Does John 1:1 say Jesus is God

[RLT63]

Yes, I should have used the principle that both he and trinitarians rest, mystical dualism. @GEN2REV applies this princinple to 2-in-1 Being, whereas trinitarians apply this principle to a 3-in-1 Being.

No I think he believes in a single deity. His belief is that Jesus is the Father the Son and the Holy Spirit. Pentecostal Oneness.

 

[GEN2REV]

Rather than admit this aspect of Language Usage, you Appeal to Diversion - from Jesus and God to water and cups

You just don't want to acknowledge the significance of such ubiquitious language usage in Scripture.

Does God not refer to our physical bodies as "Vessels"?

And symbolically refer to the Spirit as "Water"?

I'd gladly acknowledge your position if you could build a case using Scripture alone. You can't so you revert to English language rules, extra-biblical "experts" and so on and so forth.

The Bible defines, and proves, itself from within. It is a totally self-contained supernatural book written by God.

He miraculously built-in all manner of fail-safes and anti-theft, anti-deception, devices within the book itself. It is the most amazing book ever written and it states, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that Jesus is God, and The Word is Jesus.

@GEN2REV applies this princinple to 2-in-1 Being, whereas trinitarians apply this principle to a 3-in-1 Being.

No, now you're claiming that I'm Father-and-Son-Only doctrine.

You know very well that is not True.

 

[GEN2REV]

No I think he believes in a single deity. His belief is that Jesus is the Father the Son and the Holy Spirit. Pentecostal Oneness.

Yes, unfortunately it has been given that stigma name.

Many think Pentecostals are crazy and modern churches assuage their congregations with scathing remarks like "Oh, that's Pentecostal Oneness!" which not only defames Pentecostals, but alienates anybody in the church in question who might be seeing Oneness in their Bible study and happens to ask their pastor about it. Afraid to believe anything the rest do not, most will submit and embrace whatever the almighty pastor decrees as truth.

I am not Pentecostal, by the way. I just believe what God has shown me in Scripture is all.

I am glad that you believe Christ is God. That is much better than the alternative.

 

[RLT63]

Yes, unfortunately it has been given that stigma name.

Many think Pentecostals are crazy and modern churches assuage their congregations with scathing remarks like "Oh, that's Pentecostal Oneness!" which not only defames Pentecostals, but alienates anybody in the church in question who might be seeing Oneness in their Bible study and happens to ask their pastor about it. Afraid to believe anything the rest do not, most will submit and embrace whatever the almighty pastor decrees as truth.

I am not Pentecostal, by the way. I just believe what God has shown me in Scripture is all.

I am glad that you believe Christ is God. That is much better than the alternative.

I didn't mean to be disrespectful. My ex father in law was UPC and his beliefs were a lot like yours. Nothing defamatory or crazy about it.

 

[Wrangler]

No I think he believes in a single deity. His belief is that Jesus is the Father the Son and the Holy Spirit. Pentecostal Oneness.

Oh, that not a trinitarian?

I'd gladly acknowledge your position if you could build a case using Scripture alone.

If that were true, you would have done it already.

You can't so you revert to English language rules

We are speaking English, GEN. Is it your position that objects of sentences and subjects of sentences in other languages are one and the same thing?

 

[GEN2REV]

I didn't mean to be disrespectful. My ex father in law was UPC and his beliefs were a lot like yours. Nothing defamatory or crazy about it.

I didn't think you were.

No offense taken.

 

[GEN2REV]

If that were true, you would have done it already.

A 'sound' case .... using Scripture alone.

That means a case that rightly divides, and aligns properly with all of, the Bible.

We are speaking English, GEN. Is it your position that objects of sentences and subjects of sentences in other languages are one and the same thing?

It's my position that your arguments based on grammatical rules of the English language are illegitimate in light of the Scripture. It doesn't matter what the "subject" or "object" of the prepositional phrase is if the weight of the text in its entirety bears out that Jesus is God.

And it does ... English language be darned.

 

[GEN2REV]

So, @Wrangler (Strangler),

You're always challenging everybody else about their specific beliefs.

How 'bout you explain yours for a change?

You believe only in the God of the OT?

You don't believe the Messiah ever came, and thus, Jesus is not God in any way shape or form?

What else? How does it work?

So you're just a true Jewish Monotheist then?

Are you Hebrew Israelite or .... ?

Lay it out there.

 

[Wrangler]

So, @Wrangler (Strangler),

You're always challenging everybody else about their specific beliefs.

How 'bout you explain yours for a change?

You believe only in the God of the OT?

You don't believe the Messiah ever came, and thus, Jesus is not God in any way shape or form?

What else? How does it work?

So you're just a true Jewish Monotheist then?

Are you Hebrew Israelite or .... ?

Lay it out there.

Jesus is the Messiah, which means Christ, which means Gods Anointed, which means Son of God.

His God, the Creator of us all, is the only true God, who we relate to as Father. I am a Biblical unitarian.

Any questions?

 

[Wrangler]

No, now you're claiming that I'm Father-and-Son-Only doctrine.

You know very well that is not True.

No. I’m sorry. I thought that was your doctrine from your posts.

 

[Wrangler]

A 'sound' case .... using Scripture alone.

That means a case that rightly divides, and aligns properly with all of, the Bible.

It's my position that your arguments based on grammatical rules of the English language are illegitimate in light of the Scripture. It doesn't matter what the "subject" or "object" of the prepositional phrase is if the weight of the text in its entirety bears out that Jesus is God.

This is Circular Reasoning. Nothing in Scripture comes close to ‘Jesus is God.’

You start with that THEN want to alter every rule of reasoning to support it:
1. Definition
2. Logic
3. Language Usage
4. Explicit Scripture.

 

[GEN2REV]

Jesus is the Messiah, which means Christ, which means Gods Anointed, which means Son of God.

His God, the Creator of us all, is the only true God, who we relate to as Father. I am a Biblical unitarian.

Any questions?

But you do know the Biblical definition of Messiah is different than your definition, right?

And we can define terms that are in the Bible ... with the Bible ... by presenting verses that show what the Bible holds as their definition.

 

[GEN2REV]

This is Circular Reasoning. Nothing in Scripture comes close to ‘Jesus is God.’

You start with that THEN want to alter every rule of reasoning to support it:
1. Definition
2. Logic
3. Language Usage
4. Explicit Scripture.

You overcomplicate things to obfuscate Truth, though.

You can tell what the definition of a word is in a book based on the ongoing theme of that book. It is common practice to do so. It is actually exactly what the 'context' argument is all about. When you take information, like a word or partial verse, out of context to put it under a microscope, you remove all of the related information that surrounds it that can very easily be used to better identify that information.

Claiming that everything must be put under a microscope, and focusing on tiny letters, words and language usage, etc. only functions to distract and divert attention away from the obvious information that one can observe through the ongoing story, and context, itself.

 

[Wrangler]

But you do know the Biblical definition of Messiah is different than your definition, right?

And we can define terms that are in the Bible ... with the Bible ... by presenting verses that show what the Bible holds as their definition.

No but I suggest starting a new thread on using the Bible as a dictionary.

IMO, you are very guilty of disregarding explicit Scripture to read you doctrine into text you prefer. You either don’t realize you are doing it or have been so indoctrinated, that you don’t realize it is wrong.

 

[Wrangler]

You overcomplicate things to obfuscate Truth, though.

You can tell what the definition of a word is in a book based on the ongoing theme of that book. It is common practice to do so. It is actually exactly what the 'context' argument is all about. When you take information, like a word or partial verse, out of context to put it under a microscope, you remove all of the related information that surrounds it that can very easily be used to better identify that information.

Claiming that everything must be put under a microscope, and focusing on tiny letters, words and language usage, etc. only functions to distract and divert attention away from the obvious information that one can observe through the ongoing story, and context, itself.

You are guilty of that and don’t realize it.

Honestly, it’s not that hard. The trinity - the word and doctrine - and ‘Jesus is God’ is not it the Bible in any manner, shape or form.

By reading your doctrine into unitarian text, you make one desperate and contradictory claim after another.

The Bible explicitly says Jesus is the son of God many times and not Once calls him God the Son. This is good enough for me. Why is it not good enough for you?

 

[GEN2REV]

No but I suggest starting a new thread on using the Bible as a dictionary.

IMO, you are very guilty of disregarding explicit Scripture to read you doctrine into text you prefer. You either don’t realize you are doing it or have been so indoctrinated, that you don’t realize it is wrong.

What indoctrination?

I have no concern about having been indoctrinated.

The only indoctrination I've received is pure Scripture.

That only works on those who have learned much from a church or seminary or had the Bible taught to them by man.

As a matter of fact, you are far more likely to be indoctrinated than I am because you cannot come to the conclusions you have come to sheerly by Scripture alone. You are the one who has had your doctrine taught to you.

If you agree that Messiah means Son of God, how does your mind distort such a concept to conclude that a son has no part of the father they came from? You don't even believe that Jesus has any level of deity at all, yet you admit His ONLY Father contributor to His existence was God Almighty.

You still insist He is human. That doesn't follow ANY level of logic and there is nothing in Scripture that makes that case.

 

[Wrangler]

s a matter of fact, you are far more likely to be indoctrinated than I am because you cannot come to the conclusions you have come to sheerly by Scripture alone

LOL. For us, there is one God, the Father. Pure Scripture.

 

[GEN2REV]

LOL. For us, there is one God, the Father. Pure Scripture.

Lolling.

That's a perfect example of your narrow sightedness. You take ONE verse, or sentiment, from Scripture and lay claim to it as an in depth doctrine all to itself.

The Bible as a whole DOES NOT SUPPORT THAT IDEA.

The New Testament from Matthew to Revelation reveals that Jesus IS THAT ONE GOD. (And so does the OT by the way.)

And Pure Scripture is ALL OF SCRIPTURE.

Not just one nugget to hang your hat on and call it a day.

 

[Wrangler]

You take ONE verse, or sentiment, from Scripture and lay claim to it as an in depth doctrine all to itself.

The Bible as a whole DOES NOT SUPPORT THAT IDEA.

Yes, I do take the verse For us, there is one God, the Father. Pure Scripture as in depth doctrine all to itself - consistent with the Shema, 1C, 1 COR 11:3, and Jesus' own statements of his God is the only true God.

And your claim is summarily rejected for it implies that God contradicts himself. This, again reveals your circular reasoning. You start with your doctrine and claim the Bible as a whole supports it. The truth is the EXACT OPPOSITE as I have repeatedly shown.

 

[Peterlag]

Premise 2 is untrue. Therefore, your conclusion is untrue.

Jesus' title is Anointed. He is Anointed by God. He is not the Anointer, not the Creator but a created Being. This is what it means to be a son, to be a created being. This is why Scripture explicitly says Jesus is the firstborn of all Creation.

Yes, Wrangler.

I always catch it.

It's not Wrangler but Peterlag that said Oh wow you caught that.