messenger of YHWH THUS it is ALWAYS meant not 'god' but clearly, by context alone (where I question your ability, right?) 'MESSENGER" of YHWH. Thus "I will make you a[n] elohime to Pharaoh" never meant that Pharaoh should bow down and worship Moses. The context of all scripture forbids the worship of men, therefore, there is a STRONG qualification on what it means "ye are gods" in Psalms. It clearly doesn't mean what you think and clearly needs to be strongly stated that we are 'gods' as an adjective/description, NOT as a noun. It is exactly this clear.

I nowhere claimed that Moses was called God as per the language he did or did not apply to himself, or that he was even regularly called God. My point was GOD himself referred to Moses as God when stating he 'would make Moses God to Pharaoh', this statement cannot just be pushed aside simply because Moses never referred to himself as God, when it was God himself who applied the term to him. Also, nowhere have I stated Moses should be worshiped or bowed down to by anyone as you implied I did.

Remember, I hold the idea that the term GOD in the bible has a secondary lesser meaning to the full/ultimate meaning of the word, hence why the scripture speaks of the 'one God' whilst also referring to other beings as GOD/gods.

Let's walk through this so at least you know why I dismiss this: Logically, Who created everything that exists? How many Gods? If ALL else was created, which 'could' be gods?

​

The Father, who is identified as the 'one God' in scripture (1 Cor 8:6), created the Word/Jesus, the Father then created all things through Jesus. So the Father creating Jesus and then creating all things through Jesus makes him, the Father, the originator and source of creation. So to answer your question, only one God created the world, no other God is the source or originator of creation.

(1 Cor 8:6) "..yet for us there is but one God, the father, fromwhom all things came and for whom we exist.And there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, throughwhom all things came and through whom we exist.."

(Hebrews 1:1,2) "..God...in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom also he made the universe.."

You can move along with disagreement, it just can never make sense to one who believes there is only one God. Genesis 1:1 Colossians 1:16-20 supports only one God

This is where your spiritual blindness kicks in, as I will explain. Do you see the two above scriptures, it is the Father (who is the only person identified as being the 'one God') who creates all things, he simply does it through Jesus according to Hebrews 1:1,2. It is the Father who all things are from, he is the source and originator of creation and it's through Jesus he does this, as can be seen in 1 Cor 8:6. Since all things are made through Jesus it can also be said about Jesus that all things were made through him. Just because the Father created all things through Jesus, with scripture confirming this in places such as Col 1:16-17 and John 1:3 which express "all things" were made through Jesus, it should not be assumed Jesus is the creator since verses such as Hebrews 1:1,2 and 1 Cor 8:6 clearly express it was the Father creating through Jesus, thus its the Father who is the source/originator of creation, and thus the creator, not Jesus.

NOTHING in Genesis 1:1 compared to Col 1:16-20 contradicts or goes contrary to what I just said. Gen 1:1 states God created the world, and Col 1:16-20 states "all things" were created through Jesus, what's more, the Greek words used in describing Jesus role in creation in Col 1:16 uses the passive verb EKTISQH showing that Jesus was an instrument/agent someone else used in the creation, hence why some translations go so far to insert the word God in the col 1:16 despite it not being in the greek, "For through him God created everything in heaven and on earth", since this is the idea the writer of Col 1:16 was trying to express according to the Greek. Please do not assume I'm claiming the word "God" should be inserted in the verse here, I'm merely making the point the language of Col 1:16 expresses that "all things" were created through Jesus with Jesus being an agent in creation, not the active cause, scholars themselves can see this and thus insert the word for the ease of readers understanding.

Incorrect. What we do find out is that you don't want to see or care whether another person reads better than you, nor agrees with you. Okay. Fine. You've made your bed and have to lie on it.

Your statement has nothing to do with the statement you previously made, you're simply turning this into another bout of 'who can read and write better English' again.

Again, you previously stated, "Scripture is very clear there is only One God. Scripture calls all other gods 'so-called-gods'" in post 3254, I can only understand this to mean that you believe there is only One God and call other gods are 'so-called gods', this is more or less a paraphrase of what you said. Instead of crying about nothing as you have done in your about comments above, maybe you can explain what you meant by what you said if you weren't implying anyone called God who is not the One God in the scripture are 'so-called gods'.

I'd suggest our concept and definition of "God" is different. Because Scripture does not stop defining God, I believe it must/necessarily has to include only one who is capable of creating all things. It automatically means "just one."

You admit scripture does not stop defining God, but then you close your mind when it applies the term 'God' to others who are not the 'one God' and twist the meaning to mean something else when you say "Prophet/voice of God. Thus "Of God" not "God"". You assume despite the evidence that the term has to include only one who is capable of creating all things, where is your evidence?

Prophet/voice of God. Thus "Of God" not "God."

This is a pure twisting of scripture and conjecture. Ps 8:5 states in regards to angels "you made him [man] a little lower than Elohim and crowned them with glory and honor" (many other bibles say Angels in place of Elohim here and the writer of Hebrews confirms Angels are in reference according to Hebrews 2:7). Firstly, nowhere do we find the term for God ever meaning "of God" as you assert, maybe you could provide a reference or two or show where such an idea is expressed, this is merely your assertion. Secondly, the Angels being the 'Prophet/voice' or 'of God' makes no sense in the context found in Ps 8:5, or even Exo 7:1 or Ps 45:6. Perhaps you can expand and explain how what you've asserted is correct, with references.

(Psalm 8:5) "You made him a little lower than godlike ones, And you crowned him with glory and splendor."
(Exodus 7:1) "And Jehovah said to Moses, See, I have made thee God to Pharaoh; and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet."
(Psalm 45:6) "My heart is stirred by something good. I say: “My song is about a king..Your throne O God is forever and ever The scepter of your kingdom is a scepter of uprightness."

Pure assertion. I didn't say it was superior to all translations, just to all paraphrases (which was all you posted).

Yes, in this case it rightly was only an assertion, would you really have wanted me to start another sub-argument on the merits of the KJV translation? I think not. Let's not be pedantic.

Good, ask yourself the same question: they didn't at all mean what you 'paraphrased' it to mean. YOU took a paraphrase (somebody trying to explain something rather than just give word for word) and are trying to FORCE it (the paraphrase which is NOT inspired). Why would a Unitarian Arian NEED to do this?

​

You completely ignored my point, again, why are trinitarian scholars choosing to insert a word that hinders them in regards to their theology in Acts 20:28? You said to me "ask yourself the same question", what same question? You go on to attempt to ask a question but don't articulate yourself well enough for me to know what question you're asking, you said "YOU took a paraphrase and are trying to FORCE it", what paraphrase did I take and what am I trying to force? You also said, "Why would a Unitarian Arian NEED to do this?", just so you're aware I'm not an Arian.

Pure assertion. You aren't the sharpest knife in the drawer. It doesn't mean you are stupid, it means simply that you cannot be depended upon to tell anybody what logic 'falls apart.' It MIGHT to you, but that isn't saying much, is it?

The irony! You claim I'm simply asserting my point when you say "Pure assertion.You aren't the sharpest knife in the drawer", and mock me, DESPITE me FULLY explaining myself. What's more, you go on to quote and reply to my explanation, showing you were aware what I said was not simply an assertion, and I'm stupid one appreantly! Just so you know, to make an assertion means to try and claim a point is true without trying to evidence how or why. If I assert something but then go on to explain and evidence why I think it's true then it's not an assertion!

When I said, "This is also where trinitarian logic falls apart" I made it clear this was NOT an assertion when I made the argument. Trinitarians claim God did not die but Jesus humanity died, but then some people, such as yourself, claim that God died by the reading and interpreting of Acts 20:28 that God gave his blood. This idea is illogical, hence why I said "This is also where trinitarian logic falls apart".

The sooner you stop making our conversation about you trying to belittle me the better. At present, you are doing a very bad job of it.

So which is it Lon, did Jesus in his divinity give his blood for us by dying as Acts 20:28 apparently expresses, or rather, does the "blood" mentioned refer to God the Father purchasing the church by means of his own blood through his son who is his blood?

GOOD! Read it! IF you JUST went with scripture, like you JUST asked, you'd believe like I do and say: "I simply have to believe scripture AND be careful not to trample any of what God is conveying in these scriptures." That's it. In a nutshell, that IS the triune view. Briefly, we just are left more in the dark (purposefully) than you or Modalists. We don't KNOW how it all ties together but we won't trample another scripture given, in order to postulate some idea that does exactly that. Arianism and Unitarianism might have 'seemed' like a good fit when I didn't know scriptures. Today

​ It can't fit too many passages and looks for excuses when it encounters them. They are simply incapable of honoring all of the Scriptures.

So basically what you meant by your paragraph was 'God is a mystery', that old argument ay. It is clear you cannot explain yourself out of the conundrum you've got yourself into by your literal and raw interpretation of scripture. Again, you claim the "blood" in Acts 20:28 was in relation to God dying for us on the cross, it was my claim that the "blood" was in relation to lineage. The Father, namely God, has a Son who is Jesus, who gave his blood for us. I can look at my son or brother and say "he is my blood", this doesn't mean my Son or brother as 'my blood' is me, but rather that we are related. Likewise, when Acts 20:28 states God purchased the church with "his own blood" the 'blood' was in relation to the Father allowing Jesus his Son and 'blood' to give his life. We know this is the correct interpretation because God did not DIE or give his blood, Jesus the 'Man' did, even trinitarians will admit this! Hence the reason why TRINITARIAN scholars insert the word 'Son' into the verse to convey what the scripture is trying to say, that the 'blood' was in relation to God's son and NOT God's own literal blood.

Your interpretation of the verse goes contrary to orthodox Trinitarian doctrine, God did not die or give his blood for us, Jesus the man did. Don't come to me to try and convince me otherwise when your best answer plainly said without the fluff is, 'God is a mystery', you're clueless on the matter, prove me wrong.

Based on the overall context of scripture, did Jesus die in his humanity, in his deity, or both?​

 

[beloved57]

Nwl

The Father, who is identified as the 'one God' in scripture, created the Word/Jesus

So God created God because the word was God Jn 1:1

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

 

[NWL]

Nwl

So God created God because the word was God Jn 1:1

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Whilst I do not deny Jesus can be referred to as a God and is referred to as a God in John 1:1, he isn’t being identified as the ‘one God’ YHWH in John 1:1. In fact it’s a common misunderstanding that Jesus is being identified as God in John 1:1, Trinitarian scholars deny the fact Jesus is being identified as God (definite translation) in John 1:1c and rather say John 1:1c is in relation to him having the same nature as God (qualitative), they’ve been acknowledging this since the 1970’s. This is in fact what JW’s have been saying for many decades now regarding John 1:1c.

The translation “and the word was God” is a definite rendition of the text, again, Trinitarian scholars deny the text is definite in its sense and say it should be understood as qualitative.

Qualitative translations of John 1:1c are: “and the word was divine”, “and the word was a god”, “and the word was godlike”, among other variations.

So whilst the text reads “and the Word was God” reading at face value does not convey the qualitative meaning scholars admit it should read. This is why when Greg Stafford (a JW) had a debate with Dr James White (a Trinitarian), Dr White refused to admit whether John 1:1c was not definite, since he knew Greg Stafford would have grilled him as to why he translates John 1:1c according to the traditional definite rendition of the verse which scholars have been admitting it wrong since the 1970’s (See Jehovah’s witnesses debate Greg Stafford vs James White – Youtube – time stamp 1:50:00 onwards).

YHWH has created many persons who have been referred to as God, not simply Jesus, Angels (Ps 8:5, cm Hebrews 2:7), Men (Ps 45:6), Moses (Exo 7:1), and even Satan (2 Cor 4:4). So yes, the ‘one God’ did create other beings, including Jesus, who are referred to as Gods, this does not negate my position in regards to the Father alone being the ‘one God’ in the most ultimate and full sense of the term.

Modern Trinitarian scholars comments on John 1:1c:

“the point that is being made here is that for theos to be definite in this context-after just using the definite ton theon to refer specifically to the person of the Father-would be modalistics.” “Therefore, those who have argued that in John 1:1 theos is definite were in error…. As surprising as it may seem, arguing that theos is definite in this context actually is inconsistent with the Trinitarian distinction between the Father and the Son. - Rob Bowman (trinitarian), Book: Jehovah’s Witnesses, Jesus Christ, & the Gospel of John, 1989.

“calling θεός in 1:1c definite is the same as saying that if it had followed the verb it would have had the article. Thus it would be a convertible proposition with λόγος (i.e., “the Word” = “God” and “God” = “the Word”). The problem of this argument is that the θεός in 1:1b is the Father. Thus to say that the θεός in 1:1c is the same person is to say that “the Word was the Father.” 29 This… is embryonic Sabellianism or modalism... [_].The most likely candidate for θεός is qualitative. This is true both grammatically (for the largest proportion of pre-verbal anarthrous predicate nominatives fall into this category) and theologically (both the theology of the Fourth Gospel and of the NT as a whole). There is a balance between the Word’s deity, which was already present in the beginning (ἐν ἀρχῇ… θεὸς ἦν [1:1], and his humanity, which was added later (σὰρξ ἐγένετο [1:14]). The grammatical structure of these two statements mirrors each other; both emphasize the nature of the Word, rather than his identity”– Dan B. Wallace, The Basics of New Testament Syntax, under Application of Colwell’s Construction to John 1:1, 2009

“This second theos could also be translated 'divine' as the construction indicates "a qualitative sense for theos". The Word is not God in the sense that he is the same person as the theos mentioned in 1:1a; he is not God the Father(God absolutely as in common NT usage) or the Trinity. The point being made is that the Logos is of the same uncreated nature or essence as God the Father, with whom he eternally exists. This verse is echoed in the Nicene Creed: "God(qualitative or derivative) from God(personal, the Father), Light from Light, True God from True God…homoousion with the Father.”- Eastern / Greek Orthodox Bible, New Testament, 2008, p231,

 

[NWL]

Nobody said anything about us being the same. You ask a question, be ready to answer likewise question. Answering that question proves nothing against Jesus being Almighty God !

I did answer you're question, hence the reason why I've repeatedly told you that you keep asking me the same question that I've already answered.

The question, show me a scripture saying YHWH isn't a giant spaghetti monster? If you can't answer this question because you can't find a reference denying YHWH being called a giant spaghetti monster does this add proof that he is a giant spaghetti monster.

Please remember I've already answered your question. There is no scripture stating Jesus isn't the 'one' and 'living' God. Again, is the scripture lack of denial that Jesus is those things prove that he is the 'one' and 'living' God according to your understanding?

 

[beloved57]

Whilst I do not deny Jesus can be referred to as a God and is referred to as a God in John 1:1, he isn’t being identified as the ‘one God’ YHWH in John 1:1. In fact it’s a common misunderstanding that Jesus is being identified as God in John 1:1, Trinitarian scholars deny the fact Jesus is being identified as God (definite translation) in John 1:1c and rather say John 1:1c is in relation to him having the same nature as God (qualitative), they’ve been acknowledging this since the 1970’s. This is in fact what JW’s have been saying for many decades now regarding John 1:1c.

The translation “and the word was God” is a definite rendition of the text, again, Trinitarian scholars deny the text is definite in its sense and say it should be understood as qualitative.

Qualitative translations of John 1:1c are: “and the word was divine”, “and the word was a god”, “and the word was godlike”, among other variations.

So whilst the text reads “and the Word was God” reading at face value does not convey the qualitative meaning scholars admit it should read. This is why when Greg Stafford (a JW) had a debate with Dr James White (a Trinitarian), Dr White refused to admit whether John 1:1c was not definite, since he knew Greg Stafford would have grilled him as to why he translates John 1:1c according to the traditional definite rendition of the verse which scholars have been admitting it wrong since the 1970’s (See Jehovah’s witnesses debate Greg Stafford vs James White – Youtube – time stamp 1:50:00 onwards).

YHWH has created many persons who have been referred to as God, not simply Jesus, Angels (Ps 8:5, cm Hebrews 2:7), Men (Ps 45:6), Moses (Exo 7:1), and even Satan (2 Cor 4:4). So yes, the ‘one God’ did create other beings, including Jesus, who are referred to as Gods, this does not negate my position in regards to the Father alone being the ‘one God’ in the most ultimate and full sense of the term.

Modern Trinitarian scholars comments on John 1:1c:

“the point that is being made here is that for theos to be definite in this context-after just using the definite ton theon to refer specifically to the person of the Father-would be modalistics.” “Therefore, those who have argued that in John 1:1 theos is definite were in error…. As surprising as it may seem, arguing that theos is definite in this context actually is inconsistent with the Trinitarian distinction between the Father and the Son. - Rob Bowman (trinitarian), Book: Jehovah’s Witnesses, Jesus Christ, & the Gospel of John, 1989.

“calling θεός in 1:1c definite is the same as saying that if it had followed the verb it would have had the article. Thus it would be a convertible proposition with λόγος (i.e., “the Word” = “God” and “God” = “the Word”). The problem of this argument is that the θεός in 1:1b is the Father. Thus to say that the θεός in 1:1c is the same person is to say that “the Word was the Father.” 29 This… is embryonic Sabellianism or modalism... [_].The most likely candidate for θεός is qualitative. This is true both grammatically (for the largest proportion of pre-verbal anarthrous predicate nominatives fall into this category) and theologically (both the theology of the Fourth Gospel and of the NT as a whole). There is a balance between the Word’s deity, which was already present in the beginning (ἐν ἀρχῇ… θεὸς ἦν [1:1], and his humanity, which was added later (σὰρξ ἐγένετο [1:14]). The grammatical structure of these two statements mirrors each other; both emphasize the nature of the Word, rather than his identity”– Dan B. Wallace, The Basics of New Testament Syntax, under Application of Colwell’s Construction to John 1:1, 2009

“This second theos could also be translated 'divine' as the construction indicates "a qualitative sense for theos". The Word is not God in the sense that he is the same person as the theos mentioned in 1:1a; he is not God the Father(God absolutely as in common NT usage) or the Trinity. The point being made is that the Logos is of the same uncreated nature or essence as God the Father, with whom he eternally exists. This verse is echoed in the Nicene Creed: "God(qualitative or derivative) from God(personal, the Father), Light from Light, True God from True God…homoousion with the Father.”- Eastern / Greek Orthodox Bible, New Testament, 2008, p231,

You have a serious contradiction. How does God create God?

 

[NWL]

You have a serious contradiction. How does God create God?

You are unreasonable and cannot understand basic arguments.

Tell me, when comparing Hebrews 2:7 with psalms 8:5, and after noticing that Angels are called Elohim/Gods when looking at the Greek of Psalms 8:5, answer me, did YHWH create the Gods/Elohim as mention in psalms 8:5?

If your answer is yes, then how is it possible that God created Gods?

God did not create God, Jesus is not the 'one God' remember. The term God has more than one meaning and can be applied to others beings as ive already explained to you. Moses is called God (Exo 7:1), Angels are called Gods (psalms 8:5) , humans are a caller gods (ps 45:6, John 10:34) even satan is called God (2 cor 4:4). Jesus too is called God, but this does not mean he is the 'one God', since the 'one God' is only ever stated as being the father, remember 1 Cor 8:6, "there is one God, the Father".

You have been tricked and blinded by hundred of years of lies.

 

[beloved57]

You are unreasonable and cannot understand basic arguments.

Tell me, when comparing Hebrews 2:7 with psalms 8:5, and after noticing that Angels are called Elohim/Gods when looking at the Greek of Psalms 8:5, answer me, did YHWH create the Gods/Elohim as mention in psalms 8:5?

If your answer is yes, then how is it possible that God created Gods?

God did not create God, Jesus is not the 'one God' remember. The term God has more than one meaning and can be applied to others beings as ive already explained to you. Moses is called God (Exo 7:1), Angels are called Gods (psalms 8:5) , humans are a caller gods (ps 45:6, John 10:34) even satan is called God (2 cor 4:4). Jesus too is called God, but this does not mean he is the 'one God', since the 'one God' is only ever stated as being the father, remember 1 Cor 8:6, "there is one God, the Father".

You have been tricked and blinded by hundred of years of lies.

Was not the Word God in Jn 1:1?

 

[NWL]

Was not the Word God in Jn 1:1?

As I have already shown, trinitarian scholars themselves stating about John 1:1c, the rendition, "and the word was God" is a definite translation of the Greek text and is not consistent with what John is trying to convey since it implies Jesus 'was' God. Here are what some trinitarian scholars say on the matter:

"This second theos could also be translated 'divine' as the construction indicates "a qualitative sense for theos". The Word is not God in the sense that he is the same person as the theos mentioned in 1:1a; he is not God the Father(God absolutely as in common NT usage) or the Trinity. The point being made is that the Logos is of the same uncreated nature or essence as God the Father" - Eastern / Greek Orthodox Bible, New Testament, 2008, p231,

“[It] is clear that in the translation "the Word was God", the term God is being used to denote his nature or essence, and not his person. But in normal English usage "God" is a proper noun, referring to the person of the Father or corporately to the three persons of the Godhead. Moreover, "the Word was God" suggests that "the Word" and "God" are convertible terms, that the proposition is reciprocating. But the Word is neither the Father nor the Trinity …The rendering cannot stand without explanation.” - Harris, Murray J., Jesus as God: The New Testament Use of Theos in Reference to Jesus, 1992, p. 69

Perhaps the clause [in John 1:1c] could be translated, ‘the Word had the same nature as God.” This would be one way of representing John’s thought, which is, as I understand it, that ho logos, no less than ho theos, had the nature of theos" -Philip B. Harner (March 1973). "Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns: Mark 15:39 and John 1:1". Journal of Biblical Literature. The Society of Biblical Literature.

“The predicate (God) stands emphatically first, as in 4:24. ‘It is necessarily without the article (theós not ho theós) inasmuch as it describes the nature of the Word and does not identify His Person- B. F. Westcott as quoted by C. F. D. Moule An Idiom-Book of New Testament Greek. Cambridge: University Press. p. 116.

When John said 'The Word was God' he was not saying that Jesus is identical with God, he was saying that Jesus is so perfectly the same as God in mind, in heart, in being that in Jesus we perfectly see what God is like." - Barclay, W. The Gospel of John, vol.1, The Dailey Study Bible Series, Saint Andrew Press, p. 39

There are many many translations of John 1:1c that render it in a qualitative sense, such as "the word was divine", "the word was godlike", "the word was a god", "what God was the word was", "the word has the same nature as God", or other variation. Again, the traditional translation "and the word was God" is a definite translation of the verse and most scholars reject the meaning of the expression that it gives off on face value, hence why one scholar above said "The rendering cannot stand without explanation",since it cannot be understood without someone explaining that the term "the Word was God" doesn't mean Jesus/word was God but rather shared the same nature as God, was godlike, or was divine. The only reason lots of translations still render John 1:1c "the Word was God" is because the translation is an old translation and does not reflect modern scholarship understanding, or they keep the translation to appease the masses who are use to the traditional rendering.

So to answer your question, no Jesus was not being referred to as the 'one God' in John 1:1, almost no modern scholarship accepts this idea that Jesus was being called God in the sense of identity. You have been misled.

 

[beloved57]

As I have already shown, trinitarian scholars themselves stating about John 1:1c, the rendition, "and the word was God" is a definite translation of the Greek text and is not consistent with what John is trying to convey since it implies Jesus 'was' God. Here are what some modern-day trinitarian scholars say on the matter:

"This second theos could also be translated 'divine' as the construction indicates "a qualitative sense for theos". The Word is not God in the sense that he is the same person as the theos mentioned in 1:1a; he is not God the Father(God absolutely as in common NT usage) or the Trinity. The point being made is that the Logos is of the same uncreated nature or essence as God the Father" - Eastern / Greek Orthodox Bible, New Testament, 2008, p231,

“[It] is clear that in the translation "the Word was God", the term God is being used to denote his nature or essence, and not his person. But in normal English usage "God" is a proper noun, referring to the person of the Father or corporately to the three persons of the Godhead. Moreover, "the Word was God" suggests that "the Word" and "God" are convertible terms, that the proposition is reciprocating. But the Word is neither the Father nor the Trinity …The rendering cannot stand without explanation.” - Harris, Murray J., Jesus as God: The New Testament Use of Theos in Reference to Jesus, 1992, p. 69

Perhaps the clause [in John 1:1c] could be translated, ‘the Word had the same nature as God.” This would be one way of representing John’s thought, which is, as I understand it, that ho logos, no less than ho theos, had the nature of theos" -Philip B. Harner (March 1973). "Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns: Mark 15:39 and John 1:1". Journal of Biblical Literature. The Society of Biblical Literature.

There are many many translations of John 1:1c that render it in a qualitative sense, such as "the word was divine", "the word was godlike", the word was a god", "what God was the word was". Again, the traditional translation "and the word was God" is a definite translation of the verse and most scholars reject the meaning of the expression that it gives off on face value, hence why one scholar above said "The rendering cannot stand without explanation",since it cannot be understood without someone explaining that the term "the Word was God" doesn't mean Jesus/word was God but rather shared the same nature as God. The only reason lots of translations still render John 1:1c "the Word was God" is because the translation is an old translation and does not reflect modern scholarship understanding, or they keep the translation to appease the masses who are used to the traditional rendering.

So to answer your question, no Jesus was not being referred to as the 'one God' in John 1:1, almost no modern scholarship accepts this idea that Jesus was being called God in the sense of identity.

It's as plain as the noon day sun that the word was God Jn 1:1 so you charge God with creating God which is blasphemy!

 

[NWL]

It's as plain as the noon day sun that the word was God Jn 1:1 so you charge God with creating God which is blasphemy!

As I've said before you display your stupidity and unreasonableness with every post. Your a waste of time to speak to, you aren't even capable of reasoning or answering basic questions against your understanding.

It's as plain as "the noonday sun" you say, whilst ignoring what scholars, who have translated the bible you are capable of understanding as plain "the noonday sun", have said about John 1:1, the irony! Like I've already said, you are spiritually blind. Your undying and unquestioning loyatly to your false doctrine over the bible, despite all evidence to the contrary, is your downfall, Satan has you right in his palm:

(2 Corinthians 4:4) "among whom the god of this system of things has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, so that the illumination of the glorious good news about the Christ, who is the image of God, might not shine through.."

If you wish to reason with me then reason with me, bring facts and scriptural evidence to the table, and not just assertions as you have been doing. If you can't then don't waste my time by replying to me.

 

[beloved57]

As I've said before you display your stupidity and unreasonableness with every post. Your a waste of time to speak to, you aren't even capable of reasoning or answering basic questions against your understanding.

It's as plain as "the noonday sun" you say, whilst ignoring what scholars, who have translated the bible you are capable of understanding as plain "the noonday sun", have said about John 1:1, the irony! Like I've already said, you are spiritually blind. Your undying and unquestioning loyatly to your false doctrine over the bible, despite all evidence to the contrary, is your downfall, Satan has you right in his palm:

(2 Corinthians 4:4) "among whom the god of this system of things has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, so that the illumination of the glorious good news about the Christ, who is the image of God, might not shine through.."

If you wish to reason with me then reason with me, bring facts and scriptural evidence to the table, and not just assertions as you have been doing. If you can't then don't waste my time by replying to me.

Yes Jn 1:1 is plain as day, it doesn't matter what those men say you quote. The Word was God !

 

[NWL]

Yes Jn 1:1 is plain as day, it doesn't matter what those men say you quote. The Word was God !

Those "men" are the ones who have translated the verse and the entire bible for that matter, you trust them enough to read their translations but choose to ignore them when it they tell you what the verse has to mean according to the Greek language, I don't think you even realize how foolish you sound. Plus, there are a number of ways John 1:1 can and have been translated as I have already stated, am I meant to believe you simply because you assert you are correct over the scholars who actually know ancient Greek, lol!. You are out of your depth my friend.

Biblical translations by trinitarians of John 1:1c (there are many many more I could quote):

“and the Word was a divine being” - La Bible du Centenaire, L’Evangile selon Jean, by Maurice Goguel, 1928.
“and the Word was divine” - The Bible—An American Translation, by J. M. P. Smith and E. J. Goodspeed, 1935.
"and he was the same as God" – Good News Bible, 1976, by the American Bible Society
"and what God was, the Word was" – New English Bible NEB
"the Logos [Word] was divine" – A New Translation of the Bible, by James Moffatt
"and the word was a divine being” – The New Testament, by Jon Madsen 2017
"and the Word was a god" – The New Testament in Greek and English, 1822, by A. Kneeland
“and a god was the word” - The Emphatic Diaglott, interlinear reading, by Benjamin Wilson, 1864
“and of a divine kind was the Word” - Das Neue Testament, by Ludwig Thimme, 1946.
“and the Word was a God” - The New Testament, by James L. Tomanek, 1958.
“and a god (or, of a divine kind) was the Word” - Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Siegfried Schulz, 1975.
“and godlike kind was the Logos” - Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Johannes Schneider, 1979.

You do not know ancient Greek, the people who have spent their entire lives trying to understand ancient Greek and the bible as much as possible are telling you that John 1:1c can be translated differently and is not expressing Jesus is God in regards to identity.

The more and more you speak the stupider your reasoning sounds and the more convincing I sound, you shame yourself on the thread you yourself made. Assertions prove nothing.

 

[beloved57]

Those "men" are the ones who have translated the verse and the entire bible for that matter, you trust them enough to read their translations but choose to ignore them when it they tell you what the verse has to mean according to the Greek language, I don't think you even realize how foolish you sound. Plus, there are a number of ways John 1:1 can and have been translated as I have already stated, am I meant to believe you simply because you assert you are correct over the scholars who actually know ancient Greek, lol!. You are out of your depth my friend.

Biblical translations by trinitarians of John 1:1c (there are many many more I could quote):

“and the Word was a divine being” - La Bible du Centenaire, L’Evangile selon Jean, by Maurice Goguel, 1928.
“and the Word was divine” - The Bible—An American Translation, by J. M. P. Smith and E. J. Goodspeed, 1935.
"and he was the same as God" – Good News Bible, 1976, by the American Bible Society
"and what God was, the Word was" – New English Bible NEB
"the Logos [Word] was divine" – A New Translation of the Bible, by James Moffatt
"and the word was a divine being” – The New Testament, by Jon Madsen 2017
"and the Word was a god" – The New Testament in Greek and English, 1822, by A. Kneeland
“and a god was the word” - The Emphatic Diaglott, interlinear reading, by Benjamin Wilson, 1864
“and of a divine kind was the Word” - Das Neue Testament, by Ludwig Thimme, 1946.
“and the Word was a God” - The New Testament, by James L. Tomanek, 1958.
“and a god (or, of a divine kind) was the Word” - Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Siegfried Schulz, 1975.
“and godlike kind was the Logos” - Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Johannes Schneider, 1979.

You do not know ancient Greek, the people who have spent their entire lives trying to understand ancient Greek and the bible as much as possible are telling you that John 1:1c can be translated differently and is not expressing Jesus is God in regards to identity.

The more and more you speak the stupider your reasoning sounds and the more convincing I sound, you shame yourself on the thread you yourself made. Assertions prove nothing.

They're under demonic influence. It's plain the Word was God! Those demons trying to explain it away!