John 1:1 - Jesus is the Father or he's not the one true God?

[farouk]

Great response replying to someone who does not believe in the Trinity. You are on the top of your game today.

@RLT63 Fact is in any case that God in Three Persons is deeply present in Scripture.

 

[Wrangler]

Great response replying to someone who does not believe in the Trinity. You are on the top of your game today.

Thank you. They still subscrive to mystical dualism under a different name. Oneness, is it?

 

[Wrangler]

@RLT63 Fact is in any case that God in Three Persons is deeply present in Scripture.

Except that it is totally absent. There is only one God - who we relate to as our Father - that is deeply present in Scripture.

 

[GEN2REV]

@Wrangler

How is it that Romans 8 bears out that a man lives inside hundreds of millions of people today?

 

[GEN2REV]

Great response replying to someone who does not believe in the Trinity. You are on the top of your game today.

It is his Hail Mary when he gets in a jam.

And it always fails.

 

[RLT63]

Thank you. They still subscrive to mystical dualism under a different name. Oneness, is it?

How is it dualism if he only believes in Jesus?

 

[GEN2REV]

@RLT63 Fact is in any case that God in Three Persons is deeply present in Scripture.

That concept is not at all relevant in this thread and nobody is discussing it.

 

[GEN2REV]

How is it dualism if he only believes in Jesus?

Wait for it.

This explanation that he gives is delusional.

I'll pop some corn.

 

[face2face]

No you are forcing it to say something it doesn't say

No if you take another look you will see you are forcing notions on it that arnt intended by the Lord. The faith substance works both ways.

 

[RLT63]

No if you take another look you will see you are forcing notions on it that arnt intended by the Lord. The faith substance works both ways.

I disagree and this has already been debated over and over on this forum

 

[Wrangler]

@Wrangler

How is it that Romans 8 bears out that a man lives inside hundreds of millions of people today?

Already answered. See below.

Still struggling with figurative language usage, I see.

 

[Wrangler]

How is it dualism if he only believes in Jesus?

Everything philosophically is the exact same reliance on mystical dualism as trinitarianism except instead of a 3in1 god, it is a 2in1 god.

 

[GEN2REV]

Already answered. See below.

Oh, I see. Ok. Fair enough.

So everywhere the Bible says what you don't like, it's just figurative poetry and creative literature.

Got it.

So no trinity.

Ok.

 

[GEN2REV]

Everything philosophically is the exact same reliance on mystical dualism as trinitarianism except instead of a 3in1 god, it is a 2in1 god.

See, @RLT63 ?!!

I told ya it'd be good.

This guy's on the ball.

Everything relies on mystical dualism!

 

[RLT63]

Everything philosophically is the exact same reliance on mystical dualism as trinitarianism except instead of a 3in1 god, it is a 2in1 god.

You don't understand at all

 

[Wrangler]

Oh, I see. Ok. Fair enough.

So everywhere the Bible says what you don't like, it's just figurative poetry and creative literature.

Got it.

So no trinity.

Ok.

You got it!

The fact is that trinitarians best argument is extremely weak speculation. To say it COULD mean support for the trinity is to also concede it COULD NOT support for the trinity.

Again, going back to explicit text. Your doctrine demands subordinating explicit texts to your doctrine. This is foolish.

By recognizing the text is monotheist text, it is easy to interpret implications and figurative language in that proper context.

By this method, not only is conjecture properly subordinated to the framework of the explicit text, logic does not have to be jettisoned.

 

[RLT63]

You got it!

The fact is that trinitarians best argument is extremely weak speculation. To say it COULD mean support for the trinity is to also concede it COULD NOT support for the trinity.

Again, going back to explicit text. Your doctrine demands subordinating explicit texts to your doctrine. This is foolish.

By recognizing the text is monotheist text, it is easy to interpret implications and figurative language in that proper context.

By this method, not only is conjecture properly subordinated to the framework of the explicit text, logic does not have to be jettisoned.

You don't seem to understand that the person you're responding to is not a Trinitarian and we"re all monotheists

 

[Kermos]

I know what you are saying, but technically there are some things God cannot do.

Titus 1:2,

In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began;
​

There's at least one thing that is impossible with God. There are others, such as:

1. God cannot break His promises (Ps 89:34),
   
2. God cannot forsake us (Heb 13:5)
3. God cannot forget us (Is 49:15)

As always, there is a contest when Jesus said all things are possible with God. He was talking about getting born again.

You just love to rip away or punch in your words into Scripture! For example, Jesus did not limit His scope with "With man this is impossible, but with God being born again is possible" (the word of Rich R) OR "WITH MAN THIS IS IMPOSSIBLE, AND WITH GOD THINGS ARE IMPOSSIBLE" (THE WORD OF DEATH BY RICH R).

Truthfully, Jesus covers a wonderfully comprehensive scope with "With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible" (the Word of God, Matthew 19:26).

Notice, not a single verse that you mention states something is "impossible for God" in the original language, and there is Spiritual reason for this fact:

• God is full of Truth - "in hope of eternal life, which God, who never lies, promised before the ages began" or "in hope of eternal life which God truthfully promised before the ages began" are more accurate translations of Titus 1:2.
• God keeps God's Word - "I will not violate my covenant or alter the word that went forth from my lips" or "I do not violate My covenant nor alter the import of my lips" are more accurate translations of Psalm 89:34.
• God is faithful to keep promises to the children of God, and God is ever-present with the children of God - Keep your life free from love of money, and be content with the present, for He has said, 'Never will I leave you, never will I forsake you'" or "Keep your life free from love of money, and be content with the present, for He has said, 'Never do I leave you, never do I forsake you.'" are more accurate translations of Hebrews 13:5.
• God lovingly attends to the children of God - "Can a woman forget her nursing child, that she should have no compassion on the son of her womb? Even these may forget, yet I will not forget you" or "Can a woman forget her nursing child, that she should have no compassion on the son of her womb? Even these may forget, yet I do not forget you" are more accurate translations of Isaiah 49:15.

Essentially, there are things God does not do based on God's faithfulness and honor, yet none of these scriptures state that it is "impossible for God"; therefore, Lord Jesus Christ's words of "with God all things are possible" (Matthew 19:26) are not limited as you preach!

In God's sovereignty, in all the realm of all things that are possible, since God constrains certain outcomes based on God's control of all possible outcomes, then God displays that "with God all things are possible" (Matthew 19:26); in other words, with God all things are possible, yet God does not cause all possible outcomes to manifest.

In your heart, you and all you JW (Jelly Worshippers, you form an idol with a name patterned after Jesus but your idol really is just jelly formed in your own image and likeness that molds and decays into garbage - and you thought JW means Jehovah's Witness - you are certainly not JW as in Jesus Worshippers because your Jesus idol departs from the Word of God which you adulterate such that the word of JW Jelly Worshippers bears not the resemblance of the Word of God) adulterate the Word of God.

@APAK, for your edification since Rich R replied, this post extends post 1160 in this thread.

The Truth (John 14:6) is that Jesus is God for the ever living Word of God proclaims this Truth "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I AM" (John 8:58) and the Word of God says "I will settle him in My house and in My kingdom forever, and his throne shall be established forever" (1 Chronicles 17:14), so according to the Word, Lord Jesus existed in eternity past and will exist in eternity future which means the Word is uncreated thus the Word proclaims that the Word is YHWH God for there is NO other that exists in eternity past and future (Isaiah 45:5).

Immanuel (Matthew 1:23 "God with us"), Jesus, is truly Almighty God, YHWH, with us (Revelation 1:8) (see see the Truth [John 14:6] that God had me compose in post #283 to expose the deception of tigger 2 and Rich R).

 

[Kermos]

Precisely!

If Jesus were God Revelation 1:18 is a mute point. Jesus living forever after he was born, lived and died holds no meaning! It does if he was a man you like and I - doesn't it?

Romans 8:29

The Truth (John 14:6) is that Jesus is God for the ever living Word of God proclaims this Truth "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM" (John 8:58) and the Word of God says "I will settle him in My house and in My kingdom forever, and his throne shall be established forever" (1 Chronicles 17:14), so according to the Word, Lord Jesus exists in eternity past and exists in eternity future which means the Word is uncreated thus the Word proclaims that the Word is YHWH God for there is NO other that exists in eternity past and future (Isaiah 45:5).

 

[Kermos]

No you are ignoring the genitive to fit the narrative of the Latin Vulgate. The context is the righteousness OF the God and oOF the Savior Jesus Christ. No definite article

(2Pet 1:1 [TRi])
' δικαιοσύνῃ Righteousness
τοῦ the
θεοῦ God
ἡμῶν Of Us
καὶ And
σωτῆρος OF Saviour
Ἰησοῦ Jesus
Χριστοῦ Christ :

(2Pet 1:2 [TRi])
χάρις Grace ὑμῖν To You καὶ And εἰρήνη Peace πληθυνθείη Be Multiplied ἐν In 'The' ἐπιγνώσει Knowledge τοῦ θεοῦ Of God, καὶ And Ἰησοῦ Of Jesus τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Our Lord.

No you are ignoring the genitive to fit the narrative of the Latin Vulgate. The context is the righteousness OF the God and OF Savior Jesus Christ. No definite article here because it is not needed. But one is supplied in verse 2. Where again the genitive is used in respect to possession but this time is that of knowledge that is and from God.

(2Pet 1:1 [TRi])
' δικαιοσύνῃ Righteousness
τοῦ the
θεοῦ God
ἡμῶν Of Us
καὶ And
σωτῆρος OF Saviour
Ἰησοῦ Jesus
Χριστοῦ Christ :

(2Pet 1:2 [TRi])
χάρις Grace
ὑμῖν To You
καὶ And
εἰρήνη Peace
πληθυνθείη Be Multiplied
ἐν In
ἐπιγνώσει Knowledge
τοῦ OF the
θεοῦ God,
καὶ And
Ἰησοῦ Of Jesus
τοῦ the
κυρίου Lord.
ἡμῶν Our

Your writing is linguistic foolishness because that which I wrote fits Greek grammar rules. You break Greek grammar rules to break Peter's writing, and here's the proof positive.

2 Peter 1:1 truthfully exegeted with Greek grammar rules applied maintains consistent Apostolic testimony.

Here is the English-Greek full word-for-word of 2 Peter 1:1:

Simon-Συμεὼν Peter-Πέτρος slave-δοῦλος and-καὶ apostle-ἀπόστολος Jesus-Ἰησοῦ Christ-Χριστοῦ the-Τοῖς precious-ἰσότιμον ours-ἡμῖν obtain-λαχοῦσιν belief-πίστιν in-ἐν righteousness-δικαιοσύνῃ the-τοῦ God-Θεοῦ us-ἡμῶν and-καὶ Savior-Σωτῆρος Jesus-Ἰησοῦ Christ-Χριστοῦ (2 Peter 1:1)

All of these words "God", "Savior", "Jesus", and "Christ" are genitive, singular, and masculine in this passage thus these words after the salutation are to be taken together as a single cohesive unit according to Greek grammar rules, and this unit, Jesus Christ the God and Savior of us, is the object impacting the objects of "faith" (belief) and "righteousness" being applied to the object of "those" (as in "To those").

The logical "and" in the phrase "the God of us and Savior Jesus Christ" (2 Peter 1:1) is linguistically, logically, and Spiritually tied to Jesus Christ because the words "faith", singular, as well as the word "righteousness", singular, in the phrase "having obtained a faith equally precious with ours in righteousness of" (2 Peter 1:1); therefore, Peter singularly refers to "the God of us" and "Savior" and "Jesus Christ" as One singular.

See that linguistically, "faith" and "righteosness" would need to be plural in order to agree with the object of "those" ("To those"), which is plural, in order for "faith" and "righteosness" to be disassociated from Jesus Christ the God and Savior of us which could then lead to legitimate discussion about "the God of us" and "Savior" and "Jesus Christ" to be considered linguistacally in this one single passage for disassociation in the evil manner which you think applies.

Now, there is one faith (Ephesians 4:5), and Peter says there is one faith in 2 Peter 1:1 - in fact the one faith is the work of God (John 6:29, Ephesians 2:8-10), so here we find Peter conveying that the one faith is the work of God because Peter grammatically ties the word "faith" to the words "God" and "Jesus". Jesus, truly God, is the source of saving faith and all believers are recipients of the one faith that God imparts - this according to the Apostle Peter.

Since the word "faith" is singular in 2 Peter 1:1, then the singular inflection of the word "faith" results in the word "faith" being associated with singular inflection objects of "Jesus", "Christ", "God", and "Savior". The same grammatical rules apply to "righteousness".

THE APOSTLE PETER INDISPUTABLY CALLS JESUS "THE GOD OF US" (τοῦ Θεοῦ ἡμῶν) WITH "SIMON PETER, A SLAVE AND APOSTLE OF JESUS CHRIST, TO THOSE HAVING OBTAINED A FAITH EQUALLY PRECIOUS WITH OURS IN RIGHTEOUSNESS OF THE GOD OF US AND SAVIOR JESUS CHRIST" (2 PETER 1:1).

The Greek grammar rules make 2 Peter 1:1 utterly clear in order to avoid confusion, yet you have managed to confuse yourself into constructing an idol that you call Jesus (Isaiah 45:16) which is not the true Jesus (Isaiah 9:6, John 8:58) unto eternal punishment (John 3:36) according to your current state (1 Corinthians 2:14, John 8:24).

Just like verse 2 Peter 1:1, we find the Apostle has τοῦ-the, Θεοῦ-God, and Ἰησοῦ-Jesus all genitive/masculine/singular wiith two more words with grammatically matching case/gender/person which are τοῦ-the and Κυρίου-Lord in 2 Peter 1:2, and all of these words are bound together by the conjoining conjunction καὶ-and.

All the words with grammatically matching case/gender/person are a single cohesive unit for the knowledge of which Peter refers.

Adonai YHWH is the same as Lord YHWH, and we find God's Holy Name prefixed by Adonai in Scripture.

Behold, YHWH is both the Lord (Genesis 15:2) and the God (Genesis 2:4).

Just as in 2 Peter 1:1, the Apostle Peter in 2 Peter 1:2 ties into a single Being all of τοῦ-the, Θεοῦ-God, Ἰησοῦ-Jesus, τοῦ-the, and Κυρίου-Lord with the Apostle's use of the conjoining conjunction καὶ-and.

Behold, Jesus is both the Lord (2 Peter 1:2) and the God (2 Peter 1:2).

Peter knew the commandant "You shall have no other gods before Me" (Exodus 20:3); therefore, Peter referred to Jesus as YHWH God with the God and Savior in 2 Peter 1:1 as well as the God and the Lord in 2 Peter 1:2 because Peter would not violate the commandment.

Peter has no gods before YHWH God, that is, Jesus is YHWH God according to the words of the Apostle Peter.

Peter knew that God is One (Deuteronomy 6:4), and Peter made it clear that Jesus is the One True God (Deuteronomy 6:4) in 2 Peter 1:1-2!

As Jewish communication is replete with a concept being repeated to enhance emphasis, so the Apostle Peter did repeat in 2 Peter 1:1 followed by 2 Peter 1:2; therefore, Peter amplifies that the Savior and the Lord and the God is Jesus Christ!

This means that the Apostle Peter confesses Jesus, Peter's God, is everlasting YHWH God!

You impose your unbelieving thoughts upon Peter with your thoughts to demote Jesus from being "the God", yet Peter did not say "the God separate from Jesus the Lord". Truly, Peter declares Jesus is his only One True God, YHWH God!

Jesus is YHWH according to the Apostle Peter (2 Peter 1:1-2).