Exploring Trinitarian Logic

[face2face]

Jesus was the promised Jewish Messiah, but he never claimed to be God or ‘God the Son,’ nor was such an accusation brought against him at his trial. This is significant, especially considering that the Jews had previously attempted to stone him for statements like "Before Abraham was, I am" and "I and the Father are one." Regardless of how the Jewish rulers interpreted these statements, they could not be used as evidence of a claim to deity.

Not only were the Apostles silent on the Trinity, but even those who opposed Jesus had nothing to say about it.

Regarding the few verses in John's Gospel that suggest a profound connection between God and a (assumed) pre-existent Jesus, it must be pointed out that these texts—when understood within the socio-historical context of Second Temple Judaism and 1st Century Christianity—do not provide the Scriptural evidence necessary to radically redefine God as a triune being. John's stated purpose throughout his Gospel is to reveal Jesus' identity, but not in the way that Trinitarianism requires:

• In the first chapter, Jesus is described as "Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph" (v45) and twice called the "Son of God" (v34, v49).
• At the end of John’s Gospel, it is stated: "these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God" (John 20:31).

The Unitarian understands that John’s Gospel describes a purposeful oneness between God and Jesus, to which disciples can only aspire imperfectly (John 17). It is a significant leap to use these verses to construct a doctrine that God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit are all the same being. “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof; this just isn’t it!”

Bible readers must avoid hasty conclusions based on personifying language in passages such as John 14:16-17. This is simply a useful linguistic device. For the most part—including at Pentecost—the Holy Spirit is described as God’s inanimate power, a view consistent with the portrayal of God’s Spirit in the Old Testament and in pre-Christian writings.

Rabbinic literature and mainstream theologians—even Trinitarian ones—agree that this is the correct lens through which to interpret the New Testament.

Neither in the Gospels, the preaching of the apostles in Acts, the apostolic epistles, nor in the first-century writings of Clement, Polycarp, or the Didache, nor even in most Christian writings up to the 4th century, do we find a clear explanation of God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit as a Trinity.

Instead, we see increasing confusion as Christian philosophy, influenced by pre-Christian Neoplatonic concepts, blurred the identities and natures of God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. This led to a political schism that birthed the Nicene and Athanasian creeds. This strange, convoluted, and often violent path does not reflect the calm theological maturity of the early church, which was guided into all wisdom by the Holy Spirit.

F2F

 

[face2face]

@Wrangler @APAK @Pierac

Not much more can be said on this subject, I sense, other than defending the Trinity from the Bible is an excruciating task fraught with paradox. In contrast, the Unitarian case aligns theologically, logically, and historically with the Bible's Jewish origins.

We can show a consistent doctrinal arc from Genesis to Malachi supporting the Unitarian understanding of God. We can demonstrate that Jesus and the apostles drew upon this material as the foundation of their own theology. There was no new revelation of God’s nature and identity in the New Testament.

Christianity began as a Jewish religion, and that Jewish foundation is critical to our interpretation of Scripture. The first Christians were Jews; they interpreted Scripture from a Jewish perspective and described God and Jesus using Old Testament language and Messianic typology. They were able to express every aspect of their faith through Scripture alone, as we still do today. They affirmed belief in the God of Israel and His human Son, the Jewish Messiah.

If God is three persons, Christianity loses its necessary connection with God’s people—the Jews—and an essential aspect of the atonement: Jesus’ humanity. Scripture says it was essential for Jesus to be made like us in every way so that He could relate to us and act as our mediator to God.

He genuinely understands our pain and sympathizes with our temptations because he was truly human, experiencing the very sufferings we endure—and more! If he was never truly one of us, he cannot understand us in the way Scripture describes and could not have died for our sins. To believe in Jesus and his atoning work, we must accept that he is not God.

I'll leave you with several key facts for future reference should a Trinitarian might consider searching for the truth of God and His Son:

Jesus Christ cannot be "Very God" (i.e., of "one person" with the Father) since statements about Jesus Christ contradict statements about God, his Father. Consider the following:

• Jesus Christ was tempted (Heb. 2:18), but God (his Father) cannot be tempted with evil (James 1:13).
• Jesus Christ died (Rev. 1:18), but God (his Father) cannot die (1 Tim. 6:16).
• Jesus Christ was seen by men (John 1:14), but God (his Father) cannot be seen by men (1 Tim. 6:16).

Jesus Christ is a separate person from his Father, which is further supported by the following:

• Jesus ascended to his Father and his God (John 20:17). Since Jesus ascended to his God after his resurrection, he could not be "Very God."
• He prayed to his Father, indicating a distinction and independence of wills: , not as I will, but as you will.' (Matt. 26:39).
• He is referred to as a man after His ascension into heaven (1 Tim. 2:5).

Jesus is not co-equal with his Father, as indicated by the following:

• God is the head of Christ (1 Cor. 11:3).
• Christ is approved by God—the greater (Acts 2:22).
• Christ himself states that his Father is greater (John 14:28).
• Christ is to be subject to the Father (1 Cor. 15:28). This passage is often the most effective quotation in demonstrating the relationship between Jesus and God, showing his position of delegated authority in the kingdom (vs. 27) and his subsequent subjection to the Father (vs. 28).

Can one person in the Godhead be subject to another and still be co-equal?

See also Mark 10:18 and John 5:19, 30 for further clarification. These passages indicate a clear distinction between the roles of Jesus and his Father, supporting the understanding that Jesus is not co-equal with God.

F2F

 

[Johann]

The New American Bible (a Roman Catholic Bible) in a section discussing biblical revelation says,

"It is the very same God who reveals Himself in so many richly divergent ways on every page of the Scriptures. The God of Abraham and Moses and David is the God of Jesus of Nazareth."

Everyone in Jesus’ day knew that Jesus had a God. Even later, people in Rome who did not believe in Jesus knew that he had a God.

Do you believe Jesus has a God... If so you have a problem with your understanding... Now you have two Gods

Could you please share your sources, @Pierac? I am eager to learn from different perspectives, though I wonder if your stance might reflect a bias against the doctrine of the Triune Godhead.

CAN JESUS CHRIST BE BOTH MAN AND GOD?

Most Bible-believing Christians would say that the answer to the question posed in the title of this study is yes, because as we read in Luke 1:37, “With God nothing shall be impossible”. Some, however would answer with a no, one can not be both man and God. This paper will present the Scriptural proof that Jesus Christ is both Man and God.

There is no question that Christ was, while on earth, fully Man. The question that we will study in this paper is whether He was also fully God. We will look at the following headings in the search for truth in this all important study:

What Do The Old Testament Prophets Say As To Who The Messiah Will Be?

Christ, The Son of God

The Genitive of Origin

How Did First Century Jews Understand The Title “Son of God”?

New Testament Quotes of Ps. 110:1

Scriptures Which Prove That Christ Is God

Titles of Jehovah Ascribed To Christ

WHAT DO THE OLD TESTAMENT PROPHETS SAY AS TO WHO THE MESSIAH WILL BE?

When Christ made His triumphal entrance into Jerusalem the crowds hailed Him as “the Son of David”. That means, of course that they accepted Him as their King. As the verses quoted below will show, they understood from these Old Testament scriptures, that their King would be God. In other words, they understood these verses to say that Messiah would be God, and so too should all who read them.

Psalm 2:6-7

We read in Ps. 2:6-7, “Yet have I set My king upon My holy hill of Zion. I will declare the decree; The Lord hath said unto Me, ‘Thou art My son….”.As will be shown in the section below, Jews understood that God’s Son was deity. We have then, in this verse a very clear declaration that the King that God will set on the throne will be God.

Psalm 45:6

We read in Ps. 45:6, “Thy throne O God is for ever and ever; The scepter of Thy kingdom is a right scepter”. We have in the very first phrase the declaration that the King will be God.

And give me your review on this.

CAN JESUS CHRIST BE BOTH MAN AND GOD? – Right Word Truth

I'm all for a "theological spanking"

J.

 

[face2face]

Psalm 2:6-7

We read in Ps. 2:6-7, “Yet have I set My king upon My holy hill of Zion. I will declare the decree; The Lord hath said unto Me, ‘Thou art My son….”.As will be shown in the section below, Jews understood that God’s Son was deity. We have then, in this verse a very clear declaration that the King that God will set on the throne will be God.

Did you mean to write that Johann? a typo?
Should "set"be "sit?"

The king says, “I will announce the Lord’s decree. He said to me: ‘You are my son! This very day I have become your father! Ps 2:7.

I will become his father and he will become my son. (Davids descendants) When he sins, I will correct him with the rod of men and with wounds inflicted by human beings. 2 Sa 7:14.

I thought I would give you the opportunity to correct given Sonship is in view, and not Deity.

F2F

 

[Johann]

From the start of Judaism and later Christianity, the most famous aspect and unique characteristic of the two religions is the fact that they were, and still are monotheistic. Christianity is really the continuation of Judaism. Both religions believe in one, and only one unbegotten God, creator of the universe. There are no other gods in these two faiths.

Isaiah 44:6 - "Thus says the LORD... there is no God but me."

Isaiah 45:5 - "I am the LORD and there is no other, there is no God besides me."

Isaiah 45:6 - "Men may know that there is none besides me. I am the LORD, there is no other."

No one will contest that to a Jew or a Christian, there is only one God. Anything else would simply be considered polytheism. The majority of Christianity believes in one God, but a God that is plural in makeup. There are three persons that constitute this one God. They are three, but yet, they are still all the one God. There is: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit.

In this post we will be concerned primarily with Trinitarian Christianity’s view of God. Specifically, God the Son.

We all know that God the Son has a Father (God the Father). But the question that must be asked and answered is: can God the Son have a God? Every pastor that I have ever asked this question to has always said "Of course not!" But is that the answer given in Scripture? No, on the contrary. As you will see, the prophesied Messiah in the Old Testament is said to have a God. Then you will see that Jesus the Messiah fulfills those prophesies because he most definitely has a God. If you come to the conclusion that Jesus has a God, then it might be time to rethink and research the Doctrine of the Trinity. Because if God the Son has a God, then there are TWO GODS!

To make this as simple as possible, I am not going to list the huge amount of Scriptures which have God (not "Father") and Jesus in the same sentence, or Scriptures that have God speaking to Jesus, or Jesus speaking to God. We will only be concerned with Scriptures that prove that Jesus has a God.

OLD TESTAMENT MESSIANIC PROPHESIES

Psalm 89:26-28 - "He (the Messiah) shall say of me. "You are my father, my God, my rock, my savior". And I will make him the firstborn."

Micah 5:3-4 - "He (the Messiah) shall stand firm and shepherd his flock by the strength of the LORD, in the Majestic name of the LORD, his God."

Psalm 22:10-11 - "To you I was committed at birth. From my mother’s womb you are my God."

NEW TESTAMENT​

Jesus Speaking:

John 20:17 - "I am going to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God."

Matthew 27:46 - "My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?"

Revelation 3:12 - "Him who overcomes I will make a pillar in the temple of my God. Never again will he leave it. I will write on him the name of my God and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem, which is coming down out of heaven from my God."

Revelation 3:2 - "for I have not found your works complete in the sight of my God."

Paul:

Ephesians 1:3 - "Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ."

Ephesians 1:17 - "I keep asking that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the glorious Father..."

2 Corinthians 1:3 - "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ."

2 Corinthians 11:31 - "The God and Father of the Lord Jesus Christ knows, He who is blessed forever, that I do not lie."

Romans 15:6 - "that with one accord you may with one voice glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ."

Peter:

1 Peter 1:3 - "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ."

John:

Revelation 1:6 - "To him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by his blood, who has made us into a kingdom, priests for his God and Father."

When one reads the preceding verses, there is one thing that is a fact. That Jesus Christ has a God. Jesus speaks of his God, Peter Paul and John mention the God of Jesus Christ. Are they all mistaken? Are we to believe that all these verses are misprints? Are we to suppose that theologians several centuries after Christ knew more about Jesus than Jesus and his Apostles? There is no way around it.

The New American Bible (a Roman Catholic Bible) in a section discussing biblical revelation says,

"It is the very same God who reveals Himself in so many richly divergent ways on every page of the Scriptures. The God of Abraham and Moses and David is the God of Jesus of Nazareth."

Everyone in Jesus’ day knew that Jesus had a God. Even later, people in Rome who did not believe in Jesus knew that he had a God.

Do you believe Jesus has a God... If so you have a problem with your understanding... Now you have two Gods

Conveniently ignoring the verses that CLEARLY affirm the Messiah's divinity.


NEW TESTAMENT QUOTES OF PS. 110:1

Psalm 110:1 reads in the KJV, “The Lord (Jehovah) said unto my Lord, ‘Sit Thou at My right hand, Until I make Thine enemies Thy footstool”. Let me begin by saying that the phrase “My right hand” is not to be interpreted literally, but figuratively. “At my right hand” is a phrase often used in the Bible to express a position of power, authority and favor.

Ps. 110:1 is quoted in the New Testament seven times. By studying all seven occurrences we will learn a great deal of what this verse has to say about Who Christ is. We will see that this verse is quoted several times by our Lord Himself to prove that Messiah is the Son of God. But it is just as true that Messiah was the Son of man. Both are equally true, and neither truth detracts from the other.

The first time Ps. 110:1 is quoted in the New Testament is in the context of Matthew 22:41-44. In verse 41 we learn that Pharisees were gathered together and Jesus asked them, “What think ye of Christ, Whose Son is He”? And the Pharisees answered, “The Son of David” (verse 42). And our Lord’s answer is significant, “He said unto them, ‘How then doth David in spirit call Him Lord, saying The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit Thou at My right hand, until I make Thine enemies Thy footstool’. If David then called Him Lord, how is He his Son?”

The point Christ was making to these Pharisees was that David refers to the coming Messiah as “Lord” and this proves that the Messiah was going to be much more than only man. (Some believe that the Hebrew word “adoni“translated “Lord” in the phrase “said unto my Lord” is never used of God and therefore proves, in their minds, that Christ is not God since He is referred to in this verse as “adoni”. The paper on “Adoni” will prove from Scripture that the word is indeed used of God). Who could David, the King of Israel have possibly called Lord other than God Himself? No one. Therefore, the lesson of this discourse is that the Messiah, Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

Going now to the second time Psalm 110:1 is quoted in the New Testament, we find it in Mark 12:36. Once again Christ asked, this time of the common people, “How say the scribes that Christ is the Son of David? For David Himself said by the Holy Ghost, ‘The Lord said unto My lord, sit Thou on My right hand, till I make Thine enemies Thy footstool. David therefore, himself calleth Him Lord; and whence is He then his son?” (verses 35-37). This is the same point made in the same way as we read in Matthew 22. That point being that David would not have called his own son “Lord” unless He were God.

Luke 20:41-42 is the third time Ps. 110:1 is quoted and it is quoted to prove the same point as was Matthew 22 and Mark 12. That David would not have called his own son “Lord” unless He was God.

Acts 2:34-35 is the fourth occurrence of the quote and shines a different light on the quote. In this context Peter is making the point stated in verse 30, “Therefore being a prophet (referring to David) and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, He would raise up Christ to sit on His throne”. As mentioned above, Christ is the Son of man and the Son of God. One truth does not negate the other. In this context, Peter is pointing to Christ as the Son of man. So when Peter, in verse 34 quotes Ps. 110:1 it is to show that Christ fulfilled the prophecy given to David, that “the fruit of his loins” will fulfill the prophecy of Ps. 110:1. To suggest that this proves that Christ is the Son of man is true, but we must also consider the other references to this Psalm which were quoted above to prove that Christ is the Son of God. Both are true, neither cancels out the other.

CAN JESUS CHRIST BE BOTH MAN AND GOD? – Right Word Truth

rightwordtruth.com

Right @Pierac?

J.

 

[Johann]

Did you mean to write that Johann? a typo?
Should "set"be "sit?"

You are really set to see where you can peiradzo me. Simply won't work.

J.

 

[Marvelloustime]

Get back daily to reading those bibles and stay in prayers to the Lord. The only way to receive everlasting life is believing in the biblical Lord Jesus Christ. Be ready. His return is very close.

 

[face2face]

You are really set to see where you can peiradzo me. Simply won't work.

J.

As I said I thought I would give you the opportunity to correct given Sonship is in view, and not Deity.

Your inferences are without support.

How you react is up to you J.

F2F

 

[Johann]

As I said I thought I would give you the opportunity to correct given Sonship is in view, and not Deity.

Your inferences are without support.

How you react is up to you J.

F2F

Sonship and Deity.

11. Father and Son in Johannine Discourses:
It is in the discourses recorded in John, however, that Jesus most copiously refers to the unity of Himself, as the Son, with the Father, and to the mission of the Spirit from Himself as the dispenser of the divine activities. Here He not only with great directness declares that He and the Father are one (Jhn_10:30; compare Jhn_17:11, Jhn_17:21, Jhn_17:22, Jhn_17:25) with a unity of interpenetration (“The Father is in me, and I in the Father,” Jhn_10:38; compare Jhn_16:10, Jhn_16:11), so that to have seen Him was to have seen the Father (Jhn_14:9; compare Jhn_15:21);

but He removes all doubt as to the essential nature of His oneness with the Father by explicitly asserting His eternity (“Before Abraham was born, I am,” Jhn_8:58), His co-eternity with God (“had with thee before the world was,” Jhn_17:5; compare Jhn_17:18; Jhn_6:62), His eternal participation in the divine glory itself (“the glory which I had with thee,” in fellowship, community with Thee “before the world was,” Jhn_17:5).

So clear is it that in speaking currently of Himself as God's Son (Jhn_5:25; Jhn_9:35; Jhn_11:4; compare Jhn_10:36), He meant, in accordance with the underlying significance of the idea of sonship in Semitic speech (founded on the natural implication that whatever the father is that the son is also; compare Jhn_16:15; Jhn_17:10), to make Himself, as the Jews with exact appreciation of His meaning perceived, “equal with God” (Jhn_5:18), or, to put it brusquely, just “God” (Jhn_10:33).

How He, being thus equal or rather identical with God, was in the world, He explains as involving a coming forth (ἐξῆλθον, exḗlthon) on His part, not merely from the presence of God (ἀπό, apó, Jhn_16:30; compare Jhn_13:3) or from fellowship with God (παρά, pará, Jhn_16:27; Jhn_17:8), but from out of God Himself (ἐκ, ek, Jhn_8:42; Jhn_16:28).

And in the very act of thus asserting that His eternal home is in the depths of the Divine Being, He throws up, into as strong an emphasis as stressed pronouns can, convey, His personal distinctness from the Father.

'If God were your Father,' says Hebrews (8:42), 'ye would love me: for I came forth and am come out of God; for neither have I come of myself, but it was He that sent me.'

Again, He says (Jhn_16:26, Jhn_16:27): 'In that day ye shall ask in my name: and I say not unto you that I will make request of the Father for you; for the Father Himself loveth you, because ye have loved me, and have believed that it was from fellowship with the Father that I came forth; I came from out of the Father, and have come into the world.'

Less pointedly, but still distinctly, He says again (Jhn_17:8): They know of a truth that it was from fellowship with Thee that I came forth, and they believed that it was Thou that didst send me.'

It is not necessary to illustrate more at large a form of expression so characteristic of the discourses of our Lord recorded by Jn that it meets us on every page: a form of expression which combines a clear implication of a unity of Father and Son which is identity of Being, and an equally clear implication of a distinction of Person between them such as allows not merely for the play of emotions between them, as, for instance, of love (Jhn_17:24; compare Jhn_15:9 (Jhn_3:35); Jhn_14:31), but also of an action and reaction upon one another which argues a high measure, if not of exteriority, yet certainly of exteriorization.

Thus, to instance only one of the most outstanding facts of our Lord's discourses (not indeed confined to those in John's Gospel, but found also in His sayings recorded in the Synoptists, as e.g. Luk_4:43 (compare parallel Mrk_1:38); Luk_9:48; Luk_10:16; Luk_4:34; Luk_5:32; Luk_7:19; Luk_19:10), He continually represents Himself as on the one hand sent by God, and as, on the other, having come forth from the Father (e.g. Jhn_8:42; Jhn_10:36; Jhn_17:3; Jhn_5:23, et saepe).

Would you at least acknowledge the clear Scripture here, or would you prefer to pontificate? This directly contradicts your claim that Jesus was merely a concept in the mind of YHWH, as I have just demonstrated the preexistence of the Messiah.

J.

 

[Johann]

God never dwelt in sin = which means you are still lost in sin if you do not know this!!!

Logic and reading scripture is not his strong point.

J.

 

[Johann]

What you perceive to be sensitivity is my affinity for accuracy. And, I'm a girl, not a fella.

Oh my! My apologies.

J.

 

[CadyandZoe]

The Bible is filled with such play on words in the original language, lost in translation. Jacob’s wife named their son one thing, which has negative meaning but after her death he renamed him Benjamin, which has a positive meaning.

Adam acted with remarkable faith in naming the women AFTER they were kicked out of the Garden. “Eve” is a word that in Aramaic means something like “mother of many”. Adam audacity to suppose they would live that long is remarkable in context.

Abram to Abraham. Jacob to Israel. Simon to Peter. Even Jesus says he will get a new name in Rev 3:12. But getting back to the name of God, YHWH; his name is different from what it means.

In addition, Jesus gave Peter a new name. And Revelation says that Jesus will have a name that know one else has.

 

[CadyandZoe]

This isn't an exact comparison, but if it's possible for water to exist in three forms: solid, liquid and vapor, each quite distinct, and not confused in relation to one another, but, rather, quite distinct, and one is not the other, but be united as one because they're the same substance: water, then why isn't it possible for God, Who's Essence is love, exist in three Persons: the Father, the Word (Son), and the Holy Spirit, each quite distinct, and not confused in relation to One another, but, rather, quite distinct, and One is not the Other, each working differently and yet not working in a contrary fashion, but be united as one because They are the same Essence: love?

You may be thinking of a theological idea called: Modalism

Modalism is a theological idea that emphasizes the unity of God as a singular entity who manifests in three distinct forms: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Unlike the orthodox Christian understanding of the Trinity, which teaches that God is one being eternally existing in three persons, Modalism posits that God is one person who has revealed himself in three forms or modes.

Is Freezing a mode of water?

Yes, you could think of freezing as a mode of water! In fact, this is a great analogy to help explain different states of matter. Water can exist in three primary states: solid (ice), liquid (water), and gas (steam). When water freezes, it transitions from its liquid state to a solid state, which is a different "mode" of water.

So just as modalism describes God manifesting in different modes, water manifests in different states while still being the same substance. The key difference is that modalism involves the same being manifesting in different forms at different times, while water can coexist in multiple states under certain conditions (like ice floating in water).

The Biblical picture is closer to Modalism than Trinitarianism because God is a Transcendent being, outside of our reality. As such one could say that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are each a mode of the Transcendent being.

 

[Johann]

Paul is not talking about the so-called pre-incarnate Christ in this passage.

Really?

11. Father and Son in Johannine Discourses:
It is in the discourses recorded in John, however, that Jesus most copiously refers to the unity of Himself, as the Son, with the Father, and to the mission of the Spirit from Himself as the dispenser of the divine activities.

Here He not only with great directness declares that He and the Father are one (Jhn_10:30; compare Jhn_17:11, Jhn_17:21, Jhn_17:22, Jhn_17:25) with a unity of interpenetration (“The Father is in me, and I in the Father,” Jhn_10:38; compare Jhn_16:10, Jhn_16:11), so that to have seen Him was to have seen the Father (Jhn_14:9; compare Jhn_15:21); but He removes all doubt as to the essential nature of His oneness with the Father by explicitly asserting His eternity (“Before Abraham was born, I am,” Jhn_8:58), Preexistence co-eternity with God (“had with thee before the world was,” Jhn_17:5; compare Jhn_17:18; Jhn_6:62), His eternal participation in the divine glory itself (“the glory which I had with thee,” in fellowship, community with Thee “before the world was,” Jhn_17:5).

So clear is it that in speaking currently of Himself as God's Son (Jhn_5:25; Jhn_9:35; Jhn_11:4; compare Jhn_10:36), He meant, in accordance with the underlying significance of the idea of sonship in Semitic speech (founded on the natural implication that whatever the father is that the son is also; compare Jhn_16:15; Jhn_17:10), to make Himself, as the Jews with exact appreciation of His meaning perceived, “equal with God” (Jhn_5:18), or, to put it brusquely, just “God” (Jhn_10:33).

How He, being thus equal or rather identical with God, was in the world, He explains as involving a coming forth (ἐξῆλθον, exḗlthon) on His part, not merely from the presence of God (ἀπό, apó, Jhn_16:30; compare Jhn_13:3) or from fellowship with God (παρά, pará, Jhn_16:27; Jhn_17:8), but from out of God Himself (ἐκ, ek, Jhn_8:42; Jhn_16:28).

And in the very act of thus asserting that His eternal home is in the depths of the Divine Being, He throws up, into as strong an emphasis as stressed pronouns can, convey, His personal distinctness from the Father.

'If God were your Father,' says Hebrews (8:42), 'ye would love me: for I came forth and am come out of God; for neither have I come of myself, but it was He that sent me.' Again, He says (Jhn_16:26, Jhn_16:27): 'In that day ye shall ask in my name: and I say not unto you that I will make request of the Father for you; for the Father Himself loveth you, because ye have loved me, and have believed that it was from fellowship with the Father that I came forth; I came from out of the Father, and have come into the world.'

Less pointedly, but still distinctly, He says again (Jhn_17:8): They know of a truth that it was from fellowship with Thee that I came forth, and they believed that it was Thou that didst send me.'

It is not necessary to illustrate more at large a form of expression so characteristic of the discourses of our Lord recorded by Jn that it meets us on every page: a form of expression which combines a clear implication of a unity of Father and Son which is identity of Being, and an equally clear implication of a distinction of Person between them such as allows not merely for the play of emotions between them, as, for instance, of love (Jhn_17:24; compare Jhn_15:9 (Jhn_3:35); Jhn_14:31), but also of an action and reaction upon one another which argues a high measure, if not of exteriority, yet certainly of exteriorization.

Thus, to instance only one of the most outstanding facts of our Lord's discourses (not indeed confined to those in John's Gospel, but found also in His sayings recorded in the Synoptists, as e.g. Luk_4:43 (compare parallel Mrk_1:38); Luk_9:48; Luk_10:16; Luk_4:34; Luk_5:32; Luk_7:19; Luk_19:10), He continually represents Himself as on the one hand sent by God, and as, on the other, having come forth from the Father (e.g. Jhn_8:42; Jhn_10:36; Jhn_17:3; Jhn_5:23, et saepe).

Crystal clear language of the preexistence of Messiah as opposed to your "so-called preexistence"

J.

 

[Lizbeth]

It’s sad that trinitarians repeat the lie no matter how many times it is refuted. They just do laps on ground already covered.

Supposing Jesus was divine undermines the entire point of his ministry and significance of his resurrection. There is no theological significance to an all powerful god appearing to die then come back to life.

For a regular mere man to be resurrected by God as proof of our inheritance has all the theological significance in the world. If Jesus is not that man, then he is not the first fruit and we still wait for such proof as a regular guy, a mere man to be resurrected into a glorified body.

The Lord Jesus is and will always be the only "man" to be raised by His own power. That's because He was also Divine. He said He had power to lay down His life and power to take it up again. That can't be said of any mere mortal man. He having power to take up His life again was because he was God incarnate. Those who are born again and know Him will not be resurrected to eternal life by our own power, but by HIS power because He, His Spirit came to dwell in us....our "new man". We must receive Him and be born again to be saved. Christ IN us is the hope of glory and resurrection and salvation. It's our new man that goes on to live in eternity, being "made after the image of He who created him".....sinless, eternal/spiritual......but our old man of the flesh is perishing and will perish....the body of this death....the flesh being dead because of sin.

 

[CadyandZoe]

What exactly are you doing here, interrogating me? One of us is wrong, and it’s not me. This is subtle-ekpeiradzo rather than dokimazo.

Be honest and upfront next time, @CadyandZoe.

J.

Doesn't an interrogation usually involve an interrogative? I didn't ask you a question. I gave you a legitimate reason why I didn't follow the links that you gave. I have heard all the arguments already. That was an honest and upfront statement.

Did you think I was stupid, uneducated, or unknowledgeable about the subject? That is your mistake, not mine. I reject the proofs you offer because they assume philosophical presuppositions that aren't known by the Bible, having been borrowed from Plato's metaphysics and philosophical dichotomy.

Christian theologians debated the nature of God and Jesus, given Plato's theory of Forms(1) and the Greek Dichotomies of "Being vs. Becoming"(2) and "Reality vs. Appearance."(3) Given these Greek Philosophical Categories, the debate focused on where to place Jesus Christ on the reality spectrum. Is Jesus perfect or an imperfect copy of God? Is Jesus a true being -- eternal, unchanging and perfect. Or is Jesus becoming -- constantly changing and imperfect?

But what if we don't assume Plato's metaphysics? What if we derive a Biblical metaphysics from the Bible instead?

____________________________________________
(1) Theory of Forms: According to Plato, every object or concept in the material world is merely an imperfect copy or representation of a perfect, immutable Form. For example, all the individual trees we see are imperfect copies of the ideal Form of "Tree" that exists in the realm of Forms.

(2) Being vs. Becoming: This dichotomy is central to the philosophies of Plato and Heraclitus. Plato argued that the realm of Forms represents true being—eternal, unchanging, and perfect. In contrast, the material world is the realm of becoming—constantly changing and imperfect. Heraclitus, on the other hand, emphasized the perpetual change in the universe, famously stating, "You cannot step into the same river twice."

(3) Reality vs. Appearance: This dichotomy explores the difference between the true nature of reality and how it appears to us. Plato's Allegory of the Cave illustrates this idea by suggesting that the sensory world is just a shadow of the true reality, which can only be grasped through intellectual insight.

 

[CadyandZoe]

Really?

11. Father and Son in Johannine Discourses:

Can you deal with the passage at hand?

 

[Johann]

Did you think I was stupid, uneducated, or unknowledgeable about the subject? That is your mistake, not mine. I reject the proofs you offer because they assume philosophical presuppositions that aren't known by the Bible, having been borrowed from Plato's metaphysics and philosophical dichotomy.

It is your right to reject the biblical proof texts that clearly affirm the Messiah's deity and preexistence, but please spare me the philosophical arguments about Plato.

This is not about Plato and his metaphysics-it's about what the Bible says.

J.

 

[Johann]

Can you deal with the passage at hand?

Can you deal with the references I have given you?

J.

 

[APAK]

Speaking of corrupted translations, it's amazing what you can learn in a couple of days how Russell and friends corrupted the almost 2000 years old NT and replaced key verses to degrade Jesus., here we go -

Ex 3:14 - So God said to Moses: “I Will Become What I Choose* to Become.”*+ And he added: “This is what you are to say to the Israelites, ‘I Will Become has sent me to you.’” [JW bible]
Ex 3:14 - God said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM.” And he said, “Say this to the people of Israel, ‘I AM has sent me to you.’” [true Bible]

FALSE JW translation, ask any Rabbi, the true experts in Hebrew. But, I had to be changed to negate John 8:58

John 8:58 - Jesus said to them: “Most truly I say to you, before Abraham came into existence, I have been. [JW bible]
John 8:58 - Jesus said to them, 'Verily, verily, I say to you, Before Abraham's coming--I am;' [true Bible]

John 1:1 - In the beginning was the Word,+ and the Word was with God,+ and the Word was a god. [JW bible]
John 1:1 - In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God; [true Bible]

John 1:14 - So the Word became flesh [JW bible]
John 1:14 - And the Word became flesh [true Bible]

Aha, and now we see the great Russell trick, 1:1 had to be changed, the Word could not remain God else Jesus was God incarnated, that can't be following Russell and so "The Word was God" was deliberately changed into "the Word was a god" and the world according Russell was okay again.

Man, you have been cheated, big time.

Even the non-JW translation of verse 14 is much worse PD. That's what I speaking about. There should be no 'I am ' for who the Almighty one is called in this verse if you find the Hebrew for this expression.

Ok, this is the gist of it...I'm sure it is new to you.

When Moses asked God the name he should use to refer to Him, God told him, “I AM WHO I AM.”

Moses was to tell the Israelites I am what I am or will be, was going to free them from slavery.

Error 1: The English translations of Exodus 3:14 for what they place in as 'I AM' is incorrect and deceitful. The following should be its translation from the Hebrew language.


YHWH said to Moses in English, ‘I am (being) that/who I am/shall be.’ It is the personal expression of the Almighty one. This expression reads in Hebrew as, ‘Ehyeh asher ehyeh,’ you shall say to the people in Hebrew, 'Ehyeh has sent me to you.’ It is translated into English as ‘I will/shall be,’ or ‘I am existing.’

Note: The divine name of the Almighty is YHWH not Ehyeh asher ehyeh, or Ehyeh! Although is does describe or protract the meaning of it.

Error 2: Many also compare the English incomplete translations as the ‘I am’ here, in this Exodus 3: verse 14, with John 8:58. They conclude that Jesus called himself YHWH because he also said ‘I am.’ in John 8:58. For the two errors I've indicated already, this is a gross and very misleading error. It is sheer dishonesty is mixing them together to forge a corruption of the Hebrew and Greek languages of these two distinct and different terms with quite different meanings.

Further....
In John 8:58, Jesus’ words are translated in the common Greek expression as ‘ego eimi,’ that means in English ‘I am.’ A very common expression used by ANYONE!...Even for me and for you if someone needed to know who, and the only who of the subject of discussion.

The Greek translation of this verse 14 of Exodus 3, in English, is ‘I am being’ or ‘I am who exists’ from ‘ego eimi ho on’ and not ‘ego eimi.’ And further, it is in Greek, ‘ho on’ or in English, ‘who exists’ has sent me to you, not ‘I am.’