Correct how?
Jesus Christ is God come in the flesh, that is the Biblical doctrine.
Christian Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
Desire to be a vessel of honor unto the Lord Jesus Christ?
Join For His Glory for a discussion on how
https://christianforums.net/threads/a-vessel-of-honor.110278/
-
Taking the time to pray? Christ is the answer in times of need
https://christianforums.net/threads/psalm-70-1-save-me-o-god-lord-help-me-now.108509/
-
-
Depending upon the Holy Spirit for all you do?
Read through the following study by Tenchi for more on this topic
https://christianforums.net/threads/without-the-holy-spirit-we-can-do-nothing.109419/
-
-
How are famous preachers sometimes effected by sin?
Join Sola Scriptura for a discussion on the subject
https://christianforums.net/threads/anointed-preaching-teaching.109331/#post-1912042
-
Son of God
- Thread starter electedbyHim
- Start date
Jesus Christ is God come in the flesh, that is the Biblical doctrine.
I learned the Scriptures for the normal canonized Bible. I began with an NKJV back in the 90s and read it until it fell apart. All of the Bibles I read are standard, well-known, translations and versions such as the NKJV, KJV, NASB, ESV, RSV, etc. So I am under the impression that you believe Unitarians have a playbook of some sort and aren't using the Bible.
While there are many Unitarian theologians, there isn't a different Bible just for Unitarians. The majority of Bibles were indeed translated by Trinitarians with Trinitarian beliefs and biases and it doesn't have any effect on Unitarianism.
Where you learned Trinitarianism is in your denomination and creeds, not from Scripture.
None of these directly state Jesus is God, but I am not surprised to see you use some of those because Trinitarians do commonly refer to them as theological arguments. However, I am actually a bit surprised that you cited verses that directly state the only God is the Father, such as 1 Corinthians 8:6, Ephesians 4:4-6, and 1 John 5:20, which is the opposite of what would help your case.
What Jesus taught in our Christian Bible is that his God and Father is the only true God. For this subject, I recommend you begin with some of the below verses.
John 17
3And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.
Romans 9 (RSV)
4 They are Israelites, and to them belong the sonship, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises; 5 to them belong the patriarchs, and of their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ. God who is over all be blessed for ever. Amen.
Ephesians 4
6One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.
1 Corinthians 8
6But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.
1 Timothy 2
5For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
That's any interesting perspective and I don't think I have heard it before. You said "God is setup like a family" and referred to the 5th commandment. I am sorry if I misunderstood you, but it almost seems like you're saying who or what God is is a model of what a family is and that family is God. I do believe family and treating our family right is so important to God though. Do you mind if I directly ask what you label your beliefs as, if anything?
What do you make of these scriptures?
John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
John 1:2 The same was in the beginning with God.
John 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
John 1:4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
John 1:5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.
John 1:6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.
John 1:7 The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe.
John 1:8 He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light.
John 1:9 That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.
John 1:10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.
John 1:11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not.
John 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
John 1:13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
John 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
I read it like the "Word" isn't an actual person because a Word isn't a person. It's personification and speaks of the Word in the past tense as God - meaning to say the Word isn't God now. Big clue is that God doesn't stop being God so best case scenario is this is the Word (the divine speech, words, and utterances of God) being personified.
You may appreciate the fact that in John 1:1 that in the Greek there are actually two distinctly different usages of God being used. The translation that Trinitarian translations leave out is the mention of The God (ton Theon) being distinct from God (theos). In other words, there is the definitive God and then there is God not described as the definitive God.
If literal, a better translation would be to say the Word is either a god or if not literal then the Word is godly. John wrote it this way to show distinction between God and a god or something godly. So John 1:1 leaves out the definite "the" article before the first God in Trinitarian translations. Most people will not dig into the Greek and find this. In other words, John 1:1 is corrupted.
I don't believe Jesus pre-existed, but rather only prophetically in the divine words of God. With 1 John 1:1-3 directly calling the Word of Life an it, a thing, that manifested in Jesus, then I find this to be the most likely way to interpret John 1:1-14.
1 John 1
1That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life; 2(For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us;) 3That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ.
Last edited:
Matthew 7:6 Do not give dogs what is holy; do not throw your pearls before swine. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and then turn and tear you to pieces.
.... goes back to his
.... goes back to his
This is fact.Matthew 7:6 Do not give dogs what is holy; do not throw your pearls before swine. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and then turn and tear you to pieces.
.... goes back to his
I will leave you with this.
1. God is Spirit, John 4:24, not flesh and blood and in the OT either spoke directly to the prophets or by angels and also various objects like a burning bush or an ass for example. Between the OT and NT God was silent towards Israel as when they returned to Israel from the Babylonian captivity they came back as merchants and not shepherds as they were disobedient to God going after other gods, Book of Malachi.
2. Jesus being the very Spirit of God before the foundation of the world as He and the Father are one was prophesied by the Prophets in the OT and spoken of by John the Baptist in the NT as John being the forerunner of Christ calling all to repent. As foretold Christ did come as the word of God made flesh (skin, bone, blood) to be that light that shines in darkness. He came as redeemer Savior through Gods grace as Christ is our faith that all can repent of their sins and have eternal life with the Father to all who will believe in Him as Lord and Savior. John 1:1-4; 1 Peter 1:13-21
3. After the sacrifice of Christ God raised Him from the grave and as He had to ascend back up to heaven the promise was that He would never leave us or forsake us as when He ascended He sent down the Holy Spirit (Spirit of God) to indwell all who will believe in Christ and His finished works on the cross. In the OT Gods Spirit fell on them for a time and purpose under heaven. Now we are indwelled with that power and authority through Gods grace that the Holy Spirit now works in us and through us teaching all things God wants us to learn. All three are Spiritual and Spiritual awaking's in us to know the will of God and walk in His statures. John 16:7-15
Ephesians 4: 5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism, 6 One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.
1 John 5:6 This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth. 7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word (Jesus), and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. 8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.
God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit as all three coequal Gods Spirit.
Jesus being the right arm of God. Isaiah 53:1 Who hath believed our report? and to whom is the arm of the LORD revealed? 2 For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him. 3 He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not.
Jesus is the word of God. John 12:49 For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak. 50 And I know that his commandment is life everlasting: whatsoever I speak therefore, even as the Father said unto me, so I speak.
Jesus is word, light and life that is God come in the flesh. John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. 4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
Gods Holy Spirit has come to indwell us and teach us. John 14: 26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.
Scriptures that reference Jesus being referred to as God:
John 1:1-14; John 10:30; Romans 9:5; Colossians 2:9; Hebrews 1:8, 9; 1 John 5:7, 8, 20; 1 Corinthians 8:6; 2 Corinthians 3:17; 13:14; Isaiah 9:6; 44:6; Luke 1:35; Matthew 1:23; 28:19; John 14:16, 17; Genesis 1:1, 2 (cross reference John 1:1-14); 1 Corinthians 12:4-6; Ephesians 4:4-6; Colossians 1:15-17; John 14:9-11; Philippians 2:5-8; Rev 1:8
Scriptures that refer the Holy Spirit as being God:
Psalms 139:7, 8; John 14:17; 16:13; Isaiah 40:13; 1 Corinthians 2:10, 11; Zechariah 4:6; Luke 1:35; Ephesians 4:4-6; Romans 5:5; 1 Corinthians 6:19; Ephesians 1:13; 1 Thessalonians 1:5; Titus 3:5; 2 Peter 1:21; Jude 1:20
So many issues in this post, all of which have been addressed numerous times. There is nothing in the text of John 1:1-14 to suggest that the Word is a personification. In fact, the text shows that the Word is an actual "person." Given that the Word was in an intimate, interpersonal relationship with God (John 1:1b), proves that to be the case. How do you explain God being in an intimate, interpersonal relationship with either his words or some other abstract concept?
The whole point of John's prologue, particularly verse 1, is to introduce us to who the Word is.
You need to study grammar and actually dig into the Greek of this text before making such claims. First, no translation is leaving out anything in John 1:1; there is absolutely no corruption. English translations leave out "the" with Theon because in English it grammatically makes little, if any, sense to say "the Word was with the God;" at a minimum it is unnecessary. Second, notice your double standard. You keep arguing that there are "Sons of God" because "The capitalization is subjective and a translational preference," ignoring and confusing the significant difference between "the Son of God" and "sons of God." Yet, when it comes to your personal preference, you capitalize "Theon" and but don't capitalize "theos." Do you see how in both cases you subtly manipulate the text to implicitly argue in favour of your position?
Third, John included the article with Theon and didn't include it with Theos because he had to, to achieve the precision he was seeking. When it comes to the last clause, "the Word was God," it is significant that "God" doesn't have the article in the Greek, as it did in the preceding clause. If the article had been present then "Word" and "God" become interchangeable--they would be one and the same--which is the error of Modalism/Oneness theology. But this whole passage is about the Logos, who the Logos is, not who God is, so John purposely doesn't use the article to avoid equating the two words. It cannot be translated as "a god" because God himself says many times that there is no other god. What it can only mean then is qualitative, that the Word was divine in nature, or deity. However, since there is only one God and only God has the nature of God, it is rightly translated as "the Word was God."
Fourth, there are around 282 instances where the NT writers didn't use the article for Theos and its derivatives, yet even you wouldn't dispute that the correct translation is "God." These include:
Joh 1:6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.
Joh 1:12 But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God,
Joh 1:13 who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.
Joh 1:18 No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father's side, he has made him known.
Do you think we should translate those as "There was a man sent from a god," "he gave the right to become children of a god," "but of a god," and "no one has ever seen a god"?
Joh 20:17 Jesus said to her, “Do not cling to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father; but go to my brothers and say to them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.’”
Should that be, "I am ascending . . . to my a god and your a god"?
What about 2 Cor 5:19, "that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation"? Should we be translating that as "in Christ a god"?
Perhaps we should also look at where the article is used, but not translated in the English:
Joh 1:29 The next day he saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, “Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!
Joh 20:28 Thomas answered him, “My Lord and my God!”
Here is an instance where one use as no article but another does:
Joh 3:2 This man came to Jesus by night and said to him, “Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher come from God, for no one can do these signs that you do unless God is with him.”
(All ESV.)
Be very careful in arguing to the Greek, as my next post will show with greater clarity.
Again, this has been thoroughly shown to be a very problematic and fallacious understanding, more than once, yet you continue to appeal to it. Why?
It depends on precisely what "word of life" is referring to. Here is what the experts say:
"It" isn't actually in the Greek text in verse 2; it's added by some translators. Second, the Word of life is most likely an indirect reference to Jesus, "meaning something relating to the person and revelation of Christ. . . . The successive clauses, that which was from the beginning, etc., express, not the Eternal Word Himself, but something relating to or predicated concerning (περί) Him. The indefinite that which, is approximately defined by these clauses; that about the Word of Life which was from the beginning, that which appealed to sight, to hearing is, to touch" (M. R. Vincent).
Or, read Albert Barnes's thoughts on verse 1:
'The apostle, in speaking of “that which was from the beginning,” uses a word in the neuter gender instead of the masculine, (ὅ ho.) It is not to be supposed, I think, that he meant to apply this term “directly” to the Son of God, for if he had he would have used the masculine pronoun; but though he had the Son of God in view, and meant to make a strong affirmation respecting him, yet the particular thing here referred to was “whatever” there was respecting that incarnate Saviour that furnished testimony to any of the senses, or that pertained to his character and doctrine, he had borne witness to.
He was looking rather at the evidence that he was incarnate; the proofs that he was manifested; and he says that those proofs had been subjected to the trial of the senses, and he had borne witness to them, and now did it again. This is what is referred to, it seems to me, by the phrase “that which,” (ὅ ho.) The sense may be this: “Whatever there was respecting the Word of life, or him who is the living Word, the incarnate Son of God, from the very beginning, from the time when he was first manifested in the flesh; whatever there was respecting his exalted nature, his dignity, his character, that could be subjected to the testimony of the senses, to be the object of sight, or hearing, or touch, that I was permitted to see, and that I declare to you respecting him.” John claims to be a competent witness in reference to everything which occurred as a manifestation of what the Son of God was.'
Wuest states in his Word Studies in the Greek New Testament:
"John begins his letter with a relative pronoun in the neuter gender, "that which." The reference is to things relating to the Lord Jesus. We are not to understand the expression as equivalent to "He who." The preposition "of" in the expression "of the Word of life" is peri, "concerning." This speaks of the things concerning our Lord, rather than of Him personally." (vol. 2, p. 87)
Here is Wuest's translation of those two verses:
"1Jn 1:1 (1-2) That which was from the beginning, that which we have heard with the present result that it is ringing in our ears, that which we have discerningly seen with our eyes with the present result that it is in our mind's eye, that which we gazed upon as a spectacle, and our hands handled with a view to investigation, that which is concerning the Word of the life and this aforementioned life was made visible, and we have seen it with discernment and have it in our mind's eye, and are bearing witness and bringing back to you a message concerning the life, the eternal life, which is of such a nature as to have been in fellowship with the Father and was made visible to us."
On the one hand, if you want to say "the word of life" is an "indirect reference to Jesus," or "the Word," then your argument is moot. On the other hand, if you want to argue that "the word of life" is synonymous with "the Word" of John 1:1, it is fallacious to argue that because John uses a neuter gender that the word of life is an "it" and, therefore, the Word is an "it." That is an error of reasoning which is based on ignorance of the Greek:
First, according to Mounce, the gender of nouns, for the most part, don't indicate the gender of the object. That is, grammatical gender doesn't indicate personal gender. Second, you previously stated that: "There is also the understanding that since God the Father is Himself a Holy Spirit that where Holy Spirit is mentioned that it wouldn't be a reference to a third person in a Trinity, but rather another name for the Father."
However, the gender of a noun never changes, so the Holy Spirit cannot be both an "it" in one context and refer to the Father in another context. You have to pick one--"he" or "it."
Third, you have also previously argued (incorrectly) that the Father is the true light of John 1:9, but "light" is neuter. So, once again, you are implying that the Father is an "it," or at least an "it" and a "he," but, again, that cannot be the case and you have to pick one and stick to it. Fourth, Logos is masculine, which according to you means the Logos is a "he," and cannot be a mere "personification" or an "it."
I should also point out how this cannot be a personification, apart from your argument to the Greek which precludes that idea as well.
Joh 1:10 He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet the world did not know him.
Joh 1:11 He came to his own, and his own people did not receive him.
Joh 1:12 But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, (ESV)
Who is the "He" and "him" in these verses? Clearly Jesus. It is only by believing in his name that we "become children of God." Yet, John also states that "the world was made through him," which is precisely what he stated in verse 3 of the Word. The entire prologue is to introduce us to who the Son of God is, having been the preincarnate Word that existed for all "eternity past" with the Father (at a minimum) in an interpersonal, loving relationship, but became flesh for our salvation.
No issues in the post.
In John 1:1 the Word is demonstrably not God in context or grammar. For starters, as I have pointed out elsewhere repeatedly, the Greek grammar says God is The God (Ton Theon) and the Word is god (theos). The author wrote it this way to show distinction between God and the Word.
The options here are there are two divine beings with one being The Lord God Almighty and the other a lesser being. The Word is something godly, i.e., God's words are godly. Or this is personification. Practically any other option than the Word literally being God is preferable at this point.
To further enhance this point, there is no reference to an actual being known as the Word in the beginning with God. Nor is there a reference someone named the Word saying or doing anything later. Your interpretation lacks support at virtually every level aside from the internal narrative of 14 verses in John 1.
So the way to work with this is to examine the body of Scripture and see what it says. Provided that there your interpretation doesn't have any support, the best alternative is that Jesus isn't God.
This is actually evident by the remainder of the narrative in John 1:1-14.
No, the correct translation where the definite article "ton" occurs is to actually write it out in English. To exclude it suggests a dogmatic translation. For example, a literal translation of John 1:1 actually debunks the Trinity because if there is The God and god then that's either two Gods or God and a being who isn't God, but rather a god.
The context is that the Word isn't literally God so the reader would understand that the God being referenced is the definitive God. I would also add that words are intuitively known to not be an actual person or God. It's personification the same way wisdom is called a she in Proverbs 8 and 9. We don't make an argument about a non-person thing being a person.
This is why John directly called the Word a thing in 1 John 1:1-3. In Acts 4:24-27, John was clear he didn't believe Jesus is God or the Creator, but rather the Creators servant.
Context. The context for all is that Jesus isn't God nor did Thomas refer to him as God in the nominative case. In other words, Thomas didn't say "you [Jesus] are God."
Keep in mind that the Father is the only true God (John 17:3) and there isn't more than one God because Christianity is monotheistic. A compound God is unprecedented.
Anyone can be a Bible lawyer, but the context will always win and inform the interpretation. I would advise you the same because where you can't actually support your theories is that the context of everything in the Bible always debunks the deity of Jesus. Therefore fiddling with translations can't help you.
It's personification. Include more of the context and you'll see it. In verse 9, the True Light was coming into the world (present tense) in the time John the Baptist was already preaching. Since John and Jesus were around the same age, this would mean the True Light was coming into the world 30 years after Jesus' birth. In other words, Jesus isn't the True Light because Jesus isn't God. The True Light gives light to all men and Jesus is a man according to John 1:30.
John 1
9The true Light who gives light to every man was coming into the world.
So when John 1:10 says the world was made through Him, it's referring to God creating the world, not Jesus.
It's all contradicted by 1 John 1:1-3 where it directly refers to the Word of life as a thing. They are just arguing and it doesn't change the fact that the passage doesn't support the Trinity, though try as they will to argue to the contrary. So John 1:1-14 is personification.
LovethroughDove
Member
Yes, who/what God is, is setup like the family model. Our families are not God, but that the structure when it is implemented perfectly is how God is... Children take the knowledge that their parent has given them and they use it to live their lives and pass on a beautiful existence to others. Children also revere their parents and love them because they have the best interest in mind for their children and want the best for them. If we are talking about Jesus, he is the big brother that has gone ahead of us and has the SAME feeling towards us as our Father does. He has our best interest at heart and leads us through this
and lets the Father know who should be adopted into the family. He is the one who passes on his Father's inheritance to the other children.The reverse is true about the darkness. It's a dysfunctional family where everyone is just out for themselves and it's a mess. John 8:44
As for your last question.......I've never heard my beliefs labeled anything. I don't hear it spoken.
LovethroughDove
Member
I did not say Jesus is not God come in the flesh. He is. If you want, you can have me clarify if you still are not okay with what I stated.
I questioned thie above statement about Jesus being equal with the Father, which He is.
Always testing the spirits.
Grace and peace to you.
LovethroughDove
Member
He submits to the Father. This is why he has been given authority over us.
1 Corinthians 15:27-28 For he "has put everything under his feet". Now when it says that "everything" has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ. When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all.
The Father and Son are equal.
John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
John 1:2 He was in the beginning with God.
John 5:17 But He answered them, “My Father is working until now, and I Myself am working.”
John 5:18 For this reason therefore the Jews were seeking all the more to kill Him, because He not only was breaking the Sabbath, but also was calling God His own Father, making Himself equal with God.
John 5:19 Therefore Jesus answered and was saying to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing from Himself, unless it is something He sees the Father doing; for whatever the Father does, these things the Son also does in the same manner.
John 8:58 Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.”
Jesus Christ is God and equal with the The Father.
Yes. As James White says, "Difference in function does not indicate inferiority of nature."