Jesus Christ Claims to be Yahweh - John 8:23-25

[BB1956]

In John 17:5, just 2 verses after 3, Jesus says

“Καὶ νῦν δόξασόν με σύ πάτερ παρὰ σεαυτῷ τῇ δόξῃ ᾗ εἴχον πρὸ τοῦ τὸν κόσμον εἴναι παρὰ σοί”

“And now Glorify Me You Father with Yourself with the Glory that I had before the world existed together with You” (literal translation)

ONLY if Jesus Christ is COEQUAL with the Father, could He have said these words!

He is saying to the Father, that His Glory is the SAME as His, and this Glory has COEXISTED with the Father, from all Eternity!

In Isaiah 42:8 it says, “I am YHWH, that is My Name; I will not give My Glory to another or My Praise to idols”.

Note the words, "I will not give My Glory to another". And yet Jesus Christ says that His Glory is exactly the SAME as the Glory of the Father!

In Revelation 5:13-14 we read

"And ALL of the Creation, which is in the heaven, and on the earth, and under the earth, and on the sea, and all things that are in them, heard I saying, to Him Who sits on the throne, and unto the Lamb, be ALL the Blessing, and ALL the Honour, and ALL the Glory, and ALL the Might, for ever and ever. And the four living creatures said, Amen. And the elders fell down and Worshipped." (so emphasized in the Greek)

Also note here, "AND TO THE LAMB", which is the Lord Jesus Christ.

ALL The Blessings, ALL The Honour, ALL The Glory, and ALL The Might, that is to be given by ALL Creation, to The Father, is ALSO to be given EQUALLY to Jesus Christ! And then they are BOTH WORSHIPED TOGETHER! There is NO distinction made!

On Hebrews 1:8, in its context, we read in verse 6,

“But when He again brings the Firstborn into the world, He says: “Let all the angels of God Worship Him”

We here have the Greek verb “προσκυνησάτωσαν”, which is in the imperative mood, which is an Authoritative Command, given by the Father, to WORSHIP Jesus Christ.

The Father would not say this, IF Jesus Christ is not 100% COEQUAL with Him as YHWH!

In verses 10-12, the Father continues to Address Jesus Christ;

“And: In the beginning, Lord, You established the earth, and the heavens are the works of Your hands; they will perish, but You remain. They will all wear out like clothing; You will roll them up like a cloak, and they will be changed like a robe. But You are the same, and Your years will never end” (Hebrews 1:10-12)

This passage is continued from verse 5, where the Father begins to Address Jesus Christ:

“For to which of the angels did He say at any time, “You are my Son. Today I have become your Father?” and again, “I will be to Him a Father, and He will be to Me a Son?””

In verse 10, “Lord” is the Greek “Kurie”, which is in the vocative case, used in direct address, which here is by God the Father, to Jesus Christ.

The words in verses 10-12, are from Psalm 102, where it is used for Almighty God:

“I say: “My God (’êl), do not take me in the middle of my life! Your years continue through all generations. Long ago You established the earth, and the heavens are the work of Your hands. They will perish, but You will endure; all of them will wear out like clothing. You will change them like a garment, and they will pass away. But You are the same, and Your years will never end.” (verses 24-27)

The fact that God the Father here clearly Addresses Jesus Christ, as THE CREATOR of the entire universe, is the strongest Testimony that Jesus Christ is Almighty God. The passage in Psalm 102, is of Creation by Almighty God, and it is directly used for Jesus Christ in Hebrews, by God the Father.

No doubt whatsoever that Jesus Christ IS Almighty God, as Testified by God the Father Himself!

It's is obvious that you and I are going to disagree. You believe I'm not agreeing with scripture and I believe you are not agreeing with scripture. So be it.

 

[SolaScriptura]

It's is obvious that you and I are going to disagree. You believe I'm not agreeing with scripture and I believe you are not agreeing with scripture. So be it.

I deal with what you post on here. You cannot because the Bible is against you and therefore you use some excuse about disagreeing with me, when it is the Infallible Word of God that proves that you are wrong

 

[JLB]

It's quoted from Psalm 45 where the original context isn't about Jesus.

The original text is all about Jesus as the book of Hebrews so plainly reveals.

AGAIN, ALL YOU DO IS DENY THE TRUTH!

For to which of the angels did He ever say:
“You are My Son, Today I have begotten You”?
And again:
“I will be to Him a Father,
And He shall be to Me a Son”?
But when He again brings the firstborn into the world, He says:
“Let all the angels of God worship Him.”
And of the angels He says:
“Who makes His angels spirits
And His ministers a flame of fire.”
But to the Son He says: “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever; (The Father calls His Son, God)
A scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Your kingdom.
You have loved righteousness and hated lawlessness;
Therefore God, Your God, has anointed You
With the oil of gladness more than Your companions.”
And: “You, LORD, in the beginning laid the foundation of the earth,
And the heavens are the work of Your hands. Hebrews 1:5-10


Jesus, as YHWH the LORD created the heavens and the earth.

He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him. And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist. And He is the head of the body, the church, who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in all things He may have the preeminence. Colossians 1:15-18


Read These verses -

But to the Son He says:
“You, LORD, in the beginning laid the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the work of Your hands.

He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth




JLB

 

[Free]

In verse 3, Versions like the KJV have the Greek translated right, "All things were made by him", as The Author of Creation, and not just an "intermediate".

Dia generally means God working by means of an intermediary, so “through” is correct. It can be translated as “by” with the understanding of “by means of.”

The Greek "en" is a preposition in the imperfect case, which is used for original and continued existence. "Eimi", is in the present, continuance tense, Eternally Am, as the context says.

Right, and that is what I stated.

 

[Free]

Partaking or sharing in the divine nature isn’t something that is supposed to be out of reach for the normal Christian. When Peter told them they may partake of the divine nature, he meant there is something about their nature they can share with God. Peter isn’t trying to say they can become God, but rather they can have at least some of God’s nature.

Trinitarian commentary Got Questions says this regarding God’s nature:

“The most important element of God’s nature is His holiness. Holy means “set apart,” and God is clearly separate from His creation based on His nature and attributes. Holiness is the foundation of all other aspects of God’s character. Revelation 15:4 says of God, “You alone are holy.”​

So the most important thing about God’s nature is His holiness and apostle Peter says it is a command to be holy. Therefore, Peter commanded Christians to have the nature of God.

1 Peter 1
15But just as He who called you is holy, so be holy in all you do, 16for it is written: “Be holy, because I am holy.”

Right. So, as I stated, you’re conflating different meanings of “nature.” It is not meaning that we share in the divine essence. It means we share in his holiness, one of his communicable attributes, as opposed to the sin and corruption we experience now. See 2Pet 1:3, 1Pet 1:5, Heb 12:10, and Eph 2:3.

Jesus, however, as the Son of God, has the exact same nature, the same essence, as the Father, just as every human son has a human father.

According to Got Questions, they say that part of God’s nature is His sovereignty. In contrast to Jesus, Jesus is the Sovereign Lord’s servant. That means Jesus isn’t the Sovereign Lord.

“God is also, by nature, sovereign. He is judged by no one and has absolute authority over the entire universe and everything in it.”​

​

John and Peter demonstrated awareness that Jesus isn’t the Sovereign Lord in their prayer. They called Jesus God’s servant.

Acts 4
24When the believers heard this, they lifted up their voices to God with one accord. “Sovereign Lord,” they said, “You made the heaven and the earth and the sea and everything in them.
27In fact, this is the very city where Herod and Pontius Pilate conspired with the Gentiles and the people of Israel against Your holy servant Jesus, whom You anointed.


Furthermore, GQ says God is judged. However, it's Scriptural that Jesus took our judgement.

2 Corinthians 5
21God made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that in Him we might become the righteousness of God.

Isaiah 53
6We all like sheep have gone astray,
each one has turned to his own way;
and the LORD has laid upon Him
the iniquity of us all.

None of this precludes Jesus from also being truly God. Again, you need to take the totality of the biblical revelation into account, including Phil 2:6-8, a restatement of John 1:1-3, 14 with additional detail.

 

[BB1956]

I deal with what you post on here. You cannot because the Bible is against you and therefore you use some excuse about disagreeing with me, when it is the Infallible Word of God that proves that you are wrong

You do what you choose, but you haven't convinced me to deny that God has an only begotten Son who he sent to mankind to die for mankind. What you want me to do is deny that God has an only begotten Son that was in heaven with him before he sent his only begotten to mankind to die for mankind.
So you go ahead and say that I'm just making some excuse. You're just don't like that I won't deny that God has a only begotten Son who he sent to die for mankind. That's the difference between you and I. I believe God has a only begotten Son who he sent to die for mankind, you obviously don't. You don't like the fact that I'm going to continue to exercise faith that God has an only begotten Son that he sent to mankind to die for mankind. So you are just going to have to continue to dislike that I'm not going to deny that God's only begotten Son existed in heaven with God before his prehuman existence.

 

[Free]

Not exactly. As I previously stated, Jesus is the example for what is attainable for the child of God.

1 Corinthians 11
1You are to imitate me, just as I imitate Christ.

Yes, we are to imitate Paul’s and Jesus’s life, who are examples of how we ought to live as believers. But I don’t see what this has to do with my response.

I am doing justice to the Scripture because I don't believe any verse you just quoted, rightly divided, refers to the deity of Jesus and some of them even directly refute the idea.

Each of them, rightly divided, based on a plain reading of the passages, fully support the Son being truly God; none refute that in the slightest.

John 17:3, 1 Corinthians 8:6, Ephesians 4:6, 1 Thessalonians 1:9,10, 1 Timothy 2:5

None of these prove Jesus isn’t God, and 1 Cor 8:6 logically shows that he is.

Thomas didn't believe Jesus is God nor did anyone else in the Bible.

He sure did, because his declaration that Jesus was his Lord and his God cannot mean anything else. It just can’t, as much as you want it to. That, along with Jesus’s many claims about himself, among other things, are precisely why John, decades later, wrote what he did in the prologue to his gospel. He also believed Jesus was the Son of God in human flesh, being truly God and truly man. There simply is no other way to understand what he wrote.

I'll share some of my personal commentary on John 20:28 here:

When Jesus said in John 20:17 that his God and the disciples God is the Father, in the Greek the manuscript utilizes "my μου (mou) God Θεόν (Theon)" meaning Jesus was referring to the definitive Lord God Almighty.

In the Greek, when the writers represent God with Theon as opposed to "my μου (mou) God! Θεός (theos)" it shows awareness that theos is a distinct usage of a form of god or something/someone that is godly, the same word sometimes used of the devil and other beings lesser than Lord God Almighty in the Bible.

Compare this to John 1:1 where there are two uses of God in the first verse. The God is ton Theon while the Word as a god/something godly is simply theos. This once again shows awareness of the distinction between The God and a god or something godly.

No. Theon and Theos are the same word. It has to do with the case—genitive (possessive), accusative (direct object), nominative (subject), dative (indirect object), and vocative. For more, see HERE and HERE. Don’t just repeat things you find on the internet but study them for yourself.

Therefore, another way to understand John 20:28 is that Jesus is a god or is godly, but not The God.

Either way we look at John 20:28, there isn't a path for Jesus to be Lord God Almighty.

There is no other understanding for Thomas’s declaration than that Jesus is truly God in the same way the Father is truly God.

Furthermore, the Bible clearly demonstrates Jesus (the Lamb) isn't the Almighty.

Revelation 21
22But I saw no temple in the city, because the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are its temple.

That is showing the distinction of persons and doesn’t preclude the Son from being truly God.

If someone can be all that Jesus is but they can't be him then Jesus can't be his Father either. See, you seem you show awareness that not matter how much someone has in common with someone else they don't become that person.

I don’t understand your argument here. It seems to be an straw man argument based on an incorrect understanding of the Trinity.

Doesn't the Bible say the Father is the only true God in more than one place? Why would I bother believing anything else.

Because it also teaches that the Son is truly God.

I am very comfortable with my beliefs, but I also know what you believe and we have already spoken about all of it before and I don't see any of it changing.

I do firmly believe the Bible is foundational without the proper foundation we cannot know enough to know what we do not know. If we do not know the truth we may not know we do not know the truth. In effect, the knowledge needed to speak the truth is the same knowledge needed to recognize with the truth is.

This is why there are so many people in Christianity with vastly different opinions and perspective with an inappropriate and disproportional amount of confidence. People tend to read one-liners from the Bible and now feel like they have knowledge of the truth, yet lack sight of the bigger picture.

I think the main reason is a lack of proper biblical study, a lack of understanding proper hermeneutics. That is why people end up proof-texting and taking things out of context. Everything begins (and ends) with Christ. If we get him wrong, nothing else matters.

This is why God calls us to humility and to love the truth. If we have the correct disposition we can receive what God has been trying to tell us all this time.

Let us come before the throne of grace and ask for wisdom. God wants to answer this prayer according to Scripture.

Agreed.

 

[SolaScriptura]

Dia generally means God working by means of an intermediary, so “through” is correct. It can be translated as “by” with the understanding of “by means of.”

The Greek preposition, “διά”, has the root meaning of, “two; from duo...two, between, through”.

The ancient Greek poet, Homer (around 800 BC), who was the first to use this preposition, did so with the meaning, "Through, by means of, by virtue of, by the help or working of" (Richard John Cunliffe; A Lexicon of Homeric Dialect, p.91). "By the help or working of", where two or more can do something, by equal participation, where there is no need to distinguish between the work done. And, “Mutual operation: with one another” (Henry Smith [G Crusius]; A Complete Greek and English Lexicon for the Poems of Homer, page, 106. 1871 ed).

This is exactly the meaning when used for Creation, which is the Work of God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit, Who Worked TOGETHER, and not "through". Genesis 1:1 is clear on this, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth". The Hebrew "’ĕ·lō·hîm" is in the masculine plural, which is used thousands of times in the Old Testament, to show the Plurality of Persons in the Eternal Godhead.

 

[Runningman]

Right. So, as I stated, you’re conflating different meanings of “nature.” It is not meaning that we share in the divine essence. It means we share in his holiness, one of his communicable attributes, as opposed to the sin and corruption we experience now. See 2Pet 1:3, 1Pet 1:5, Heb 12:10, and Eph 2:3.

Which is what God's nature is. We can share in it.

Jesus, however, as the Son of God, has the exact same nature, the same essence, as the Father, just as every human son has a human father.

Jesus also shared in God's nature, but not perfectly. Jesus was susceptible to temptation and is a human. God is not susceptible to temptation and is not a human.

None of this precludes Jesus from also being truly God. Again, you need to take the totality of the biblical revelation into account, including Phil 2:6-8, a restatement of John 1:1-3, 14 with additional detail.

Jesus is a human so he's automatically not God.

Let's see. If Jesus was in a crowd of 10,000 men, would you be able to point and say which one God is?

 

[Runningman]

Yes, we are to imitate Paul’s and Jesus’s life, who are examples of how we ought to live as believers. But I don’t see what this has to do with my response.

If Paul can intimate Jesus and we can imitate Paul then Jesus isn't God.

Each of them, rightly divided, based on a plain reading of the passages, fully support the Son being truly God; none refute that in the slightest.

I rightly divided them and presented them here.

None of these prove Jesus isn’t God, and 1 Cor 8:6 logically shows that he is.

1 Corinthians 8:6 quantifies who the one God is and identifies Him as the Father like so many other places in Scripture. It proves Jesus isn't God.

He sure did, because his declaration that Jesus was his Lord and his God cannot mean anything else. It just can’t, as much as you want it to. That, along with Jesus’s many claims about himself, among other things, are precisely why John, decades later, wrote what he did in the prologue to his gospel. He also believed Jesus was the Son of God in human flesh, being truly God and truly man. There simply is no other way to understand what he wrote.

According to Jesus, Thomas' God is the Father in John 20:17. I believe Jesus. Therefore when Thomas said, "my God" he was referring to the Father.

Based on Scripture there is simply no other way to understand what Thomas said.

No. Theon and Theos are the same word. It has to do with the case—genitive (possessive), accusative (direct object), nominative (subject), dative (indirect object), and vocative. For more, see HERE and HERE. Don’t just repeat things you find on the internet but study them for yourself.

No, I got it right. I demonstrated that no matter how John 20:28 is interpretted, it actually doesn't support the deity of Jesus.

Let's put your logic to the test. Your premise is that if Jesus is called X thing then that means that is who or what he is. However, do you apply the same reasoning to other p[laces in the Bible such as Matthew 16:23 where Jesus directly called Peter Satan? According to your opinion, that would follow that Peter is the devil in the flesh.

Matthew 16
23But Jesus turned and said to Peter, “Get behind Me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to Me. For you do not have in mind the things of God, but the things of men.”

There is no other understanding for Thomas’s declaration than that Jesus is truly God in the same way the Father is truly God.

Thomas didn't say to Jesus "you" are my God.

Demonstrably, no one in the Bible even believed Jesus is God. I'll go into that in my next reply.

That is showing the distinction of persons and doesn’t preclude the Son from being truly God.

Yes it does.

Because it also teaches that the Son is truly God.

Not according to scripture.

I think the main reason is a lack of proper biblical study, a lack of understanding proper hermeneutics. That is why people end up proof-texting and taking things out of context. Everything begins (and ends) with Christ. If we get him wrong, nothing else matters.

John 20:28 is a proof text. There are so many places in the Bible where Jesus isn't God.

 

[Runningman]

The original text is all about Jesus as the book of Hebrews so plainly reveals.

Okay okay, got it. I won't be able to get through to you and we are just going around in circles at this point and you seem to be copying and pasting the same replies to me at this point. I won't be believing your presentation of scripture. It'll never happen, I guarantee it. The way I am is I accept what the best manuscripts say and if one is proven to be false such as your 1 Timothy 3:16 containing "God" then I have no problem accepting that.

 

[Free]

The Greek preposition, “διά”, has the root meaning of, “two; from duo...two, between, through”.

The ancient Greek poet, Homer (around 800 BC), who was the first to use this preposition, did so with the meaning, "Through, by means of, by virtue of, by the help or working of" (Richard John Cunliffe; A Lexicon of Homeric Dialect, p.91). "By the help or working of", where two or more can do something, by equal participation, where there is no need to distinguish between the work done. And, “Mutual operation: with one another” (Henry Smith [G Crusius]; A Complete Greek and English Lexicon for the Poems of Homer, page, 106. 1871 ed).

This is exactly the meaning when used for Creation, which is the Work of God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit, Who Worked TOGETHER, and not "through". Genesis 1:1 is clear on this, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth". The Hebrew "’ĕ·lō·hîm" is in the masculine plural, which is used thousands of times in the Old Testament, to show the Plurality of Persons in the Eternal Godhead.

“Through” is a legitimate translation and is how dia is most often translated, as that is generally what it means. Again, “by” can and likely does mean “by means of,” in John 1:3. Your sources support that meaning.

Whether “by” or “through,” it doesn’t matter; it has no consequence for the doctrine of the Trinity. As such, it seems to me to be making a mountain out of a mole hill.

 

[JLB]

Okay okay, got it. I won't be able to get through to you and we are just going around in circles at this point and you seem to be copying and pasting the same replies to me at this point. I won't be believing your presentation of scripture. It'll never happen, I guarantee it. The way I am is I accept what the best manuscripts say and if one is proven to be false such as your 1 Timothy 3:16 containing "God" then I have no problem accepting that.

So now you reject the what the scriptures say in the book of Hebrews about the Son of God?

First it was 1 Timothy 3:14-16 that show the context of the word God (Theos G2316) where you claim "God (theos) was in the original text. You then reject what John 1:1 say about the Word (Son) being God.

You then reject Colossians 1:15-16 that shows us Jesus Christ the Son, created all things in heaven and earth.

Now you reject what Hebrews says about the Son being called God by the Father, and that the Father says the Son created the heavens and the earth.

You basically reject the bible, and deny what is written!


5 For to which of the angels did He ever say:
“You are My Son,
Today I have begotten You”?
And again:
“I will be to Him a Father,
And He shall be to Me a Son”?
6 But when He again brings the firstborn into the world, He says:
“Let all the angels of God worship Him.”
7 And of the angels He says:
“Who makes His angels spirits
And His ministers a flame of fire.”
8 But to the Son He says:
“Your throne, O God, is forever and ever;
A scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Your kingdom.
9 You have loved righteousness and hated lawlessness;
Therefore God, Your God, has anointed You
With the oil of gladness more than Your companions.”
10 And: “You, LORD, in the beginning laid the foundation of the earth,
And the heavens are the work of Your hands. Hebrews 1:5-10

 

[SolaScriptura]

“Through” is a legitimate translation and is how dia is most often translated, as that is generally what it means. Again, “by” can and likely does mean “by means of,” in John 1:3. Your sources support that meaning.

Whether “by” or “through,” it doesn’t matter; it has no consequence for the doctrine of the Trinity. As such, it seems to me to be making a mountain out of a mole hill.

now you are speaking about things you don't know much about. it is best that nothing is said!

 

[Runningman]

So now you reject the what the scriptures say in the book of Hebrews about the Son of God?

First it was 1 Timothy 3:14-16 that show the context of the word God (Theos G2316) where you claim "God (theos) was in the original text. You then reject what John 1:1 say about the Word (Son) being God.

You then reject Colossians 1:15-16 that shows us Jesus Christ the Son, created all things in heaven and earth.

Now you reject what Hebrews says about the Son being called God by the Father, and that the Father says the Son created the heavens and the earth.

You basically reject the bible, and deny what is written!


5 For to which of the angels did He ever say:
“You are My Son,
Today I have begotten You”?
And again:
“I will be to Him a Father,
And He shall be to Me a Son”?
6 But when He again brings the firstborn into the world, He says:
“Let all the angels of God worship Him.”
7 And of the angels He says:
“Who makes His angels spirits
And His ministers a flame of fire.”
8 But to the Son He says:
“Your throne, O God, is forever and ever;
A scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Your kingdom.
9 You have loved righteousness and hated lawlessness;
Therefore God, Your God, has anointed You
With the oil of gladness more than Your companions.”
10 And: “You, LORD, in the beginning laid the foundation of the earth,
And the heavens are the work of Your hands. Hebrews 1:5-10

Here we go again with Hebrews 1:5-10. Did you read my last reply about this where I pointed out it's a quote from the Old Testament book of Psalms chapter 45? This is about a human king who has a queen. YHWH isn't a human king with a queen. Psalm 45 isn't a Messianic Psalm. The author of Hebrews later applied this chapter to Jesus, but since the original context in Psalm 45 isn't about YHWH, it doesn't transfer to Hebrews 1 that Jesus is God.

I could accept they call Jesus a god and that would be okay, but not God because it doesn't fit the context.

You even quoted verse 9 which only enhances the context, proving the point I have been making all along. The one who was anointed is an inferior and subordinate person, with companions, anointed by someone greater.

9 You have loved righteousness and hated lawlessness;
Therefore God, Your God, has anointed You
With the oil of gladness more than Your companions.”

What this means is the God who anointed the Son is YHWH as Hebrews 1:10 clearly and plainly shows you.

There's proof for this is all over Hebrews 1.
Hebrews 1:1 God spoke through the prophets in the past not Jesus
Hebrews 1:2 God didn't speak through the Son until the last days through whom God made the ages.
Hebrews 1:3 The Son is the representation of God, therefore he isn't the God he represents
Hebrews 1:4 The Son "became" superior to angels and "inherited" a greater name, therefore it follows he was at one point less than or equal to angels and didn't have a greater name until he inherited it.
Hebrews 1:5 YHWH became the Son's Father today, so to say YHWH was not always the Son's Father.
Hebrews 1:6 YHWH commanded angels to bow to Jesus, yet Philippians 2:10,11 is clear only the Sons Father gets glory when Jesus is bowed to
Hebrews 1:7 about angels
Hebrews 1:8-10 about a lesser being who God anointed above his companions by YHWH and a quote from Psalm 45 about the one who was anointed isn't YHWH.

Therefore, Jesus isn't God, Jesus isn't YHWH, etc.

 

[BB1956]

Many believe Jesus to be God others believe him to be the only begotten Son of God.
Because so many people view Jesus to be God they say that the Trinity is the central doctrine of the Christian religion. According to this teaching, the Father, Son, and holy spirit are three persons in one God. Cardinal John O’Connor stated about the Trinity: “We know that it is a very profound mystery, which we don’t begin to understand.” But why is the Trinity so difficult to understand?

The Bible Dictionary gives one reason. Speaking of the Trinity, this publication admits: “It is not a biblical doctrine in the sense that any formulation of it can be found in the Bible. Because the Trinity is not a biblical doctrine, Trinitarians have been desperately looking for Bible texts, even twisting them, to find support for their teaching.

One example of a Bible verse that is often misused is John 1:1. In the King James Version, that verse reads: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God [Greek, ton theon], and the Word was God [theos].” This verse contains two forms of the Greek noun theos (god). The first is preceded by ton (the), a form of the Greek definite article, and in this case the word theon refers to Almighty God. In the second instance, however, theos has no definite article. Was the article mistakenly left out?

The Gospel of John was written in Koine, or common Greek, which has specific rules regarding the use of the definite article. Bible scholar A. T. Robertson recognizes that if both subject and predicate have articles, “both are definite, treated as identical, one and the same, and interchangeable.” Robertson considers as an example Matthew 13:38, which reads: “The field [Greek, ho agros] is the world [Greek, ho kosmos].” The grammar enables us to understand that the world is also the field.

What, though, if the subject has a definite article but the predicate does not, as in John 1:1? Citing that verse as an example, scholar James Allen Hewett emphasizes: “In such a construction the subject and predicate are not the same, equal, identical, or anything of the sort.”

To illustrate, Hewett uses 1 John 1:5, which says: “God is light.” In Greek, “God” is ho theos and therefore has a definite article. But phos for “light” is not preceded by any article. Hewett points out: “One can always . . . say of God He is characterized by light; one cannot always say of light that it is God.” Similar examples are found at John 4:24, “God is a Spirit,” and at 1 John 4:16, “God is love.” In both of these verses, the subjects have definite articles but the predicates, “Spirit” and “love,” do not. So the subjects and predicates are not interchangeable. These verses cannot mean that “Spirit is God” or “love is God.”

Many Greek scholars and Bible translators acknowledge that John 1:1 highlights, not the identity, but a quality of “the Word.” Says Bible translator William Barclay: “Because [the apostle John] has no definite article in front of theos it becomes a description . . . John is not here identifying the Word with God. To put it very simply, he does not say that Jesus was God.” Scholar Jason David BeDuhn likewise says: “In Greek, if you leave off the article from theos in a sentence like the one in John 1:1c, then your readers will assume you mean ‘a god.’ . . . Its absence makes theos quite different than the definite ho theos, as different as ‘a god’ is from ‘God’ in English.” BeDuhn adds: “In John 1:1, the Word is not the one-and-only God, but is a god, or divine being.” Or to put it in the words of Joseph Henry Thayer, a scholar who worked on the American Standard Version: “The Logos [or, Word] was divine, not the divine Being himself.”

It did not seem so to Jesus that the identity of God was some profound mystery. In his prayer to his Father, Jesus made a clear distinction between him and his Father when he said: “This means everlasting life, their taking in knowledge of you, the only true God, and of the one whom you sent forth, Jesus Christ.” (John 17:3) Jesus also said at John 20:17 said he has a Father and God which is his apostles Father and God. If we believe Jesus and understand the plain teaching of the Bible, we will respect him as the divine Son of God that he is. We will also worship YHWH God as “the only true God.”

 

[SolaScriptura]

Many believe Jesus to be God others believe him to be the only begotten Son of God.
Because so many people view Jesus to be God they say that the Trinity is the central doctrine of the Christian religion. According to this teaching, the Father, Son, and holy spirit are three persons in one God. Cardinal John O’Connor stated about the Trinity: “We know that it is a very profound mystery, which we don’t begin to understand.” But why is the Trinity so difficult to understand?

The Bible Dictionary gives one reason. Speaking of the Trinity, this publication admits: “It is not a biblical doctrine in the sense that any formulation of it can be found in the Bible. Because the Trinity is not a biblical doctrine, Trinitarians have been desperately looking for Bible texts, even twisting them, to find support for their teaching.

One example of a Bible verse that is often misused is John 1:1. In the King James Version, that verse reads: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God [Greek, ton theon], and the Word was God [theos].” This verse contains two forms of the Greek noun theos (god). The first is preceded by ton (the), a form of the Greek definite article, and in this case the word theon refers to Almighty God. In the second instance, however, theos has no definite article. Was the article mistakenly left out?

The Gospel of John was written in Koine, or common Greek, which has specific rules regarding the use of the definite article. Bible scholar A. T. Robertson recognizes that if both subject and predicate have articles, “both are definite, treated as identical, one and the same, and interchangeable.” Robertson considers as an example Matthew 13:38, which reads: “The field [Greek, ho agros] is the world [Greek, ho kosmos].” The grammar enables us to understand that the world is also the field.

What, though, if the subject has a definite article but the predicate does not, as in John 1:1? Citing that verse as an example, scholar James Allen Hewett emphasizes: “In such a construction the subject and predicate are not the same, equal, identical, or anything of the sort.”

To illustrate, Hewett uses 1 John 1:5, which says: “God is light.” In Greek, “God” is ho theos and therefore has a definite article. But phos for “light” is not preceded by any article. Hewett points out: “One can always . . . say of God He is characterized by light; one cannot always say of light that it is God.” Similar examples are found at John 4:24, “God is a Spirit,” and at 1 John 4:16, “God is love.” In both of these verses, the subjects have definite articles but the predicates, “Spirit” and “love,” do not. So the subjects and predicates are not interchangeable. These verses cannot mean that “Spirit is God” or “love is God.”

Many Greek scholars and Bible translators acknowledge that John 1:1 highlights, not the identity, but a quality of “the Word.” Says Bible translator William Barclay: “Because [the apostle John] has no definite article in front of theos it becomes a description . . . John is not here identifying the Word with God. To put it very simply, he does not say that Jesus was God.” Scholar Jason David BeDuhn likewise says: “In Greek, if you leave off the article from theos in a sentence like the one in John 1:1c, then your readers will assume you mean ‘a god.’ . . . Its absence makes theos quite different than the definite ho theos, as different as ‘a god’ is from ‘God’ in English.” BeDuhn adds: “In John 1:1, the Word is not the one-and-only God, but is a god, or divine being.” Or to put it in the words of Joseph Henry Thayer, a scholar who worked on the American Standard Version: “The Logos [or, Word] was divine, not the divine Being himself.”

It did not seem so to Jesus that the identity of God was some profound mystery. In his prayer to his Father, Jesus made a clear distinction between him and his Father when he said: “This means everlasting life, their taking in knowledge of you, the only true God, and of the one whom you sent forth, Jesus Christ.” (John 17:3) Jesus also said at John 20:17 said he has a Father and God which is his apostles Father and God. If we believe Jesus and understand the plain teaching of the Bible, we will respect him as the divine Son of God that he is. We will also worship YHWH God as “the only true God.”

Here is A T Robertson on John 1:1

And the Word was God (κα θεος ην ο λογος). By exact and careful language John denied Sabellianism by not saying ο θεος ην ο λογος. That would mean that all of God was expressed in ο λογος and the terms would be interchangeable, each having the article. The subject is made plain by the article (ο λογος) and the predicate without it (θεος) just as in John 4:24 πνευμα ο θεος can only mean "God is spirit," not "spirit is God." So in 1 John 4:16 ο θεος αγαπη εστιν can only mean "God is love," not "love is God" as a so-called Christian scientist would confusedly say. For the article with the predicate see Robertson, Grammar, pp. 767f. So in John 1:14 ο Λογος σαρξ εγενετο, "the Word became flesh," not "the flesh became Word." Luther argues that here John disposes of Arianism also because the Logos was eternally God, fellowship of Father and Son, what Origen called the Eternal Generation of the Son (each necessary to the other). Thus in the Trinity we see personal fellowship on an equality, https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/eng/rwp/john-1.html

It is clear that Robertson says that Jesus Christ is GOD

William Barclay's translation on John 1:1

"When the world had its beginning, the Word was already there; and the Word was with God; and the Word was God"

and on verse 18

"No one has ever seen God. It is the unique one, he who is God, he who is in the bosom of the Father, who has told us all about God."

In both places Barclay says that Jesus Christ is GOD

The Unitarian George Noyes in his own translation says on verse 1

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God", https://archive.org/details/newtestament00noye/page/196/mode/2up

and on verse 18

" No one hath ever seen God ; the only begotten God, who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath made him known."

Noyes is clear that Jesus Christ is GOD.

Benjamin Wilson's Emphatic Diaglott, which is published by the Jehovah's Witnesses, reads in the English right hand translation

"In the Beginning was the Locos, and the Locos was with God, and the Logos was God", https://archive.org/details/nouveau...benjamin-wilson-wtbts-1902/page/n295/mode/2up

Clearly the JWs own publication says that Jesus Christ is GOD!

 

[BB1956]

Here is A T Robertson on John 1:1

And the Word was God (κα θεος ην ο λογος). By exact and careful language John denied Sabellianism by not saying ο θεος ην ο λογος. That would mean that all of God was expressed in ο λογος and the terms would be interchangeable, each having the article. The subject is made plain by the article (ο λογος) and the predicate without it (θεος) just as in John 4:24 πνευμα ο θεος can only mean "God is spirit," not "spirit is God." So in 1 John 4:16 ο θεος αγαπη εστιν can only mean "God is love," not "love is God" as a so-called Christian scientist would confusedly say. For the article with the predicate see Robertson, Grammar, pp. 767f. So in John 1:14 ο Λογος σαρξ εγενετο, "the Word became flesh," not "the flesh became Word." Luther argues that here John disposes of Arianism also because the Logos was eternally God, fellowship of Father and Son, what Origen called the Eternal Generation of the Son (each necessary to the other). Thus in the Trinity we see personal fellowship on an equality, https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/eng/rwp/john-1.html

It is clear that Robertson says that Jesus Christ is GOD

William Barclay's translation on John 1:1

"When the world had its beginning, the Word was already there; and the Word was with God; and the Word was God"

and on verse 18

"No one has ever seen God. It is the unique one, he who is God, he who is in the bosom of the Father, who has told us all about God."

In both places Barclay says that Jesus Christ is GOD

The Unitarian George Noyes in his own translation says on verse 1

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God", https://archive.org/details/newtestament00noye/page/196/mode/2up

and on verse 18

" No one hath ever seen God ; the only begotten God, who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath made him known."

Noyes is clear that Jesus Christ is GOD.

Benjamin Wilson's Emphatic Diaglott, which is published by the Jehovah's Witnesses, reads in the English right hand translation

"In the Beginning was the Locos, and the Locos was with God, and the Logos was God", https://archive.org/details/nouveau...benjamin-wilson-wtbts-1902/page/n295/mode/2up

Clearly the JWs own publication says that Jesus Christ is GOD!

As I said you believe what you choose. I understand you want to teach people that God is the Word, so teach people to deny that the Word is the only begotten Son of God. So that when you do get people to agree with you, and they deny that the only begotten Son of God is the Word they will be denying it was the only begotten Son of God who became flesh/human and came to mankind to die for mankind. People must make their choice what they believe.

 

[Free]

now you are speaking about things you don't know much about.

Please don’t make such statements. They are completely unhelpful and show your pride. Just because you disagree with someone doesn’t mean that they “don’t know much about” the topic or that you know more or that you are right.

 

[SolaScriptura]

Please don’t make such statements. They are completely unhelpful and show your pride. Just because you disagree with someone doesn’t mean that they “don’t know much about” the topic or that you know more or that you are right.

I have written facts. How can this be showing my pride?

Why do people have to keep on being "nice" and compromise on the TRUTH?

Jesus spoke the Truth always and He offended many!

If anyone thinks that I am wrong then they should prove it