Jesus Is God: Part 1

[Paul E. Michael]

No one is saying that Jesus is God the Father.

True. No Trinitarian says that Jesus is God the Father. In fact, that Jesus (the Son) is not the Father is a truth essential to Trinitarianism.

Anti-Trinitarians, as parrots, go about chanting "Jesus is not God!" Here's what's fun to ask these unitarians:

When you say "Jesus is not God," by your word, "God," are you referring to the Father? Yes or No?​

Either the anti-Trinitarian, by his word, "God," is referring to the Father, or he is not.

If, when you say "Jesus is not God," by your word, "God," you are not referring to the Father, then to whom, or to what are you referring by it? And, as an unitarian—as one of the "Only the Father is God!"-crowd— why, by your word, "God," would you be referring to anyone, or to anything that is not the Father?​

Here's the fun part. See, so long as the anti-Trinitarian, by his word, "God," when he chants "Jesus is not God!" is referring to the Father, this is what he is saying:

"Jesus is not [the Father]!"​

So, all the anti-Trinitarian is doing, here, is preaching to the Trinitarian choir. And I, for one, have never been able to understand how preaching Trinitarian truth to Trinitarians could be considered as a way to attack Trinitarianism. But then, I'm a rationally-thinking person rather than an anti-Trinitarian.

 

[Paul E. Michael]

The modern Trinity doctrine claims that there is one God and "He" consists of three persons. That in itself is a logical contradiction.

Could you please list for us what (if any) two propositions you are referring to, here, by your word, "contradiction"? Every contradiction occurs between a pair of mutually contradictory propositions (contradictories), and every pair of contradictories consists of one true proposition and one false proposition. For example: {'All men are mortal' vs 'Some men are not mortal'}, {'The Sahara desert is not in Japan' vs 'The Sahara desert is in Japan'}, etc. If you are not talking about a pair of contradictories, then by your word, "contradiction," you are not referring to any contradiction. Please list which (if any) two propositions you are referring to, and tell us which one of the pair you'd say is true, and which you'd say is false.

Oh, also, when you say that Trinitarianism "claims that there is one God," by your word, "God," are you referring to a person? Either you are referring to a person or you are not. If, by your word, "God," you are not referring to a person, then to what (if anything) are you referring by it? Do you mean that Trinitarianism "claims that there is one [person]"?

 

[Cooper]

One God clothed in human flesh, John 1:14. Like the shepherds of old who wore wool for the sake of the sheep to be like them. Although the shepherd was small compared to the hills and grassland around him, he remained LORD over all those who belonged to him.

 

[Butch5]

Could you please list for us what (if any) two propositions you are referring to, here, by your word, "contradiction"? Every contradiction occurs between a pair of mutually contradictory propositions (contradictories), and every pair of contradictories consists of one true proposition and one false proposition. For example: {'All men are mortal' vs 'Some men are not mortal'}, {'The Sahara desert is not in Japan' vs 'The Sahara desert is in Japan'}, etc. If you are not talking about a pair of contradictories, then by your word, "contradiction," you are not referring to any contradiction. Please list which (if any) two propositions you are referring to, and tell us which one of the pair you'd say is true, and which you'd say is false.

Oh, also, when you say that Trinitarianism "claims that there is one God," by your word, "God," are you referring to a person? Either you are referring to a person or you are not. If, by your word, "God," you are not referring to a person, then to what (if anything) are you referring by it? Do you mean that Trinitarianism "claims that there is one [person]"?

Sorry, I missed your post. I've been extremely busy. In the post you quoted I said Christians speak of one God and call Him He. He is first person singular. It refers to a single being. However, they claim that this single being consists of three other beings or persons. To say one being consists of three beings is contradictory. If one being consisted of three beings it would be three beings not one.

So, the contradiction is that one of something Can be three of that something.

In the statement you quoted; by God, I meant a person.

The word God is a tilte. It's just like president or king etc. In Scripture it's used of the Father. In a few places it's used of the Son. It's also used of pagan deities. The confusion comes when people conflate the title with the person. People see the Father is referred to as God. Then they see the Son referred to as God. Then when the Bible says there is one God, rather than considering the context, they simply assume the Scriptures are talking about number and draw an impossible conclusion, that these two persons are one person.

Let's look at another example and see if we draw the same conclusion. An American citizen has a president. There is also a President in Mexico. Both of them are president. However, to the American there is only one president. We don't assume that these two presidents are one being.

Even though there are presidents, plural, to the American there is only one president that has authority. This is how we should understand the "one God" statement in Scripture.

 

[Paul E. Michael]

In the statement you quoted; by God, I meant a person.

So, when you say Trinitarianism "claims that there is one God," you mean that Trinitarianism "claims that there is one [person]"?

 

[Butch5]

So, when you say Trinitarianism "claims that there is one God," you mean that Trinitarianism "claims that there is one [person]"?

The Bible claims there is one God. The modern concept is that there are three persons who are that one God. That one God is referred to with the singular pronoun, He.

 

[Paul E. Michael]

In the statement you quoted; by God, I meant a person.

What person did you mean?

• The Father?
• The Son?
• The Holy Ghost?

Which person did you mean?

 

[Butch5]

What person did you mean?

• The Father?
• The Son?
• The Holy Ghost?

Which person did you mean?

The claim is all of them. They are all that one God.

 

[Paul E. Michael]

The claim is all of them. They are all that one God.

To what are you referring by your phrase, "that one God"?

 

[Butch5]

To what are you referring by your phrase, "that one God"?

The Bible says there is one God. The claim in Trinitarianism is that the Father, Son, and Spirit, are that one God

 

[Paul E. Michael]

The Bible says there is one God.

Yeah. And?

But the Bible nowhere says only one person is God.

 

[Butch5]

Yeah. And?

But the Bible nowhere says only one person is God.

If there's only one God how can he be more than one person?

However, Scripture does say only one person is God. Paul states it plainly.

1 Corinthians 8:4–6 (KJV 1900): As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one. 5 For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,) 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.

Paul said, to is there is one God, the Father.

 

[Cooper]

Sorry, I missed your post. I've been extremely busy. In the post you quoted I said Christians speak of one God and call Him He. He is first person singular. It refers to a single being. However, they claim that this single being consists of three other beings or persons. To say one being consists of three beings is contradictory. If one being consisted of three beings it would be three beings not one.

So, the contradiction is that one of something Can be three of that something.

In the statement you quoted; by God, I meant a person.

The word God is a tilte. It's just like president or king etc. In Scripture it's used of the Father. In a few places it's used of the Son. It's also used of pagan deities. The confusion comes when people conflate the title with the person. People see the Father is referred to as God. Then they see the Son referred to as God. Then when the Bible says there is one God, rather than considering the context, they simply assume the Scriptures are talking about number and draw an impossible conclusion, that these two persons are one person.

Let's look at another example and see if we draw the same conclusion. An American citizen has a president. There is also a President in Mexico. Both of them are president. However, to the American there is only one president. We don't assume that these two presidents are one being.

Even though there are presidents, plural, to the American there is only one president that has authority. This is how we should understand the "one God" statement in Scripture.

I say, and so does the Bible, that Jesus is Yahweh on a work trip.

 

[Paul E. Michael]

If there's only one God how can he be more than one person?

Since the Bible sometimes even calls impersonal objects, "gods," where do you get off imposing your extra-Biblical assumption of unitarianism—that a god must be one, and only one, person? Since, according to the Bible, a carved chunk of stone—an inanimate object that is not even so much as one, single, solitary person—may be a god, obviously the Bible does not subscribe to your "1, and only 1 person per god" unitarian falsehood. Since the Bible's use of the word, "god," shows that personality is not even a requisite to being a god, your extra-Biblical doctrine that a god must be unipersonal is false.

Now, since all you're going on in your war against the Trinity is your assumption of your extra-Biblical, unitarian falsehood, you have no argument supporting your false claim that God is not three persons.

However, Scripture does say only one person is God.

False. Scripture does not say only one person is God.

Paul states it plainly.

Paul never states that only one person is God.

1 Corinthians 8:4–6 (KJV 1900): As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one.

Notice what Paul actually says, there: "there is none other God but one."
Notice that Paul does NOT say what you, being an unitarian, would like him to say: "there is none other PERSON WHO IS God but one."

5 For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,) 6 But to us there is but one God, the Father,

Again, notice that Paul says "to us there is but one God, the Father," and that he does not say, "to us there is but one PERSON WHO IS 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.

Paul said, to is there is one God, the Father.

"But to us there is...ONE LORD Jesus Christ"

So, since Jesus Christ is Lord, then, according to you, God the Father is not/cannot be Lord?

 

[Butch5]

Since the Bible sometimes even calls impersonal objects, "gods," where do you get off imposing your extra-Biblical assumption of unitarianism—that a god must be one, and only one, person? Since, according to the Bible, a carved chunk of stone—an inanimate object that is not even so much as one, single, solitary person—may be a god, obviously the Bible does not subscribe to your "1, and only 1 person per god" unitarian falsehood. Since the Bible's use of the word, "god," shows that personality is not even a requisite to being a god, your extra-Biblical doctrine that a god must be unipersonal is false.

Now, since all you're going on in your war against the Trinity is your assumption of your extra-Biblical, unitarian falsehood, you have no argument supporting your false claim that God is not three persons.


False. Scripture does not say only one person is God.

Paul never states that only one person is God.

Notice what Paul actually says, there: "there is none other God but one."
Notice that Paul does NOT say what you, being an unitarian, would like him to say: "there is none other PERSON WHO IS God but one."

So, since Jesus Christ is Lord, then, according to you, God the Father is not/cannot be Lord?

Firstly, I'm not a Unitarian. Secondly you show your lack of understanding of Scripture with that last sentence. Also, Rocks and carvings were not gods. They were symbols of the pagan gods. The Scriptures tell us that the gods of the pagans are demons. Demons are beings.

They sacrificed unto devils, not to God; to gods whom they knew not, to new gods that came newly up, whom your fathers feared not. (Deut. 32:17 KJV)

20 Rather, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice they sacrifice to demons and not to God, and I do not want you to have fellowship with demons.
21 You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons; you cannot partake of the Lord's table and of the table of demons.(1 Cor. 10:20-21 NKJ)

It's always amusing when people make assumptions. The Bible clearly states, "to us there is one God, the Father". Paul didn't say to us there is one God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. However, Had you not jumped to assumptions and followed the discussion you'd know that I have acknowledged that Jesus is God. As you pointed out, the word god is a title. So, the Father can be God and Jesus can be God and yet the two not be one person. However, the Trinitarian doctrine holds that there are three coequal, coeternal persons all who are God. That works fine until Christians say "He". When they do that they conflate three persons into one being. That is a logical contradiction.

So, going back to your to last sentence, how can Jesus be Lord and the Father be Lord and yet they are not the same being?

 

[Paul E. Michael]

Firstly, I'm not a Unitarian.

I did not say that you are an Unitarian. Rather, you are an unitarian.

Secondly you show your lack of understanding of Scripture with that last sentence. Also, Rocks and carvings were not gods.

You show your lack of understanding with Scripture with that last sentence.

"And the residue thereof he maketh a god, even his graven image: he falleth down unto it, and worshippeth it, and prayeth unto it, and saith, Deliver me; for thou art my god." (Isaiah 44:17)

Since the Bible contradicts the falsehood you just handed us, I'll stick with what the Bible says, rather than with what you say.

They were symbols of the pagan gods. The Scriptures tell us that the gods of the pagans are demons. Demons are beings.

In the text I just quoted, the Bible tells us that graven images are gods. The Bible says the superstitious, pagan boob "maketh a god"; not that he "maketh a symbol of a god," and not that he "maketh a symbol of a demon".

They sacrificed unto devils, not to God; to gods whom they knew not, to new gods that came newly up, whom your fathers feared not. (Deut. 32:17 KJV)

And?

20 Rather, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice they sacrifice to demons and not to God, and I do not want you to have fellowship with demons.
21 You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons; you cannot partake of the Lord's table and of the table of demons.(1 Cor. 10:20-21 NKJ)

It's always amusing when people make assumptions.

Evidently you're a self-amused person, then.

The Bible clearly states, "to us there is one God, the Father".

You already said that. What do you imagine you are accomplishing by simply repeating what you already said?

"to us there is one God, the Father" is NOT "to us there is ONLY ONE PERSON WHO IS God, the Father"

So, you've not gotten out of the verse what you wanted to get out of it. Sorry. What you're doing is eisegesis.

Paul didn't say to us there is one God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

And your "point" is what?

However, Had you not jumped to assumptions and followed the discussion you'd know that I have acknowledged that Jesus is God.

Since you told me that, by your word, "God," all you mean is "a person," all you're telling me, here is that you "have acknowledged that Jesus is [a person]." What's the big deal about acknowledging that a person is a person?

Jesus is YHWH.

As you pointed out, the word god is a title.

When did I say that? You're going to need to quote my exact words to try to back up your assumption that I said that.

So, the Father can be God and Jesus can be God and yet the two not be one person.

You're confused, and thus misrepresenting Trinitarianism. The Father is one person, and Jesus is another person; the Father is not Jesus, and Jesus is not the Father.

However, the Trinitarian doctrine holds that there are three coequal, coeternal persons all who are God. That works fine until Christians say "He".

And it continues to work fine while Christians say "He."

• Since the Father is God, we call Him "He."
• Since the Son is God, we call Him "He."
• Since the Holy Ghost is God, we call Him "He."
• So, why would we NOT call God "He"?

When they do that they conflate three persons into one being.

And, by your word, "being," you mean...?

That is a logical contradiction.

Please list the two propositions you are talking about, here. (Or, perhaps, like many, you do not understand the nature of contradiction, but merely like to parrot the word, "contradiction," and thus are not competent to satisfy my request.)

So, going back to your to last sentence, how can Jesus be Lord and the Father be Lord and yet they are not the same being?

What do you mean by "being"? Tell us exactly what, according to you, it is for two or more things to be "not the same being".

Is the Father Lord? Yes or No?

 

[Randy]

Yeah. And?

But the Bible nowhere says only one person is God.

Jesus Himself in regard to the Father alone (Not the Spirit)
The only true God. His God and Father

Pre trinity and therefore a unbiased reflection of the teachings and beliefs of the Apostles
Hence the name the Apostles creed.

I believe in God, the Father almighty,
creator of heaven and earth.

I believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord,
who was conceived by the Holy Spirit
.....

Paul didn't write Jesus is the invisible God
He wrote Jesus is the image of the invisible God

Paul didn't write Jesus is the Deity
He wrote in Him all the fullness was pleased to dwell - (from the will of another)
The other very next verse Col 1:20
and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.

John the Baptist testimony in regard to Jesus and the fullness that was given to Him
For the one whom God has sent speaks the words of God, for God gives the Spirit without limit.
Jesus=>The Father living in Him doing His work; The message was not His own
Hebrews =>God in these last days has spoken to us by His Son

So Jesus is all that the Father is (God) and one with the Father for in Him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell.


But there is a distinction made between God the Father and Jesus Christ our Lord in the NT.
Father=>Invisible God
Son=>image of the Invisible God

The trinity came from man not from above and introduced error not found in the NT.

There is no need to go round and round repeating ourselves. The Deity in Jesus is the Fathers. He is all that the Father is and He and the Father are one in that manner. But to me its One God the Father and one Lord Jesus Christ. The way it was stated from the beginning.

If you can't accept that its ok we can move on for I will never change my position.

 

[Butch5]

I did not say that you are an Unitarian. Rather, you are an unitarian.

You show your lack of understanding with Scripture with that last sentence.



Since the Bible contradicts the falsehood you just handed us, I'll stick with what the Bible says, rather than with what you say.

In the text I just quoted, the Bible tells us that graven images are gods. The Bible says the superstitious, pagan boob "maketh a god"; not that he "maketh a symbol of a god," and not that he "maketh a symbol of a demon".

And?

Evidently you're a self-amused person, then.

You already said that. What do you imagine you are accomplishing by simply repeating what you already said?

"to us there is one God, the Father" is NOT "to us there is ONLY ONE PERSON WHO IS God, the Father"

So, you've not gotten out of the verse what you wanted to get out of it. Sorry. What you're doing is eisegesis.

And your "point" is what?

Since you told me that, by your word, "God," all you mean is "a person," all you're telling me, here is that you "have acknowledged that Jesus is [a person]." What's the big deal about acknowledging that a person is a person?

Jesus is YHWH.

When did I say that? You're going to need to quote my exact words to try to back up your assumption that I said that.

You're confused, and thus misrepresenting Trinitarianism. The Father is one person, and Jesus is another person; the Father is not Jesus, and Jesus is not the Father.

And it continues to work fine while Christians say "He."

• Since the Father is God, we call Him "He."
• Since the Son is God, we call Him "He."
• Since the Holy Ghost is God, we call Him "He."
• So, why would we NOT call God "He"?

And, by your word, "being," you mean...?

Please list the two propositions you are talking about, here. (Or, perhaps, like many, you do not understand the nature of contradiction, but merely like to parrot the word, "contradiction," and thus are not competent to satisfy my request.)

What do you mean by "being"? Tell us exactly what, according to you, it is for two or more things to be "not the same being".

Is the Father Lord? Yes or No?

Do you understand how language works? Of course the little images are called gods. When you see a cross do you really think that's Christ? Or, is it just a representation? The caring were representations.

You said, ""to us there is one God, the Father" is NOT "to us there is ONLY ONE PERSON WHO IS God, the Father""

Because you don't understand what Paul is saying you miss the point. He obviously isn't saying only one being is referred to as God because he just said in the verses prior that there were many gods. His point is that contrary to the pagans who served many gods, the Christians serve one God, the Father. And, he completely refutes the idea of this 3 in 1 God by contrasting that one God, the Father with one Lord Jesus Christ. When he's talking of the one God of Christians he explicitly excludes Jesus Christ.

If you want me to answer your questions you'll have to answer mine. Please explain to me how Jesus is Lord and the Father is Lord and yet they are not the same person.

You're barking up the wrong tree here my friend. You're telling me I'm wrong arguing against a doctrine you cannot defend. How can you tell I'm wrong when you cannot explain the doctrine you claim is true?

 

[Paul E. Michael]

Here, again, is the verse from Isaiah I already showed you, which you don't like:

"And the residue thereof he maketh a god, even his graven image: he falleth down unto it, and worshippeth it, and prayeth unto it, and saith, Deliver me; for thou art my god." (Isaiah 44:17)

The caring [sic] were representations.

Isaiah wrote one of the following, two things, and the other, he did not write:

1. "And the residue thereof he maketh a god"
2. "And the residue thereof he maketh a representation"

Please tell me which one of these is the thing Isaiah wrote. And, please tell me which one of these is the thing Isaiah did not write.

Did Isaiah write #1? Yes or No?
Did Isaiah write #2? Yes or No?

You said, ""to us there is one God, the Father" is NOT "to us there is ONLY ONE PERSON WHO IS God, the Father""

You don't like that I said that? Why not? I was merely pointing out what Paul actually wrote, and pointing out, by juxtaposition to it, what you wish Paul had written instead.

Because you don't understand what Paul is saying you miss the point.

Because I can read, I understand what Paul is saying: he is saying, "there is one God, the Father". Also, because I can read, I understand that Paul is not saying "there is only one person who is God, the Father".

If you want me to answer your questions

You have no hope of answering my questions. Why, that's precisely why I confront you with them.

I had asked you: "Is the Father Lord? Yes or No?"
You: <NO ANSWER>

 

[Butch5]

Here, again, is the verse from Isaiah I already showed you, which you don't like:

"And the residue thereof he maketh a god, even his graven image: he falleth down unto it, and worshippeth it, and prayeth unto it, and saith, Deliver me; for thou art my god." (Isaiah 44:17)



Isaiah wrote one of the following, two things, and the other, he did not write:

1. "And the residue thereof he maketh a god"
2. "And the residue thereof he maketh a representation"

Please tell me which one of these is the thing Isaiah wrote. And, please tell me which one of these is the thing Isaiah did not write.

Did Isaiah write #1? Yes or No?
Did Isaiah write #2? Yes or No?


You don't like that I said that? Why not? I was merely pointing out what Paul actually wrote, and pointing out, by juxtaposition to it, what you wish Paul had written instead.

Because I can read, I understand what Paul is saying: he is saying, "there is one God, the Father". Also, because I can read, I understand that Paul is not saying "there is only one person who is God, the Father".


You have no hope of answering my questions. Why, that's precisely why I confront you with them.

I had asked you: "Is the Father Lord? Yes or No?"
You: <NO ANSWER>

As I expected, again, you didn't answer my question. You expect answers but don't give them. I think you know you can't defend the indefensible so you're only option is to distraction with smoke and mirrors.

You're lack of understanding language explains you're lack of understanding Scripture.