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

[L.A.M.B.]

Mt. 10:33 ( context 31-34 )
But WHOSOEVER SHALL DENY ME BEFORE MEN,HIM WILL I ALSO DENY BEFORE MY FATHER WHICH IS IN HEAVEN.
2 Tim.2:12 ( context 10-13 )
If we suffer,we shall also reign with him: if we DENY him, he also will deny us:

Deny Jesus's deity and you are like these:
Titus. 1:16 ( context 14-16)
They ....profess.. that they KNOW GOD; but in works they deny him,being abominable,and disobedient,and unto every good work reprobate.

This is what Jesus will say to you.......
Luke 13: 27 But he shall say, I tell you I KNOW YOU NOT whence ye are; DEPART FROM ME,all ye workers of iniquity.


May God have mercy !

 

[PinSeeker]

"Only begotten" in John 3.16 refers to the unique relationship between the Father and the Son, and not to the Lord Jesus' physical birth. He was the Son already - gloriously so - when God sent Him as the Saviour. 'Only begotten' refers to that unique relationship, while 'first begotten' refers to His preeminence over Creation.

I agree wholeheartedly, farouk. I would add ~ and I think you will probably agree ~ that the more accurate translation to English of the Greek μονογενῆ (monogenēs) is not "only begotten" but rather merely "only," or "one and only," as in "(God) gave his only Son" or "(God) gave His one and only Son" because we see the same word used in John 1:14, where we read "...glory as of the only Son from the Father." Yes, as you say, it is all about the Father's unique relationship with the Son, from all eternity to all eternity.

By "first begotten," I am assuming you are referring to Colossians 1:15, where Paul says Christ Jesus "is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation." The word 'firstborn' there is not to be received as "born before anyone else in creation," as if Jesus Himself were created. Scripture is abundantly clear in refuting that notion, in, for example, John 1:3, which says "All things were made through (Christ), and without (Christ) was not any thing made that was made." Rather, 'firstborn' clearly denotes Christ's preeminence over all creation and His ruling over all creation, which is what you're saying here also. Likewise, on a lesser level, David was elevated to "firstborn" ~ to a position of preeminence ~ over all his brothers, who were all older than he, and even over all of Israel. Jesus is the Greater David.

Yes, I'm preaching to the choir. :)

Grace and peace to you, farouk!

 

[robert derrick]

Trinitarian Greek expert, W. E. Vine, (although, for obvious reasons, he chooses not to accept it as the proper interpretation) admits that the literal translation of John 1:1c is: “a god was the Word”. - p. 490, An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, Thomas Nelson, Inc., 1983 printing.

Professor C. H. Dodd, director of the New English Bible project, also admits this is a proper literal translation:

“A possible translation [for John 1:1c] ... would be, ‘The Word was a god.’ As a word-for-word translation it cannot be faulted.” - Technical Papers for the Bible Translator, vol. 28, Jan. 1977.

In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was a god.

That would be post-trinitarian greek expert.

See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god with me.

Christ always knew how to shoot down stupid post-trinitarian greek experts.

No word nor god with the LORD God, ever.

What is there to say about idolators, who don't even believe the LORD God, in order to keep their own created christ as a god only?

 

[Matthias]

In the beginning the GODS created the Heavens et al.

Scriptural truth merely confirms the plurality of God, but NEVER in all of Scripture has our infinite God been reduced to a mere trinity.

The Hebrew word which you’ve translated “GODS” is elohim. Elohim is a word which is always plural in form but it can be either singular or plural in meaning. You’ve understood the Hebrew word in Genesis 1:1 to be plural in form, plural in meaning and translated it in English as plural in meaning.

Elohim, plural in form, plural in meaning = gods

Elohim, plural in form, singular in meaning = God, or god

“Gods” = more than one God = polytheism

“God” = one God = monotheism

English translation committees have understood elohim to be plural in form, singular in meaning in Genesis 1:1 and have rendered it as singular in meaning in the translations which have been published.

I’m not aware of any English translation which renders Genesis 1:1 has you have. If you are, I would be very interested in seeing it.

 

[PinSeeker]

So, take the simple, easy 5-part test in post 172 above.

Sure (as if this hasn't been done...). Jesus said the Father sent Him many places all through John's gospel (John 4:34, John 5:23, John 5:24, John 5:30, John 5:36, John 5:37, John 5:38, John 6:29, John 6:38, John 6:39, John 6:44, John 6:57, John 7:16, John 7:18, John 7:28, John 7:29, John 7:33, John 8:16, John 8:18, John 8:26, John 8:29, John 8:42, John 9:4, John 10:36, John 11:42, John 12:44, John 12:45, John 12:49, John 13:20, John 14:24, John 15:21, John 16:5, John 17:3, John 17:8, John 17:18, John 17:21, John 17:23, John 17:25, John 20:21.

To be sent strongly implies pre-existence, which speaks to Christ's eternality, His equality, His deity, and His glory, and His perfect unity ~ all with the Father, from all eternity.

The Spirit is also sent by the Father (in Christ's name), as Jesus clearly says in John 14:26, and denotes all the same things.

Really, John 14:24, where Jesus says the Father sent Him, and John 14:26, where Jesus says the Father will send (has sent, now, of course) is all that's needed to answer all five (A, B, C, D, and E) above.

But like the writer of Hebrews says, what more shall I say? For time would fail me to tell of all the others... :)

'B' is really quite unnecessary, as we can easily read John 14 and count: "One, Two, Three. Three. THREE! AAAAAAAAAAAH, AH, AH, AH, AH, AAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHH!!!!"

Clear and undisputed (except to Jehovah's Witnesses, of course, but no matter):

• "The LORD (Jehovah) is my shepherd; I shall not want." (Psalm 23:1), coupled with "I (Jesus) am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep." (John 10:11)
• "The Word was God... the Word became flesh and dwelt among us... " (John 1:1, John 1:14)
• "I (Jehovah) AM WHO I AM." (Exodus 3:14), coupled with "Truly, truly, I (Jesus) say to you, before Abraham was, I AM.” (John 8:58)
• "Christ Jesus, Who, though He was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men." (Philippians 2:5-7)
• "For in Him (Christ) the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily, and you (we) have been filled in Him, Who is the Head of all rule and authority." (Colossians 2:9-10)

These things are straightforward, important aspects of a Biblical trinity.

Agreed. Grace and peace to you.

 

[APAK]

John 1:1-5
The Word Became Flesh
1 In the beginning was the Word (Jesus), and the Word (Jesus) was with God, and the Word (Jesus) was God. 2 He (Jesus) was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him (Jesus) all things were made; without him (Jesus) nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him (Jesus) was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.

Now I am a true non-denominational Christian who believes that Jesus is God. @APAK I would like to know your religious background which teaches you that he isn't. Please share.

Pearl let me frank again to you, there is zero proof that Jesus = (W)word, none whatsoever. It is a fabrication to invent from nothing, especially a trinitarian foundation in scripture where there in none to be found. To attempt to make a beachhead or foothold into scripture. You need to find out where is the real source of your information. The Greek transliteration 'logos' for (w)word in English cannot never mean a person let alone Jesus. I'm not kidding you.

 

[APAK]

"enjoy dissecting words of others"... I mean, sometimes it's necessary. Your previous statement was ~ no offense ~ kind of a jumble of okay and not okay stuff, so to speak.


Never say never... :) I think you probably do sometimes, and there's nothing wrong with that when necessary.


I'm certainly not, unless you just mean I'm being too short for you.


It's just on you to answer your own query first.


Do you mean to say, "here's one"?


I would say there are none with any credibility.


You know, APAK... Wow. I'm sorry, but this seems like some kind of stream of consciousness that I can't even follow. I'm not sure what you're saying here, and I don't even know what you're really asking me for. Tell me if I'm understanding you correctly: You support "Goal A," and you offer one support ("Support 1" above) for that. And you think I support "Goal B" ~ which apparently is the opposite of "Goal A," but I'm not even sure what that is, what you mean by that ~ and you want me to provide a "Support 1" for it? Is that right? I really am not following; maybe I'm just having some kind of dense moment... :) Maybe you can make this a little clearer and more, um, systematic...? Sorry.

Grace and peace to you.

Did you or did you not say this in your post #109?

"Agreed, stunnedbygrace, in His state of having taken on the form of man, as Paul says in Philippians 2. But I would also assert that the Father is and always will be "greater" than Christ in the sense that the Father is the One Who sends and commands; the Father is "greater" in authority/leadership than the Son. However, what this verse does not mean is that Jesus is somehow inferior in His being and essence to the Father. It cannot, as John would be contradicting his own words in John 1:1, John 10:30, and John 20:28. I think you agree with this..."

So for the last time and this time without any cheap empty words of evasion, explain the bolded words for not only John 10:30, also for John 1:1 and John 20:28, that Jesus is not inferior in his being and essence to the Father?

Now this stream of consciousness you must be able follow, as they are all your words not mine?

 

[tigger 2]

PinSeeker pretends to answer Challenge A:

"John 4:34, John 5:23, John 5:24, John 5:30, John 5:36, John 5:37, John 5:38, John 6:29, John 6:38, John 6:39, John 6:44, John 6:57, John 7:16, John 7:18, John 7:28, John 7:29, John 7:33, John 8:16, John 8:18, John 8:26, John 8:29, John 8:42, John 9:4, John 10:36, John 11:42, John 12:44, John 12:45, John 12:49, John 13:20, John 14:24, John 15:21, John 16:5, John 17:3, John 17:8, John 17:18, John 17:21, John 17:23, John 17:25, John 20:21.

"To be sent strongly implies pre-existence, which speaks to Christ's eternality, His equality, His deity, and His glory, and His perfect unity ~ all with the Father, from all eternity.

"The Spirit is also sent by the Father (in Christ's name), as Jesus clearly says in John 14:26, and denotes all the same things.

"Really, John 14:24, where Jesus says the Father sent Him, and John 14:26, where Jesus says the Father will send (has sent, now, of course) is all that's needed to answer all five (A, B, C, D, and E) above.

"But like the writer of Hebrews says, what more shall I say? For time would fail me to tell of all the others..." :)
..........................................................................................
Apparently you need someone to read for you and guide you. Here, again is Challenge A:

"(A) Please carefully and thoroughly search to find a vision, dream, or clear description in scripture wherein God is shown as more than one person."

Here is what I have found when searching the scriptures for visions of God:

Even though God has caused a representation of himself to be "seen" in dreams and visions, we still don’t know exactly what he "physically" looks like. Still, we should get some idea of the essential knowledge he wants us to know about himself from these inspired visions. We know that he always represents himself as a single person seated on a throne.

For example, at Ezekiel 1:5, 6, 26-28 we see God as he showed himself to Ezekiel in a vision.

"and in the fire was what looked like four living creatures. In appearance their
rance of the likeness of the glory of [Jehovah]." - Ezek. 1:26-28, NIV.

Remember, we just had a description of spirit persons each of whom looked like a man (except for having four faces). Now we have a description of another person who looks For example, at Ezekiel 1:5, 6, 26-28 we see God as he showed himself to Ezekiel in a vision.

"and in the fire was what looked like four living creatures. In appearance their form was that of a man, but each of them had four faces..." - Ezek. 1:5-6, NIV.

Now if this had actually been the description of God, "multiple-oneness God" fans would have had the best proof ever for their passion: we would finally have some real evidence for a multiple-oneness God: a four-in-one God (a "Quadrinity")! But these four persons, each with four faces, represent God’s attendants (cherubim), not God. Each one represents 4 different aspects by its 4 faces. Can you imagine what would be said by trinitarians if God were similarly described as three persons each with three faces?!

The point is that God could (and did) show a clear representation of "multiple-oneness" in vision to his inspired prophet, but he never represented himself in such a manner!

Notice that each of these living creatures was in appearance like a man. And every aspect that differed from that of "a man" was carefully described.

Now notice the rest of the vision:

"Above the expanse over their heads was what looked like a [single] throne of sapphire, and high above on the throne was a [single] figure like that of a [single] man. I saw that from what appeared to be his waist [singular] up he looked like glowing metal, as if full of fire, and that from there down he looked like fire; and brilliant light surrounded him. Like the appearance of a rainbow in the clouds on a rainy day, so was the radiance around him. This was the appealike a man. The differences from the appearance of a man are also noted but do not include anything that would make us think he was, in any way, anything more than a single person! Not three persons, not three heads, not three faces, etc. (In fact, nowhere in the entire Bible is the word "three" associated with a description of God! This simply would not be if God were truly three persons!)

God is a single person, the Father alone, Jehovah.

Now let’s see Daniel’s vision of God:

"the Ancient of Days took his seat. His clothing was as white as snow; the hair of his head [singular] was white like wool. His throne [singular] was flaming with fire, and its wheels were all ablaze." - Dan. 7:9, NIV.

Notice that, again, he looks like a single person.

And then,

"one, like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days [seated on the throne] and was led into his presence." - Dan. 7:13, NIV.

So we see a single person seated on God’s throne and another person (the Messiah) being led into God’s presence.

Now let’s see the Apostle John’s vision which parallels Daniel’s vision:

"At once I was in the Spirit, and there before me was a throne in heaven with someone sitting on it. And the one who sat there had the appearance of jasper.... In the center, around the throne, were four living creatures.... Day and night they never stop saying: ‘Holy, holy, holy is the Lord God Almighty...’ [and] ‘You are worthy, our Lord and God, ... for you created all things, and by your will they were created....’ Then I saw in the right hand of Him who sat on the throne a scroll with writing on both sides.... Then I saw a Lamb, looking as if it had been slain.... He came and took the scroll from the right hand of Him who sat on the throne." - Rev. 4:2, 3, 6, 8, 11; 5:1, 6, 7, NIV.

Again we see a single person on the throne who is God Almighty (Jehovah). And, again, we see the Christ approach God on his throne. And we see this one on the throne again at Rev. 19:4.

(tbc)

 

[farouk]

@PinSeeker Good verses there......

 

[tigger 2]

"The twenty-four elders and the four living creatures fell down and worshiped God, who was seated on the throne. And they cried: ‘Amen, Hallelujah! ["praise Jehovah "]’" - NIV.

Another important vision of God is that of Stephen.

"But Stephen, full of Holy Spirit, looked up to heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God. ‘Look,’ he said, ‘I see heaven open and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God.’" - Acts 7:55, 56, NIV.

Again we see God (not "God the Father," or "the Father," but God) as a single person and Jesus as another person (not God, however). And never (in any vision, dream, etc.) do we see the "person" of the Holy Spirit! God is the Father alone - a single person - Jehovah.

God simply has not revealed himself in clear, undisputed scripture as anything but a single person, the Father. The Jews never understood him in any other way. Jesus did not reveal him in any other way. The NT writers did not reveal him in any other way (other than through generalizations, "mystery" solving, and allegorical interpretations which allow a reader to find whatever he is looking for). And the very first Christians (up into the second century at least) did not understand God in any other way.

If God were three persons, it would have been revealed clearly and repeatedly from the beginning. This is essential knowledge of God, and all worshipers of the true God have needed such knowledge from the beginning. God would not have withheld it from his chosen people throughout the thousands of years of his Prophets and inspired scripture writers.

 

[tigger 2]

The second point asked for in the beginning above:

(B) Please show where in scripture God is ever described using the word "three."

Using Concordances for the KJV (Strong's and Young's Concordances) and the NASB (New American Standard Concordance of the Bible, Lockman Foundation 1981) I have found absolutely no scriptures which use the word "three" in describing God. But notice how important the use of the word 'three' is in the very definition of the trinity concept (see definition of 'trinity' at the beginning of this study.).

Isn't the word "three" at least as important as the word "one' (which is used for God in scripture) for the knowledge of the God whom we must worship in truth (Jn 4:24) - -that is, if the trinity doctrine were actually true?

Not only is the word "three" never used in conjunction with God anywhere in the Holy Scriptures (which simply could not be if God were really a "trinity"!), but it isn’t even as scripturally important as many other numbers ("one," "seven," "twelve," for example)!

There are "very few traces of ‘three’ in the cultus and the religious conceptions of the Israelites .... This relative rarity of a connexion between ‘three’ and religious notions, which prevails in the OT, should not be [supplied] from other sources. The thunder call, ‘Hear, O Israel, Jahweh (the?) one’ (Dt 6:4, cf. Is 41:4 44:6 48:12 ), drowns the voice of those who refer us to the triads of gods that were adored by the Babylonians, Assyrians, (Anu, Bel, and Ea, etc. ...), and other nations of antiquity. .... But the original meaning of the OT text must not be modified to suit either heathen parallels or later stages in its own development." - pp. 565, 566, Vol. 3, A Dictionary of the Bible, Hastings (trinitarian), ed., Hendrickson Publ. (trinitarian), 1988 printing.

"Although three has widely been thought a sacred number [by trinitarians, of course], specifically religious uses of it in the Bible seem to be relatively few." - p. 687, Vol. 2, The New International Dictionary of the New Testament (trinitarian), Zondervan Publ. (trinitarian), 1986.

If there were even hints of a trinity to be found in Scripture, the one word we would regularly see with religious significance would be "three." The fact that it is relatively insignificant throughout Scripture is enough in itself to refute any idea of a trinity!

 

[tigger 2]

In challenge (A) above we find that All the visions and dreams in all scripture which show God, show him as one person only, and in challenge (B) we discover that the word "three" is never used in describing God anywhere in clear, undisputed scripture.

The next challenge, (C) above, is mostly confined to the OT Scriptures, since it requires use of the only personal name of God: YHWH (transliterated ‘JEHOVAH’ – Ps. 83:18, KJV or "Jehovah" - Ex. 3:15, ASV; NEB; MLB; LB; KJIIV and MKJV; Byington; Young’s; and Darby or ‘Yahweh’ – Ex. 3:15, AT; JB; NJB; World English Bible).

God is named YHWH, which is improperly rendered in most English Bibles as "LORD" (all capitals). 'Yahweh,' and/or 'Jehovah' are used more properly as transliteraions into English in some Bibles. The KJV uses 'JEHOVAH' at Ps. 83:18, but 'LORD 'in nearly all the other 6000+ places it is found in the Hebrew manuscripts.

There is no other God but YHWH (Is. 45:5, 45:21; 46:9; Ps. 83:16-18).

There are clear direct, undisputed statements that YHWH is the Father (e.g., Isaiah 64:8 "But now, O Jehovah, thou art our Father; we are the clay, and thou our potter; and we all are the work of thy hand." - ASV). There are a number of personal names in scripture which mean "God is YHWH" (Elijah); "YHWH is God" (Joel).

But more important, there are a number of personal names in scripture which mean "YHWH is the Father" (e.g., Abijah; Abia; Joab). These names are also clear, direct undisputed statements of who YHWH, the only God, is: the Father.

So my scriptural challenge here, (C), is to

Please find a clear, direct, undisputed scriptural statement which is equivalent to 'Jesus is the Christ' or 'YHWH is the Father' (which really are found repeatedly in clear, undisputed scriptures) which declares:

'YHWH is the Son,' or 'YHWH is the Firstborn,' or, 'YHWH is the Messiah (or "Christ"), or any other equally clear, undisputed statement (or personal name) that 'Jesus is YHWH' (the only God according to scripture).

Yes, it would most likely be found in the OT, but that is where the scriptures are which we have referred to! The OT is, of course the largest part of the Bible and was the only scripture known to Jesus and his followers during his lifetime on earth.

Nevertheless, it could still be found in personal names in the NT (as it was in the OT), since the only uses of God’s personal name found in still-existing NT manuscripts are in personal names and the phrase ‘Hallelujah’ (‘Praise Jehovah.’):

Some of the names in the NT which contain God's personal name: Uriah; Abijah ('The Father is Jehovah') NKJV, ASV; RSV, NRSV, JB, etc.; Jehoshaphat; Jehoram; Uzziah; Hezekiah; Josiah; Jeconiah; Ananias ['Jehovah is Gracious'] - "a common Jewish name, the same as Hananiah." - Today's Dictionary of the Bible, (Ananias, 'high priest at Jerusalem, A.D. 60' - Young's) - Acts 23:2; 24:1. So people (including a high priest) were still being given personal names which had YHWH's personal name as part of their meaning in NT times. Also 'Elijah' (which means ‘God is Jehovah’ is used 30 times in the NT);

And in Luke 1:5 Zechariah; and Abijah NKJV, ASV; NASB; RSV; NRSV; JB; etc. This is the name of one of the 24 priestly divisions and named by Luke as such in the NT in connection with Zechariah the priest, John the Baptist's Father. This priestly division of Abijah (which means 'The Father is Jehovah') existed until the temple was destroyed in 70 A.D.).

Therefore, there is no reason why personal names, even in the NT, should not have had the meaning of "The Son is YHWH" or the "Holy Spirit is YHWH" (just as so many were named "The Father is YHWH"). Except of course, the obvious one:

No Christian or Jew believed such a thing!

There are no such statements or meanings of personal names in any of the scriptures!

The one true Most High God simply has not revealed himself in any scriptural vision, representation, or dream as anything but a single person, the Father. The Jews never understood him in any other way. Jesus did not reveal him in any other way. The NT writers did not reveal him in any other way (other than by generalizations, "mystery" solving, allegorical interpretations, or disputed translating of trinitarian theologians). And the very first Christians (up to the second century A.D. at least) did not understand God in any other way.

If God were truly three persons, it would have been revealed clearly and repeatedly from the beginning. This is essential knowledge of God, and all worshipers of the true God have needed such knowledge from the beginning. God would not have withheld it from his chosen people throughout the thousands of years of his prophets and inspired scripture writers.

 

[tigger 2]

The fourth request for clear undisputed evidence of a trinity (or Jesus being 'equally God') asked for in part #1 above:


"Since the Father is clearly, directly, and indisputably called "God, the Father," many, many times, and the Son and Holy Spirit are said by trinitarians to be equally the one God (in ‘three distinct persons’):

"(D) Please give equally clear, undisputed scriptures where Jesus is called "God the Son," (equal to those declaring "God, the Father" – Ro. 15:6; 1 Cor. 1:3; 1 Cor. 8:6; 2 Cor. 11:31; Gal. 1:1; Eph. 4:6; 1 Thess. 1:1; 2 Thess. 1:2; etc.)"

You could add "God, the Christ," "God, the Messiah," "God, the Firstborn," or any other term used exclusively for Jesus. But, surely, if the trinity were true, we would find the term "God, the Son" used equally with "God, the Father"!

Using a Bible concordance (Strong's, Young's, or an on-line concordance will do) and looking under "Son," you will find exactly zero uses of "God the Son."

Jesus is never called "God, the Son"!

 

[tigger 2]

The fifth request for undisputed, clear, repeated evidence of a trinity (or that a person other than the Father is equally God with him) as requested in part #1 was:

(E) Please give equally clear, undisputed scriptures where the Holy Spirit is called "God, the Holy Spirit."

Again, when one searches through a good concordance ("spirit" or "holy"), he finds that there is never an instance of 'God, the Holy Spirit' to be found in scripture! Nor any other clear, undisputed, repeated evidence that the HS is equally God.

 

[tigger 2]

Additional:

“CLEAR CHALLENGES TO THE TRINITY DOCTRINE (F)

-------- Explain why those Jews who sought to have Jesus killed (and even found people to lie about him as witnesses - Matt. 26:59-60) never accused him of claiming to be God (or even fully equal with God)! If there were any idea among the Jews that Jesus claimed to be God, he would have been stoned to death for that reason alone. But they couldn’t find such knowledge and even their false witnesses didn’t try to make such an accusation at his last trial!

CLEAR CHALLENGES TO THE TRINITY DOCTRINE (G)

--------- Explain, if John really knew Jesus was God, why he summed up his entire Gospel with:

“John 20:30 Therefore many other signs Jesus also performed in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; 31 but these have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is [not God, but] the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name.”

How can anyone believe that John in summing up his Gospel, would absolutely ignore the most important knowledge of all (if the trinity were true): ‘Jesus is God’ (or ‘equally God with the Father’)?

CLEAR CHALLENGES TO THE TRINITY DOCTRINE (H)

----------- Explain how the NT Gospels written long before John’s Gospel (such as the Gospel of Mark – probably at least 20 years before John’s) do not come close to even hinting that Jesus (or the holy spirit) is God? If the trinity 'proofs' as interpreted/translated in John by trinitarians are actual proofs, how could Matthew Mark and Luke have possibly ignored such a mind-blowing discovery that Christ is God??

Surely they would have proclaimed this tremendous knowledge clearly and repeatedly!

CLEAR CHALLENGES TO THE TRINITY DOCTRINE (I)

-------- Explain how Jesus (and his disciples for many years after his death) were allowed to teach in the Temple and synagogues. If any Jews truly thought Jesus and his followers claimed that he was God, they would have been ejected (probably killed) at these times.

 

[Rich R]

Come on, Rich. It's both now and not yet, meaning it's not yet in it's fullest, complete, final sense, but we can live now as if it's already fully true, because it is a certainty. Come on. I think more of you than your intentionally ridiculous statement here... or maybe it's not so intentional...?

I'm not sure why you bring up John 3:16; for purposes of ridicule, I guess, but no matter.

Come on.

Grace and peace to you.

No ridicule. Both Colossians are simple statements. You seem to say one is yes/no, while the other is yes. I think it's a totally valid question to ask; how do you determine the yes/no verses from the yes verses?

We do have Christ in us and God dwelt in Christ. That's right now. Now I would say that we have trouble seeing the God in Christ in us, hence Paul's dilemma between the flesh and spirit. But God has no trouble as seeing the Christ in us, 100% now and it'll be that way until we see ourselves as He sees us right now.

 

[BarneyFife]

But those things seemingly for and against must be reconciled. And for what reason would anyone consider one group of scriptures more correct than others, if not for lack of understanding?

That's what folks specialize in here.

Sorry, that just came out.

 

[Ronald David Bruno]

Actually that is exactly what has happened.
In the book of John, after the last supper, Jesus has a private conversation with the apostles...

John 14:7 If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him.
[8] Philip saith unto him, Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us.
[9] Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?

[16] And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you forever;
[17] Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.
[18] I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you.


We read that the world cannot see "the Spirit of truth", nor does the world know him. Jesus then said "But ye know him". Jesus is saying that the one standing here talking to you is the one that will be in you....

Colossians 1:27 To whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you, the hope of glory:

Galatians 4:6 And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father.

Romans 8:9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.

1 Corinthians 15:45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.

2 Corinthians 3:17 Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.

You can believe in this modalism, I don't. It would be a lie, pretending to pray to the Father, His obedience and then sitting at the right hand of His Father's throne, when all along He is jusy playing different roles.

 

[Jack]

John 17:1-3,

1 These words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee:

2 As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him.

3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.​

Jesus was talking to his Father and called Him the only true God. This is in complete agreement with Corinthians.

1 Cor 8:6,

But to us [there is but] one God, the Father, of whom [are] all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom [are] all things, and we by him.
​

Again, the Father is called the one God.

John calls Jesus the son more than 50 times and never calls him the Father.

John 1:1,

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

If we say Jesus is God then that means he is either the Father (which is totally counter to the Creeds) or he is not the true God (John 17:3) nor the one God (1 Cor 8:6).

Many solve the problem by finding out exactly what the "word" (logos) is in John 1:1. Hint: it's not Jesus.

Please confine the discussion to these verses in John. All the other so-called proof verses don't change what John clearly said. All verses have to fit.

Please help me to understand Who became flesh. Jn 1 says the Word WAS GOD. The Word became flesh and dwelt among us. Jesus certainly became flesh and dwelt among us. If Jesus isn't God then Who is this "God" Who became flesh and dwelt among us?

 

[Michiah-Imla]

Jn 1 says the Word WAS GOD. The Word became flesh and dwelt among us.

The word (God) became flesh by the works manifested through Christ’s flesh by God.

“Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.” (John 14:10)

Just as God can be manifested through a believers flesh by the believer performing those works of God as well.