Seven Times JESUS Tells Us Who He Is = John 6;35-37

[Miz KJV Only]

Seven Times JESUS Tells Us Who He Is = John 6;35-37



John 6;35-37
And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst. But I said unto you, That ye also have seen me, and believe not. All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.

John 8:12
Then spake Jesus again unto them, saying, I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of Life.

John 8:58
Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I Am.

John 10:11-16
I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth His life for the sheep. But he that is an hireling, and not the shepherd, whose own the sheep are not, seeth the wolf coming, and leaveth the sheep, and fleeth: and the wolf catcheth them, and scattereth the sheep. The hireling fleeth, because he is an hireling, and careth not for the sheep. I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine. As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep. And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.

John 11:25-26
Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?

John 14:6
Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

John 15:1-5
I am the true vine, and my Father is the husbandman. Every branch in me that beareth not fruit He taketh away: and every branch that beareth fruit, He purgeth it, that it may bring forth more fruit. Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you. Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in me. I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing.


AMEN

 

[BB1956]

Seven Times JESUS Tells Us Who He Is = John 6;35-37



John 6;35-37
And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst. But I said unto you, That ye also have seen me, and believe not. All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.

John 8:12
Then spake Jesus again unto them, saying, I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of Life.

John 8:58
Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I Am.

John 10:11-16
I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth His life for the sheep. But he that is an hireling, and not the shepherd, whose own the sheep are not, seeth the wolf coming, and leaveth the sheep, and fleeth: and the wolf catcheth them, and scattereth the sheep. The hireling fleeth, because he is an hireling, and careth not for the sheep. I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine. As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep. And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.

John 11:25-26
Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?

John 14:6
Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

John 15:1-5
I am the true vine, and my Father is the husbandman. Every branch in me that beareth not fruit He taketh away: and every branch that beareth fruit, He purgeth it, that it may bring forth more fruit. Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you. Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in me. I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing.


AMEN

I agree that these scriptures show or prove that Jesus is the Messiah, God's only begotten Son that he sent to mankind.
I understand that there are those who teach that these scriptures teach that Jesus is God, but I disagree with that. Jesus has never said he was the Father who is God.
After Jesus was resurrected Jesus claimed at John 20:17, that he has a Father and God who was his apostles and disciples Father and God.

 

[Free]

I agree that these scriptures show or prove that Jesus is the Messiah, God's only begotten Son that he sent to mankind.
I understand that there are those who teach that these scriptures teach that Jesus is God, but I disagree with that. Jesus has never said he was the Father who is God.

But that is why the Trinity makes the best sense of all that is revealed in Scripture. Jesus is God and the Father is God, yet they are two persons. Arguing that "Jesus has never said he was the Father who is God," is begging the question by presuming that the Father alone is God.

After Jesus was resurrected Jesus claimed at John 20:17, that he has a Father and God who was his apostles and disciples Father and God.

Note that Jesus was God in human flesh and as such, subjected himself to the Father for the salvation of man and redemption of all creation. As such, what Jesus states in John 20:17 does not negate what he has claimed already:

Joh 8:24 "Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for unless you believe that I am He, you will die in your sins." (NASB)

Joh 8:58 Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am."
Joh 8:59 Therefore they picked up stones to throw at Him, but Jesus hid Himself and went out of the temple. (NASB)

There is no doubt that Jesus claimed to be the I Am in these two verses, within the same context. Even more, what he said in 20:17 cannot mean that he isn't also God, since John 1:1-18 makes it very clear who Jesus is. That is the whole point of John's prologue and any understanding of Jesus must first come from that. It is the whole key to understanding John's gospel and all that he says about Jesus.

Additionally, Jesus was the unique, one and only, Son of God. That is, he is of the same nature as his Father, unlike everything in all creation. Fathers and sons always have the same nature, it cannot be otherwise. And if the same nature, then of the same substance that has never ceased to exist, meaning that he has always existed as the Son in intimate relationship with the Father (and the Holy Spirit).

 

[BB1956]

Free said,
But that is why the Trinity makes the best sense of all that is revealed in Scripture. Jesus is God and the Father is God, yet they are two persons. Arguing that "Jesus has never said he was the Father who is God," is begging the question by presuming that the Father alone is God.[/QUOTE\]

Going by what the scriptures show the Father alone is God. I understand this is something that man don't believe. YHWH is the Father and God of Jesus and his apostles and disciples. Jesus says at John 20:17 after he was resurrected that he has a Father and God that is also his apostles Father and God. This is what I'm going to believe what John was inspired to be written down. Anyone who has truly studied the scriptures know that YHWH is the God of the Jews or the God of Israel. There at John 20:17 Jesus wasn't claiming to be YHWH. Jesus was claiming that YHWH was his Father and God so YHWH was his apostles Father and God. This is what I'm going to believe. I understand that many people don't think I should believe what God inspired men to write down.

 

[BB1956]

Free said,
Note that Jesus was God in human flesh and as such, subjected himself to the Father for the salvation of man and redemption of all creation. As such, what Jesus states in John 20:17 does not negate what he has claimed already.[/QUOTE\]

I understand that there are those who believe Jesus was God in human flesh. All this teaches me about you though is that you don't believe the Word was and is the only begotten Son of God. Since the scriptures say the Word became Flesh/human you don't believe it was the only begotten Son of God who became human and came to mankind. Because you believe God is the Word and so deny the Word is the only begotten Son of God, all I can see from this reasoning of yours is you are denying John 3:16. It looks to me you believe God sent himself not that he sent his only begotten Son.

 

[BB1956]

Free said,
John 8:24 "Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for unless you believe that I am He, you will die in your sins." (NASB)



At John 18:37 Pilate asked the question, “Well, then, are you a king?”, Jesus replied: “You yourself are saying that I am a king. For this I have been born, and for this I have come into the world, that I should bear witness to the truth. Everyone that is on the side of the truth listens to my voice.” The Scriptures show, the truth to which Jesus bore witness to was not just truth in general. It was the all-important truth of what God’s purposes were and are, truth based on the fundamental fact of God’s sovereign will and His ability to fulfill that will. By his ministry Jesus revealed that truth, contained in “the sacred secret,” as being God’s Kingdom with Jesus Christ, the “son of David,” serving as King-Priest on the throne. This was also the essence of the message proclaimed by angels prior to and at the time of his birth in Bethlehem of Judea, the city of David.(Luke 1:32, 33; 2:10-14; 3:31)



By means of his human birth, his presenting himself to God by baptism in water, his three and a half years of public service in behalf of God’s Kingdom, his death in faithfulness to God, his resurrection to heaven, by all these historical events, God’s truth arrived, or “came to be,” that is, came to realization. (John 1:18; Colossians 2:17.) The whole career of Jesus Christ was therefore a ‘bearing witness to the truth,’ to the things to which God had sworn. Jesus was thus no shadow Messiah or Christ. He was the real one promised. He was no shadow King-Priest. He was, in substance and fact, the true one that had been prefigured.(Romans 15:8-12; Psalm 18:49; 117:1; Deuteronomy 32:43; Isaiah 11:10)

This truth was the truth that would ‘set men free’ if they showed themselves to be “on the side of the truth” by accepting Jesus’ role in God’s purpose. (John 8:32-36; 18:37) To ignore God’s purpose concerning his Son, to build hopes on any other foundation, to form conclusions regarding one’s life course on any other basis would be to believe a lie, to be deceived, to follow the leading of the father of lies, God’s Adversary. (Matthew 7:24-27; John 8:42-47) It would mean ‘to die in one’s sins.’ (John 8:23, 24) For this reason Jesus did not hold back from declaring his place in God’s purpose. So John 8:24 isn't Jesus claiming to be God it's Jesus claiming to be God's Messiah or Christ. As you know many didn't believe Jesus was the Messiah or Christ but as the scriptures show by his ministry Jesus revealed that truth, contained in “the sacred secret,” as being God’s Kingdom with Jesus Christ, the “son of David,” serving as King-Priest on the throne. If you don't believe Jesus is the Messiah or Christ you will die in your sins.

 

[BB1956]

Free said,

John 8:58- Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I Am.[/QUOTE\]
The Greek verb here used, eimi, is literally in the present tense, but in view of its being preceded by the aorist infinitive clause which refers to Abraham’s past, the Greek verb eimi must be viewed as a historical present. Regarding the historical present Hadley and Allen’s Greek Grammer says, in section 828: HISTORICAL PRESENT.—In vivid narration, a past event is often thought of and expressed as present: . . . The present in this use is freely interchanged with the past tenses . . . ”
A. T. Robertson’s says in A Grammer of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research under “The Historical Present,” pages 866-869: “This vivid idiom is popular in all languages, particularly in the vernacular. . . . it is much more frequent in Greek than in English and is a survival of ‘the original stock of our languages.’ ‘It antedates the differentiation into imperfect and aorist.’ . . . It is common enough in the LXX [Septuagint], . . . Hawkins finds the historical present in the LXX 337 times. Josephus uses it also. The New Testament examples are thus ‘dramatic.’ The historical present is not always aoristic. It may be durative like the imperfect. . . . Hawkins . . . finds 93 historic presents in Matthew (15 of them in Parables), but 162 in John and 151 in Mark. It is rare in the rest of the New Testament. It is most frequent in Mark, John, Matthew and in this order. . . .”
If you will examine the New World Translation you will find that except for the final book of The Revelation the historical present is not rendered as such in the translation, but if the context calls for it the historical present is rendered in the past. For examples of where the Greek mixes the historical present with past tenses, we refer you to John 1:29-42, also John chapter 20, as shown in the King James Version. Note also Mark 1:12, 13. Even the King James Version renders some historical Greek presents as English past tenses; for instance, Matthew 3:1.

That a historical present in the Greek in the midst of a context of the past tense is properly rendered in English as a past tense is recognized by the best of modern Bible translators. Dr. James Moffatt was on the Revised Standard Version Bible Committee, and note how he translates John 8:58 in his own version: “‘Truly, truly I tell you,’ said Jesus, ‘I have existed before Abraham was born.’”

Professor E. J. Goodspeed was a member of the American Standard Bible Committee, and his translation renders John 8:58 as follows: “Jesus said to them, ‘I tell you, I existed before Abraham was born!’”

Note other translations:

Chas. Williams’ The New Testament: “Then Jesus said to them, ‘I most solemnly say to you, I existed before Abraham was born.’”

A. S. Lewis’ “The Four Gospels” According to the Sinaitic Palimpsest: “He said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I have been.”

The Twentieth Century New Testament: “‘Believe me,’ Jesus replied, ‘before Abraham was born I was already what I am.’”

G. M. Lamsa’s The Modern New Testament: “Jesus said to them, Truly, truly, I say to you, Before Abraham was born, I was.”

Jas. Murdock’s The Syriac New Testament: “Jesus said to them: Verily, verily, I say to you, That before Abraham existed, I was.”

F. Pfaefflin’s Das Neue Testament (German): “Jesus: ‘Before there was an Abraham, I was already there [war ich schon da]!’”

C. Stage’s Das Neue Testament (German): “Jesus said to them: ‘Truly, truly, I say to you: Before Abraham was born, I was [war ich].’”

Nácar Colunga’s Nuevo Testamento (Spanish): “Jesus answered: ‘In truth, in truth, I say to you: Before Abraham was born, I was [era yo].’”

F. Delitzsch’s Hebrew New Testament and that by Salkinson-Ginsburg both have the verb in the perfect form “I have been” (haiithi) instead of in the imperfect form.

From the above it is to be seen that the New World Translation is consistent with itself in rendering the historical present by rendering John 8:58 “I have been” instead of “I am.” Since Jesus was here referring to an existence from before Abraham and continuing down till he spoke, the New World Translation rendered egoʹ eimiʹ as “I have been” instead of “I was.”

When any clerical critic tries to claim inaccuracy for the New World Translation at John 8:58, then he is indicting not only it but also all these other scholars, English and foreign language, of inaccuracy. He is entitled to take and accept the version that he prefers because of bias toward a religious doctrine, in this case the trinity, but yet it should be recognized that the New World Translation has plenty of support by acknowledged, widely known translators for its rendering at John 8:58.

 

[BB1956]

Also concerning John 8:58,

On this expression the comment of the Abbé Drioux edition of the Holy Bible is: “Before Abraham was, I am, in fact God eternal, before Abraham was born.”a In a footnote in his Bible translation Monsignor Ronald A. Knox says: “Joh 8 Verse 58. ‘I am’; here our Lord seems explicitly to claim a Divine title, compare Exodus 3:14.”b So we turn to Exodus 3:14 (Dy) and read. “God said to Moses: I AM WHO AM. He said: Thus shalt thou say to the children of Israel: HE WHO IS, hath sent me to you.” But the King James Version reads: “And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.”

The expression “I AM” is there used as a title or a name, and in the Hebrew this expression is the one word Ehyeh(אהיה). YHWH God was there speaking to Moses and sending him to the children of Israel. Well, then, in John 8:58, was Jesus claiming to be YHWH God? Not according to many modern Bible translators, as the following quotations will prove: Moffatt: “I have existed before Abraham was born.” Schonfield and An American Translation: “I existed before Abraham was born.” Stage (German): “Before Abraham came to be, I was.”c Pfaefflin (German): “Before there was an Abraham, I was already there!”d George M. Lamsa, translating from the Syriac Peshitta, says: “Before Abraham was born, I was.” Dr. James Murdock, also translating from the Syriac Peshitto Version, says: “Before Abraham existed, I was.” The Brazilian Sacred Bible published by the Catholic Bible Center of São Paulo says: “Before Abraham existed, I was existing."

We must remember, also, that when Jesus spoke to those Jews, he spoke to them in the Hebrew of his day, not in Greek. How Jesus said John 8:58 to the Jews is therefore presented to us in the modern translations by Hebrew scholars who translated the Greek into the Bible Hebrew, as follows: Dr. Franz Delitzsch: “Before Abraham was, I have been.” Isaac Salkinson and David Ginsburg: “I have been when there had as yet been no Abraham.” In both of these Hebrew translations the translators use for the expression “I have been” two Hebrew words, both a pronoun and a verb, namely, ani hayithi; they do not use the one Hebrew word: Ehyeh. So they do not make out that in John 8:58 Jesus was trying to imitate YHWH God and give us the impression that he himself was YHWH, the I AM.

In what language did John write his life account of Jesus Christ? It was the Greek language, not Hebrew; and in the Greek text the controversial expression is Ego eimi. Just by itself, without any introductory material ahead of it, Ego eimi means “I am.” Now this expression Ego eimi occurs also in John 8:24, 28; and in those verses the Authorized or King James Version and the Douay Version and others render the expression into English as “I am he,” the pronoun he being put in italics to indicate that the pronoun he is added or inserted. (AV; AS; Yg) But here, in John 8:58, those versions do not render this same expression as “I am he,” but only as “I am.” Seems to me they want to give us the idea that Jesus was not simply referring to his existence but also giving himself a title that belongs to YHWH God, in imitation of Exodus 3:14.

When writing John 8:58, the apostle was not quoting from the Greek Septuagint Version, which is a translation of the Hebrew Scriptures made by Greek-speaking Jews of Alexandria, Egypt, before the birth of Christ. Let anyone who reads Greek compare John 8:58 in Greek and Exodus 3:14 in the Greek Septuagint, and he will find that the Septuagint reading of Exodus 3:14 does not use the expression Ego eimi by itself what is there at Exodus 3:14 is the expression Ego eimi ho On, for God’s name, when God says to Moses: “I AM hath sent me unto you.” The Greek Septuagint uses the expression ho Ōn, which means “The Being,” or, “The One who is.” This fact is clearly presented to us in Bagster’s translation of the Greek Septuagint, at Exodus 3:14, which reads: “And God spoke to Moses, saying, I am THE BEING [ho Ōn]; and he said, Thus shall ye say to the children of Israel, THE BEING [ho Ōn] has sent me to you.” According to Charles Thomson’s translation of the Greek Septuagint, Exodus 3:14 reads: “God spoke to Moses saying, I am The I Am [ho Ōn]. Moreover he said, Thus shalt thou say to the children of Israel, The I Am [ho Ōn] hath sent me to you.”Thus this comparison of the two Greek texts, that of the Septuagint and that of John 8:58, removes all basis for people to argue that Jesus, in John 8:58, was trying to fit Exodus 3:14 to himself, as if he was YHWH God.

 

[Free]

Free said,
But that is why the Trinity makes the best sense of all that is revealed in Scripture. Jesus is God and the Father is God, yet they are two persons. Arguing that "Jesus has never said he was the Father who is God," is begging the question by presuming that the Father alone is God.[/QUOTE\]

Going by what the scriptures show the Father alone is God. I understand this is something that man don't believe. YHWH is the Father and God of Jesus and his apostles and disciples. Jesus says at John 20:17 after he was resurrected that he has a Father and God that is also his apostles Father and God. This is what I'm going to believe what John was inspired to be written down. Anyone who has truly studied the scriptures know that YHWH is the God of the Jews or the God of Israel.

It's good to believe that John was inspired to write down John 20:17, but you are interpreting it in a way that divorces it entirely from the rest of John's gospel. As I stated, John 1:1-18 setups up absolutely everything else John says about Jesus. One cannot understand the rest of what John says about Jesus, such as in 20:17, without first grasping what he says in 1:1-18, and particularly 1:1-3.

Look at what John records in 20:28, 'Thomas answered him, "My Lord and my God!"' (ESV). Thomas is clearly calling Jesus his Lord and his God, which doesn't even earn a rebuke from Jesus. This is perfectly consistent with who John says Jesus is in 1:1-18, what Jesus says of himself in 8:24 and 8:58, and the numerous times Jesus refers to himself as the Son of God.

I also agree that YHWH is the God of the Israelites and the one true God, but to say that YHWH is only the Father, is fallaciously begging the question by presuming that YHWH is only the Father. Yet, we see in Rom 10:9-13 that the name YHWH is applied to Jesus, that confessing such is necessary for salvation, and in Heb 1:10-12 that the Father says Jesus is the one being spoken of in Psalm 102-25-27, which speaks of YHWH. Again, these things are consistent with John 1:1-18, 1 Cor 8:6, and Col 1:16, among others.

There at John 20:17 Jesus wasn't claiming to be YHWH.

Which is not an argument I am making.

Jesus was claiming that YHWH was his Father and God

Right, as the God-man being in subjection to the Father for the purposes of man's salvation and the redemption of creation, but it does not follow that Jesus isn't also God, especially since John 1:1 already states that he is.

so YHWH was his apostles Father and God. This is what I'm going to believe. I understand that many people don't think I should believe what God inspired men to write down.

No one is saying that you shouldn't believe what God inspired men to write down, it's that you should believe all that God inspired men to write down and so not take things, like John 20:17, out of context.

 

[Free]

Free said,
Note that Jesus was God in human flesh and as such, subjected himself to the Father for the salvation of man and redemption of all creation. As such, what Jesus states in John 20:17 does not negate what he has claimed already.[/QUOTE\]

I understand that there are those who believe Jesus was God in human flesh.

Yes, Christians do. It is a core Christian belief.

All this teaches me about you though is that you don't believe the Word was and is the only begotten Son of God. Since the scriptures say the Word became Flesh/human you don't believe it was the only begotten Son of God who became human and came to mankind.

No, it actually means those very things. It is the only way to understand them. Again, a son is always of the same nature as his father; it cannot be otherwise. If the Father is God, the Son is also God, being of the same nature.

Because you believe God is the Word

No, I don't. John was very specific in his grammar. He is telling us who the Word is, not who God is. "The Word was God" cannot be reversed to say "God was the Word"; the grammar doesn't allow for that. It is a qualitative statement showing us the nature of the Word, namely, that he is deity. And since there is only one God, he is also the one true God whom he was with. Hence, plurality within the one God.

and so deny the Word is the only begotten Son of God, all I can see from this reasoning of yours is you are denying John 3:16. It looks to me you believe God sent himself not that he sent his only begotten Son.

You do not understand the Trinitarian position, as I have just pointed out. There is no denying John 3:16 on the part of Trinitarians, since we believe that the Son is of the same nature as the Father who sent the Son, but is not the Father. There is no salvation is Jesus was a mere creature. That was the whole problem with the OT sacrificial system and why animals had to be continually sacrificed; being creatures, they were not sufficient. That would not change if Jesus was a mere creature.

 

[BB1956]

Free said,
It's good to believe that John was inspired to write down John 20:17, but you are interpreting it in a way that divorces it entirely from the rest of John's gospel. As I stated, John 1:1-18 setups up absolutely everything else John says about Jesus. One cannot understand the rest of what John says about Jesus, such as in 20:17, without first grasping what he says in 1:1-18, and particularly 1:1-3.[/QUOTE\]

I'm not going by any interpretation, I'm going by What God inspired John to write down. At John 20:17 God inspired John to write down: "Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God."
I quoted John 20:17 Free, and what I quoted is what God inspired John to write down, so its not a interpretation, I'm simply believing by what God inspired John to write down. You are the one going by an interpretation, I haven't found anything that you posted which God inspired any man to write down in the scriptures.
Also at John 20:30, 31 God inspired John to write, "And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book:
But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name." So John here at John 20:30, 31 the apostle John said that everything he was inspired to write in the gospel of John was so people would exercise faith that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God, not God Free. If anyone says anything other than what's written down then it's they who's going by an interpretation. That includes John 1:1-18, and particularly John 1:1-3.

People can try all they want to convince me to deny Jesus is the Christ the Son of God, but I got out of the churches that believe in the Trinity because that's exactly what they wanted me to deny that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God.

The scriptures at John 1:1-18 have been debated on for centuries, thousands of years even. There are those who believe Jesus to be God, and those who believe Jesus to be the only begotten Son of God. I find nowhere in scripture where it's written down that God inspired any man to write down anything saying that Jesus is God. What I find when it comes to those who believe in the Trinity who believe Jesus is God, they don't believe what's written down, they interpret what's written down as something completely different than what's written down. But, noone will ever convince me that God is so ignorant that he can't inspire men to write down his thoughts accurately. So when Jesus says he has a Father and God that's is his apostles Father and God, that's completely accurate. Anyone who interprets John 20:17 to mean something entirely different than what's written down, all I see is someone trying to teach me that God can't inspire men to write down his thoughts accurately.

 

[Free]

Free said,
It's good to believe that John was inspired to write down John 20:17, but you are interpreting it in a way that divorces it entirely from the rest of John's gospel. As I stated, John 1:1-18 setups up absolutely everything else John says about Jesus. One cannot understand the rest of what John says about Jesus, such as in 20:17, without first grasping what he says in 1:1-18, and particularly 1:1-3.[/QUOTE\]

I'm not going by any interpretation,

And therein lies the problem. Proper interpretation includes, but is certainly not limited to, taking everything in context. You are divorcing John 20:13 from the context, both of John 20 and the rest of John's gospel, the rest of the NT, and the OT.

I'm going by What God inspired John to write down. At John 20:17 God inspired John to write down: "Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God."
I quoted John 20:17 Free, and what I quoted is what God inspired John to write down, so its not a interpretation, I'm simply believing by what God inspired John to write down.

Again, you are going by what is written but ignoring much else that is written and inspired that is absolutely necessary to understand John 20:17, not the least of which is 20:28, where Thomas calls Jesus his Lord and his God. This is always a significant problem with JWs--they focus exclusively on the verses that speak of Jesus's humanity and use those to override all the verses which clearly speak of his divinity. But neither those of his divinity nor his humanity should trump the others; they must all be taken into account and made sense of. Both are as equally important in understanding who Jesus is and his work.

You are the one going by an interpretation, I haven't found anything that you posted which God inspired any man to write down in the scriptures.

You don't think John 1:1-18, 8:24, 58, 20:28, Rom 10:9-13, 1 Cor 8:6, Col 1:16, Heb 1:12-14, and Psalm 102:25-27 are inspired? How do you determine which are inspired then and which aren't? Is it only those that agree with Watchtower theology that are inspired?

Also at John 20:30, 31 God inspired John to write, "And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book:
But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name." So John here at John 20:30, 31 the apostle John said that everything he was inspired to write in the gospel of John was so people would exercise faith that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God, not God Free.

Why are you making an argument against an argument I am not making? Why the straw man?

If anyone says anything other than what's written down then it's they who's going by an interpretation. That includes John 1:1-18, and particularly John 1:1-3.

And your understanding of John 20:13 goes against John 1:1-18 and 20:28. So, you are interpreting what is written.

People can try all they want to convince me to deny Jesus is the Christ the Son of God, but I got out of the churches that believe in the Trinity because that's exactly what they wanted me to deny that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God.

Then you simply did not understand what they were saying or they were teaching error. There is absolutely nothing in Trinitarian theology that denies Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God. In fact, it makes the best sense of it. JWs certainly can't claim that Jesus is the Son of God, because Jesus is of an entirely different nature than God.

The scriptures at John 1:1-18 have been debated on for centuries, thousands of years even. There are those who believe Jesus to be God, and those who believe Jesus to be the only begotten Son of God.

Those are one and the same belief.

I find nowhere in scripture where it's written down that God inspired any man to write down anything saying that Jesus is God.

And, yet, John does write that, so does Paul, and so does Peter.

What I find when it comes to those who believe in the Trinity who believe Jesus is God, they don't believe what's written down, they interpret what's written down as something completely different than what's written down.

On the contrary, Trinitarianism best takes into account all that is revealed about God, including the Son of God.

But, noone will ever convince me that God is so ignorant that he can't inspire men to write down his thoughts accurately.

No one is trying to convince you of that. In fact, as I stated, John was very precise in his grammar in John 1:1. It is undeniable that he is saying Jesus is God in the same way the Father is, but that he isn't the Father and still affirming that there is only one God, all of which JWs deny.

So when Jesus says he has a Father and God that's is his apostles Father and God, that's completely accurate.

Of course it is, but, again, it doesn't follow that Jesus isn't also God. That is an error in reasoning on your part, which likely comes from The Watchtower, due in large part to taking that verse in isolation. Remember, just 15 verses later, Thomas calls Jesus his Lord and his God, for which Jesus issues no rebuke or correction. That would have been blasphemy if it were not actually the case.

Anyone who interprets John 20:17 to mean something entirely different than what's written down, all I see is someone trying to teach me that God can't inspire men to write down his thoughts accurately.

 

[BB1956]

Free said,
You do not understand the Trinitarian position, as I have just pointed out. There is no denying John 3:16 on the part of Trinitarians, since we believe that the Son is of the same nature as the Father who sent the Son, but is not the Father. There is no salvation is Jesus was a mere creature. That was the whole problem with the OT sacrificial system and why animals had to be continually sacrificed; being creatures, they were not sufficient. That would not change if Jesus was a mere creature.[/QUOTE\]

I understand what you believe. And yes I agree that the last part of John 1:1 can be translated as the Word having the same nature as God. However when the Word became flesh/human, the only begotten Son of God emptied himself and took a slaves form and came to be in the likeness of men.
What I understand though when the scriptures say he became in the likeness of men is that the Word came in the likeness of the first Adam who when God created him was innocent and sinless, a perfect man(human being) until he disobeyed the command regarding the forbidden tree.
Because of Adams disobedience a ransom sacrifice was needed to buy back what was lost. Adam had sold himself to do evil for the selfish pleasure of keeping continued company with his wife, who had become a sinful transgressor, so Adam shared the same condemned standing with her before God. So the first Adam sold himself and his descendants into slavery to sin and to death, the price that God's justice required.(Romans 5:12-19; Romans 7:14-25) Having possessed human perfection, Adam lost this valuable possession for himself and all his offspring(descendants).

The Law, which had “a shadow of the good things to come,” provided for animal sacrifices as a covering for sin. This, however, was only a symbolic or token covering, since such animals were inferior to man; so, it was “not possible for the blood of bulls and of goats [actually] to take sins away,” as the apostle points out. (Hebrew 10:1-4) Note though what I'm saying here is that although both animals and men(human beings) are creatures it's because animals are not men(human beings) why they can't remove sin. Animals unlike men(human beings) are not created in the image of God.
Those pictorial animal sacrifices had to be without blemish, perfect specimens. (Leviticus 22:21) The real ransom sacrifice, a human actually capable of removing sins, must therefore also be perfect, free from blemish. He would have to correspond to the first perfect Adam and possess human perfection, if he were to pay the price of redemption that would release Adam’s offspring from the debt, disability, and enslavement into which their first father Adam had sold them. (Romans 7:14; Psalm 51:5.) Only thereby could he satisfy God’s perfect justice that requires like for like, a ‘soul for a soul.’(Exodud 21:23-25; Deuteronomy 19:21)

The strictness of God’s justice made it impossible for sinful mankind the first Adams offspring his descendants to provide their own redeemer. (Psalm 49:6-9) However, this results in the magnifying of God’s own love and mercy in that he met his own requirements at tremendous cost to himself, giving the life of his own Son to provide the redemption price. (Romans 5:6-8) This required his Son’s becoming a perfect human to correspond to the first perfect human Adam. God accomplished this by transferring his Son’s life from heaven to the womb of the Jewish virgin Mary. (Luke 1:26-37; John 1:14) Since Jesus did not owe his life to any human father descended from the sinner Adam, and since God’s holy spirit ‘overshadowed’ Mary, from the time she conceived until the time of Jesus’ birth, Jesus was born free from any inheritance of sin or imperfection, being, as it were, “an unblemished and spotless lamb,” whose blood could prove to be an acceptable sacrifice. (Luke 1:35; John 1:29; 1Peter 1:18, 19) Jesus maintained that sinless state throughout his life and so did not disqualify himself. (Hebrew 4:15; 7:26; 1Peter 2:22) As a ‘sharer of blood and flesh,’ he was a near kinsman of mankind and he had the thing of value, his own perfect life maintained pure through tests of integrity, with which to repurchase mankind, emancipate them.(Hebrew 2:14, 15)

The Christian Greek Scriptures make clear that the release from sin and death is indeed by the paying of a price. Christians are said to be “bought with a price” (1Corinthians 6:20; 7:23), having an “owner that bought them” (2Peter 2:1), and Jesus is presented as the Lamb who ‘was slaughtered and with his blood bought persons for God out of every tribe, tongue, and nation.’ (Revelation 5:9)

 

[BB1956]

Free said,
I also agree that YHWH is the God of the Israelites and the one true God, but to say that YHWH is only the Father, is fallaciously begging the question by presuming that YHWH is only the Father. Yet, we see in Rom 10:9-13 that the name YHWH is applied to Jesus, that confessing such is necessary for salvation, and in Heb 1:10-12 that the Father says Jesus is the one being spoken of in Psalm 102-25-27, which speaks of YHWH. Again, these things are consistent with John 1:1-18, 1 Cor 8:6, and Col 1:16, among others.[/QUOTE\]

At Acts 16:29-34 there was a uncircumcised Philippian jailer and his household who became baptized members of the Christian congregation in Philippi, and doubtless received the holy spirit by the laying of the apostle Paul’s hands upon them. (Philippians 1:1) “Believe on the Lord Jesus and you will get saved,” they were told. Now much must be understood in that simple expression, “Believe on the Lord Jesus.” This, and also the fact that the uncircumcised Gentile Cornelius and his fellow believers in his home got “baptized in the name of Jesus Christ,” cause the question to arise, Toward whom was the main action for salvation directed, toward Jesus Christ or toward YHWH God? I see the answer is affected by the fact that, after simply telling the Philippian jailer how to “get saved,” Paul and Silas “spoke the word of YHWH” to him and all his household and the jailer rejoiced greatly “now that he had believed God.”
YHWH God is the Father and God of Jesus Christ so YHWH God is the Father and God of Jesus apostles and disciples. When you call on the name YHWH your not calling on Jesus to save you you're calling on YHWH God to save you, using YHWH God's only begotten Son name. In other words you pray to YHWH God in the name of his only begotten Son's name Jesus Christ to save you. For example, you pray, YHWH God I ask in the name of your only begotten Son name Jesus Christ to save me. So you pray to YHWH God to save you through his only begotten Son name. So God and Jesus are not the same person.

All I see you trying is, you're trying to convince me that Jesus is YHWH God, but he isn't. So because all I see is you're trying to teach me that Jesus is YHWH all you ever will teach me is that you will always deny YHWH God has an only begotten Son, who existed in heaven with YHWH God before his only begotten Son was sent to mankind as a human.
This is why I left the churches that believe in the Trinity doctrine, they like you want me to believe YHWH God doesn't have a only begotten Son who he sent to mankind to die for mankind. Like I said all I see is you're basically saying there was no only begotten Son in heaven with YHWH God before the only begotten Son of God became human.

Another thing, the scriptures make it clear that when Jesus was resurrected he was given all authority in heaven and on earth, but YHWH God has always had all authority, so no, YHWH and Jesus are not the same. Also the scriptures tell us that after YHWH God resurrected Jesus YHWH God exalted him to a superior position giving him a name above every other name. I understand from the scriptures however that Jesus authority isn't equal to YHWH God authority because while all will be subject to Jesus whether they are in heaven or on earth, YHWH God isn't subject to Jesus authority, but Jesus is subject to YHWH God's authority, so Jesus will be subject to YHWH God. So while the only begotten Son of YHWH God has great authority in heaven and on earth and has a name above every other name in heaven and on earth Jesus authority isn't equal to YHWH God nor is Jesus name above the name of his Father and God whose name is YHWH. There's just too much in scripture that denies what the Trinity doctrine teaches and all I see is trinitarians interpreting scripture to make it mean what they want it to mean, I don't believe they're going by what God has inspired men to write down, but instead they interpret scripture to mean something completely different than what God inspired men to write down.

 

[BB1956]

I understand what you believe about me it's just what you believe about me, I believe about you. I don't believe you're going by the inspired word that's written down, and when I say that, I'm not saying the scriptures, John 1:1-18; 8:24,58; 20:28; Romans 10:9-13; 1 Corinthians 8:6; Colossians 1:16; Hebrews 1: 12-14; Psalm 102: 25-27 are not inspired of God. When I say I don't believe you're going by God's inspired word that's written down I mean you don't actually agree with what's written down but instead you interpret them to mean something God was saying through John.In other words you don't believe what those scriptures are actually saying but you are interpreting these scriptures to mean something other than what these scriptures are teaching.

You can make out I'm the one with the problem, but so what, I think the same about you.

 

[BB1956]

Free said,

expand...

Again, you are going by what is written but ignoring much else that is written and inspired that is absolutely necessary to understand John 20:17, not the least of which is 20:28, where Thomas calls Jesus his Lord and his God. This is always a significant problem with JWs--they focus exclusively on the verses that speak of Jesus's humanity and use those to override all the verses which clearly speak of his divinity. But neither those of his divinity nor his humanity should trump the others; they must all be taken into account and made sense of. Both are as equally important in understanding who Jesus is and his work.[/QUOTE\]

I think it's you who ignore too much, that's in scripture. For instance like John tells us at John 20: 30, 31 everything that he was inspired to write was to convince people that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God. So the whole gospel of John is to teach me to have faith that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God. That includes John 1:1-18; John 8:24,58; John 20:17, 28. The whole gospel of John is to teach you to exercise faith that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God. This is what I believe and people like you want me to deny. I'm not going to deny it.

 

[miamited]

Hi all,

I too, understand that there is a separateness that we may never fully understand this side of eternity, between God, the Father, Jesus, and the Spirit.

I've heard the argument over and over that Jesus said he was God when, in speaking to the Pharisees, he told them that "I Am!" But then I also know that Jesus also said that the words he spoke were not his own, but were rather given to him by the Father to speak.

According to the Scriptures, Jesus is the eternal Son. So, when asked by the people how he could possibly be older than Moses, he replies, "I tell you the truth, even before Abraham I AM."

Well, according to the Scriptures, that would be true about Jesus. He did exist before Abraham.

Then Jesus, still teaching in the temple courts, cried out, “Yes, you know me, and you know where I am from. I am not here on my own authority, but he who sent me is true. You do not know him, but I know him because I am from him and he sent me.”

I am one who testifies for myself; my other witness is the Father, who sent me.”

Jesus replied, “If I glorify myself, my glory means nothing. My Father, whom you claim as your God, is the one who glorifies me.

Then Jesus continues: Though you do not know him, I know him. If I said I did not, I would be a liar like you, but I do know him and obey his word.

I honestly can't find any support that Jesus believed that he was God. Fortunately, I'm not convinced that whether or not we truly understand the relationship between God, the Son and the Spirit, is a salvation issue. But I'm pretty sure, in reading Paul's letters, that he ever understood that Jesus is God.

So, I'm for sticking with what God says about Jesus: "This is my Son, in whom I am well pleased."

The second argument generally stems from Thomas's proclamation to Jesus, "My Lord and my God."

But Jesus had just told him that if he had seen him that he had seen God. But we know that God is Spirit, so Jesus could not have been speaking of his physical presence as a man, but rather his oneness through the Spirit with God. That he lived according to the perfect law of God. Yes, Thomas, you have seen how I have loved you and how I have nurtured you and cared for you. I am the human representation of all that God's Spirit is. So Thomas is confirming that he sees God's Spirit in him.

And this is also what Paul confirmed. That Jesus is the exact representation of God.

So, we have two pieces of Scripture that, I believe, we have to jump through some hoops to understand that these passages are making some proclamation that Jesus is God. Yet we have dozens of pieces of Scripture that seem to clearly infer a separateness between them, as far as their individual personages.

I'm sticking with God's words: "This is my Son. You must listen to him."

God bless,
Ted

 

[Free]

Free said,
You do not understand the Trinitarian position, as I have just pointed out. There is no denying John 3:16 on the part of Trinitarians, since we believe that the Son is of the same nature as the Father who sent the Son, but is not the Father. There is no salvation is Jesus was a mere creature. That was the whole problem with the OT sacrificial system and why animals had to be continually sacrificed; being creatures, they were not sufficient. That would not change if Jesus was a mere creature.[/QUOTE\]

I understand what you believe.

And, yet, you stated that: "you don't believe the Word was and is the only begotten Son of God. Since the scriptures say the Word became Flesh/human you don't believe it was the only begotten Son of God who became human and came to mankind. Because you believe God is the Word and so deny the Word is the only begotten Son of God, all I can see from this reasoning of yours is you are denying John 3:16. It looks to me you believe God sent himself not that he sent his only begotten Son."

No Trinitarian believes the Word wasn't and isn't the only begotten Son of God. No Trinitarian believes that it wasn't the only Son of God who became human. No Trinitarian believes "God is the Word." No Trinitarian believes God (the Father) sent himself and not his only Son. As such, there is nothing within Trinitarian belief that denies John 3:16.

And yes I agree that the last part of John 1:1 can be translated as the Word having the same nature as God.

It is the only way to understand it. It cannot mean "a god" since there is no other being that is an actual god. Christianity is monotheistic and that immediately rules out any attempt to translate the last clause as "a god."

However when the Word became flesh/human, the only begotten Son of God emptied himself and took a slaves form and came to be in the likeness of men.
What I understand though when the scriptures say he became in the likeness of men is that the Word came in the likeness of the first Adam who when God created him was innocent and sinless, a perfect man(human being) until he disobeyed the command regarding the forbidden tree.
Because of Adams disobedience a ransom sacrifice was needed to buy back what was lost. Adam had sold himself to do evil for the selfish pleasure of keeping continued company with his wife, who had become a sinful transgressor, so Adam shared the same condemned standing with her before God. So the first Adam sold himself and his descendants into slavery to sin and to death, the price that God's justice required.(Romans 5:12-19; Romans 7:14-25) Having possessed human perfection, Adam lost this valuable possession for himself and all his offspring(descendants).

Okay, but I don't see what any of that has to do with John 1:1, apart from the reference to Phil 2:5-8.

Php 2:5 Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus,
Php 2:6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped,
Php 2:7 but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men.
Php 2:8 And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. (ESV)

There are some important points to note about this passage:

1. Jesus was in "the form of God." This is supported by John 1:1--"the Word was with God, and the Word was God." The NIV has a clearer rendering of what is meant in verse 6: "being in very nature God." The Expositor's Greek Testament and M. R. Vincent (Word Studies in the New Testament) agree. That Paul is referring to the divinity of Christ is without question.
2. He "did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped"; that is, being in the form of God, being equal with the Father, he did not consider that equality something to be "forcefully retained [or held onto]." The meaning is that anything to do with the appearance of his glory as God had to be let go of in order for the completion of his humiliation, which was necessary for man's salvation. Again, the NIV brings out the meaning a bit better: "did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage."
3. He, being Jesus, emptied himself. Firstly then, it was he who did the emptying. And, secondly, he emptied himself of something. That is, there is something that he emptied himself of something that was necessary in the taking on of the human form. Jesus willingly chose to take the form of a human for the salvation of mankind. Whatever Paul means here, and we must always be careful to not say more or less than what the Bible says, Jesus, as God Incarnate, still maintains his full deity in becoming truly and fully human.
4. In emptying himself, he took on the "form of a servant," "being born in the likeness of men"--this is what John 1:14 is speaking of. Paul is contrasting Jesus's "being born in the likeness of men" with being in the "form of God."
5. Being found in "human form"--again, as opposed to his having been in "the form of God"--he "humbled himself by becoming obedient."

The whole point of this passage is to show the humility of Christ, which we are to have (verses 1-5). There is no greater example of humility that could be conceived than that of God (the Son) coming to earth and taking on the form of one of his creatures.

The Law, which had “a shadow of the good things to come,” provided for animal sacrifices as a covering for sin. This, however, was only a symbolic or token covering, since such animals were inferior to man; so, it was “not possible for the blood of bulls and of goats [actually] to take sins away,” as the apostle points out. (Hebrew 10:1-4) Note though what I'm saying here is that although both animals and men(human beings) are creatures it's because animals are not men(human beings) why they can't remove sin. Animals unlike men(human beings) are not created in the image of God.
Those pictorial animal sacrifices had to be without blemish, perfect specimens. (Leviticus 22:21) The real ransom sacrifice, a human actually capable of removing sins, must therefore also be perfect, free from blemish. He would have to correspond to the first perfect Adam and possess human perfection, if he were to pay the price of redemption that would release Adam’s offspring from the debt, disability, and enslavement into which their first father Adam had sold them. (Romans 7:14; Psalm 51:5.) Only thereby could he satisfy God’s perfect justice that requires like for like, a ‘soul for a soul.’(Exodud 21:23-25; Deuteronomy 19:21)

...

The Christian Greek Scriptures make clear that the release from sin and death is indeed by the paying of a price. Christians are said to be “bought with a price” (1Corinthians 6:20; 7:23), having an “owner that bought them” (2Peter 2:1), and Jesus is presented as the Lamb who ‘was slaughtered and with his blood bought persons for God out of every tribe, tongue, and nation.’ (Revelation 5:9)

And the only price that could be paid was by God himself, not a creature, or we would still have needed a continuous sacrifice for sins after Jesus's death, if he wasn't in nature God.

 

[Free]

Free said,
I also agree that YHWH is the God of the Israelites and the one true God, but to say that YHWH is only the Father, is fallaciously begging the question by presuming that YHWH is only the Father. Yet, we see in Rom 10:9-13 that the name YHWH is applied to Jesus, that confessing such is necessary for salvation, and in Heb 1:10-12 that the Father says Jesus is the one being spoken of in Psalm 102-25-27, which speaks of YHWH. Again, these things are consistent with John 1:1-18, 1 Cor 8:6, and Col 1:16, among others.[/QUOTE\]

At Acts 16:29-34 there was a uncircumcised Philippian jailer and his household who became baptized members of the Christian congregation in Philippi, and doubtless received the holy spirit by the laying of the apostle Paul’s hands upon them. (Philippians 1:1) “Believe on the Lord Jesus and you will get saved,” they were told. Now much must be understood in that simple expression, “Believe on the Lord Jesus.” This, and also the fact that the uncircumcised Gentile Cornelius and his fellow believers in his home got “baptized in the name of Jesus Christ,” cause the question to arise, Toward whom was the main action for salvation directed, toward Jesus Christ or toward YHWH God? I see the answer is affected by the fact that, after simply telling the Philippian jailer how to “get saved,” Paul and Silas “spoke the word of YHWH” to him and all his household and the jailer rejoiced greatly “now that he had believed God.”
YHWH God is the Father and God of Jesus Christ so YHWH God is the Father and God of Jesus apostles and disciples. When you call on the name YHWH your not calling on Jesus to save you you're calling on YHWH God to save you, using YHWH God's only begotten Son name. In other words you pray to YHWH God in the name of his only begotten Son's name Jesus Christ to save you. For example, you pray, YHWH God I ask in the name of your only begotten Son name Jesus Christ to save me. So you pray to YHWH God to save you through his only begotten Son name.

But, again, this is all fallaciously begging the question. You need to take all relevant verses and passages into account. When the jailer had "the word of the Lord" spoken to him, I agree that in a sense, yes, it was "the word of YHWH." However, in the verse immediately prior to that, they tell the jailer to "Believe in the Lord Jesus" (Acts 16:31). Therefore, the reference to "Lord" in verse 32 is a reference to Jesus.

As to calling on the name of YHWH:

Rom 10:9 because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.
Rom 10:10 For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved.
Rom 10:11 For the Scripture says, “Everyone who believes in him will not be put to shame.”
Rom 10:12 For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, bestowing his riches on all who call on him.
Rom 10:13 For “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.” (ESV)

Paul is equating confessing "Jesus is Lord" with calling "on the name of YHWH." That is to say, confessing "Jesus is Lord" is to confess that "Jesus is YHWH," as the basis for salvation. Whenever the NT speaks of believing in the name of Jesus, as John says quite often, it isn't merely believing in just his name, it means the sum total of who Jesus is and his work.

Then, as I pointed out, the writer of Hebrews has the Father ascribing all of creation to the work of the Son, by using a passage from Psalms that speaks of YHWH. It cannot be more clear that Jesus is YHWH, just as the Father is YHWH, yet they are distinct persons. And all that fits with Jesus's own claim to be the I Am, with John's claim that Jesus is in nature God, and with Paul's and Peter's claims that Jesus is God. It also fits with John's use of titles for Jesus in Revelation that are only used of God elsewhere. As a whole, taking all that the Bible reveals about God, the doctrine of the Trinity best takes it all into account.

So God and Jesus are not the same person.

The Father and the Son are not the same person, but both are God.

All I see you trying is, you're trying to convince me that Jesus is YHWH God, but he isn't. So because all I see is you're trying to teach me that Jesus is YHWH all you ever will teach me is that you will always deny YHWH God has an only begotten Son, who existed in heaven with YHWH God before his only begotten Son was sent to mankind as a human.

See, you don't understand the doctrine of the Trinity. I don't deny, as no Trinitarian would deny, that Jesus is the only begotten Son. Your understanding is based of the assumption that YHWH is only the Father, but the Bible clearly shows that isn't the case.

This is why I left the churches that believe in the Trinity doctrine, they like you want me to believe YHWH God doesn't have a only begotten Son who he sent to mankind to die for mankind. Like I said all I see is you're basically saying there was no only begotten Son in heaven with YHWH God before the only begotten Son of God became human.

Another thing, the scriptures make it clear that when Jesus was resurrected he was given all authority in heaven and on earth, but YHWH God has always had all authority, so no, YHWH and Jesus are not the same.

Your conclusion doesn't follow. The whole point is that all mankind sees that Jesus is given all authority so that they can believe he was who he claimed to be. If everything was created through him, as John and Paul state, then Jesus can only be YHWH, since there is no other.

There's just too much in scripture that denies what the Trinity doctrine teaches and all I see is trinitarians interpreting scripture to make it mean what they want it to mean, I don't believe they're going by what God has inspired men to write down, but instead they interpret scripture to mean something completely different than what God inspired men to write down.

On the contrary, there is much support for the Trinity, otherwise it would never have come about nor been accepted has orthodox doctrine for centuries.

 

[Free]

I think it's you who ignore too much, that's in scripture. For instance like John tells us at John 20: 30, 31 everything that he was inspired to write was to convince people that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God. So the whole gospel of John is to teach me to have faith that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God. That includes John 1:1-18; John 8:24,58; John 20:17, 28.

Yes, and the title "Son of God" is itself a claim to deity. The Jews understood this and tried to stone Jesus for blasphemy because he was making God his own Father. There simply is no getting around the fact that John, Paul, and Peter all thought Jesus was God. And why would that be, unless it was because Jesus actually claimed to be God and was understood by the Jews claiming such?

The whole gospel of John is to teach you to exercise faith that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God. This is what I believe and people like you want me to deny. I'm not going to deny it.

Again, this betrays the fact that you don't understand the doctrine of the Trinity. No Trinitarian, including myself, want you to deny that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God. Why would I, when I believe that myself?