The term "Godhead."

[BB1956]

Free said,
"Can you provide just one verse which clearly states that only the Father is Yahweh?" [/QUOTE\]

Yes I can provide a scripture, it's at John 20:17 there Jesus Christ said he has a Father and God who is his apostles Father and God. The God and Father of Israel is YHWH Jesus wasn't saying he was YHWH.

Where is the name Yahweh mentioned in that verse?[/QUOTE\]

Yeah right Free, you think that when Jesus Christ said what he Said at John 20:17 about him having a Father and God that was his apostles Father and God, that he wasn't talking about YHWH God simply because the name YHWH isn't in that scripture. Then you go ahead and believe that Jesus Christ wasn't speaking about YHWH God when he said at John 20:17 that he has a Father and God that was his apostles Father and God. You go ahead and believe that he was speaking about another God, that Jesus Christ wasn't talking about YHWH God when he said what he said at John 20:17 about him having a Father and God that was his apostles Father and God

 

[BB1956]

I do not disagree that Jesus is the only true God, so I disagree that Jesus is YHWH God.

Free said,
This is a contradiction. Is that what you meant to say?[/QUOTE\]

What I meant was, I do not agree that Jesus is the only true God, so I disagree that Jesus is YHWH God.

 

[Free]

Where is the name Yahweh mentioned in that verse?[/QUOTE\]

Yeah right Free, you think that when Jesus Christ said what he Said at John 20:17 about him having a Father and God that was his apostles Father and God, that he wasn't talking about YHWH God simply because the name YHWH isn't in that scripture. Then you go ahead and believe that Jesus Christ wasn't speaking about YHWH God when he said at John 20:17 that he has a Father and God that was his apostles Father and God. You go ahead and believe that he was speaking about another God, that Jesus Christ wasn't talking about YHWH God when he said what he said at John 20:17 about him having a Father and God that was his apostles Father and God

I don't think you're following my argument. I am not at all disagreeing that Jesus was talking to Father, who is God, in John 20:17. I have never and would never claim that Jesus was speaking to another God there. I have repeatedly stated that there is only one God and that there is no other god, as Yahweh himself states several times.

The problem is that you're begging the question by using that verse to claim that only the Father is Yahweh. There is nothing in that verse that precludes Jesus from also being truly God. There is no verse in the entirety of Scripture that explicitly or clearly states that God is one person or that only the Father is Yahweh.

Again, to make such a claim is not only unsupported in Scripture, it ignores the very context of the rest of John 20, as well as the entire book of John, as I have repeatedly pointed out. It doesn't surprise me that my rebuttals largely go unaddressed and then the arguments I have rebutted just get repeated.

What I meant was, I do not agree that Jesus is the only true God, so I disagree that Jesus is YHWH God.

But you think he is a god, correct?

 

[BB1956]

I don't think you're following my argument. I am not at all disagreeing that Jesus was talking to Father, who is God, in John 20:17. I have never and would never claim that Jesus was speaking to another God there. I have repeatedly stated that there is only one God and that there is no other god, as Yahweh himself states several times.

The problem is that you're begging the question by using that verse to claim that only the Father is Yahweh. There is nothing in that verse that precludes Jesus from also being truly God. There is no verse in the entirety of Scripture that explicitly or clearly states that God is one person or that only the Father is Yahweh.[/QUOTE\]


I disagree with you when you say that the scriptures teach that Jesus is YHWH God, because I believe the scriptures teach that Jesus to be YHWH God only begotten Son. So when you say, "There is nothing in that verse that precludes Jesus from also being truly God," I disagree with you because John 20:17 does preclude Jesus from being truly God, because as the scriptures say and you agree, that the only person who is truly God or the only true God is YHWH. Right there in John 20: 17 Jesus isn't in any way claiming to be YHWH God, but instead the person who he is saying is his Father and God and is also his apostles Father and God is YHWH God, so as I said Jesus isn't claiming to be YHWH God. The person who he says is his Father and God and his apostles Father and God is YHWH God. So if anyone claims or implies that Jesus is lying here, I'm not going to agree with them.

 

[Runningman]

It would sound like two Gods, which is why neither John, nor I, say that "God was with God." It's "the Word was with God."

"the Word was with God, and the Word was God" can be reduced to "God was with God."

Again, who is saying "God was with God"?

It's the consequence of your interpretation.

But do you claim otherwise:

"Jesus is a human from heaven, i,e, the Son of Man. The "Son of God" descending from heaven isn't found in the Bible. Of course, a literal human didn't descend from the sky. It's about God's plans in heaven manifesting on earth. Jesus didn't have a literal pre-exististent." (HERE)

"The Messiah is a human." (HERE)

"Jesus is called the Son of God, not God the Son. Jesus never claimed to be God either. For sure he outright denied it." (HERE)

"Jesus is a human whom is God's begotten Son." (HERE)

"I believe that the nature of God and the nature of human are mutually exclusive and cannot co-exist simultaneously." (HERE)

"Jesus was actually a normal human;" (HERE)

I agree with those statements.

I could go on and on and on, with quotes from you that deny the Son of God is God in nature. That means, since we are the analogues of God, you are implicitly affirming that a son can be of a completely different nature than his father.


It's the only logical conclusion. Only God can be of the nature of God. That should never be contested. If someone can be of the same nature as God and not be God, then that means there is more than one God, which is the very thing you said is wrong in a post above.

I believe that's a bit of a stretch because having a similar nature to God, something that others besides Jesus can have, doesn't require them becoming God. How do you figure that if someone has God's divine nature that they are God?

 

[BB1956]

So just because the only begotten Son of God has divine nature doesn't make him YHWH God.

Free said,
"Be very, very careful in using language used of Jesus and applying it to mere humans as though it has the same meaning." [/QUOTE\]

I'm not worried about warnings, I believe that I'm staying within scripture, even though you think I'm not. I know that the scriptures teach that the only begotten Son of God has divinity or divine nature.(Colossians 2:9) but I also know that the scriptures teach that all the fullness that Jesus has including his divinity or divine nature he has because of a decision that was made by YHWH God.(Colossians 1:19) So all the fullness that the only begotten Son of God has, which would include the fullness of his divinity or divine nature he has because YHWH God wanted him to have that divinity or divine nature, so YHWH God gave his only begotten Son that divinity or divine nature.

 

[Free]

I disagree with you when you say that the scriptures teach that Jesus is YHWH God, because I believe the scriptures teach that Jesus to be YHWH God only begotten Son. So when you say, "There is nothing in that verse that precludes Jesus from also being truly God," I disagree with you because John 20:17 does preclude Jesus from being truly God, because as the scriptures say and you agree, that the only person who is truly God or the only true God is YHWH.

And, yet, you completely ignore my rebuttal to your interpretation of that verse. Why? You are ignoring context and fallaciously begging the question. Repeating your assertion does not make it true.

Right there in John 20: 17 Jesus isn't in any way claiming to be YHWH God, but instead the person who he is saying is his Father and God and is also his apostles Father and God is YHWH God, so as I said Jesus isn't claiming to be YHWH God. The person who he says is his Father and God and his apostles Father and God is YHWH God.

And I am not at all saying that Jesus is claiming to be God in that verse. The issue is that it doesn't preclude him from also being God, which is further supported by Thomas's declaration that Jesus was his Lord and his God.

So if anyone claims or implies that Jesus is lying here, I'm not going to agree with them.

I am absolutely not saying he is lying. You are completely ignoring my argument. You seem to be continually reading things into what I write that I am not saying.

 

[Free]

Free said,
"Be very, very careful in using language used of Jesus and applying it to mere humans as though it has the same meaning." [/QUOTE\]

I'm not worried about warnings, I believe that I'm staying within scripture, even though you think I'm not. I know that the scriptures teach that the only begotten Son of God has divinity or divine nature.(Colossians 2:9) but I also know that the scriptures teach that all the fullness that Jesus has including his divinity or divine nature he has because of a decision that was made by YHWH God.(Colossians 1:19) So all the fullness that the only begotten Son of God has, which would include the fullness of his divinity or divine nature he has because YHWH God wanted him to have that divinity or divine nature, so YHWH God gave his only begotten Son that divinity or divine nature.

If the Son of God fully has divine nature, which is a nature that belongs to God alone, then the Son of God is also truly God. That he preexisted as God and was seen as claiming such, is fully supported by numerous passages, including, but not limited to, John 1:1-3, 10; 3:13, 31; 5:17-18; 8:58; 10:30-33; 17:5, 24; Rom 10:9-13; 1 Cor 8:6; Phil 2:5-8, Col 1:16-17; Heb 1:2, 10-12.

 

[Free]

"the Word was with God, and the Word was God" can be reduced to "God was with God."

Not without further clarification that the Word is not the Father. That becomes too reductionist. John is making a clear distinction between God (possibly just the Father) and the Word, who is also God in nature, while maintaining monotheism.

It's the consequence of your interpretation.

Not at all. One has to completely ignore the Greek, the plain meaning in English, the rest of the immediate context, the greater context of the rest of John, and the greater context of the rest of the NT.

I agree with those statements.

Obviously, because they're yours. But that proves my point that you actually do believe that "a son can be of a completely different nature than his father" despite you saying that "I never claimed otherwise," because you believe the Son is of a completely different nature than the Father. Yet, as I have pointed out, we are the analogues to God. So, since God reveals a Father and Son relationship, that communicates something to us about the nature of the Son, which in turn reveals something about the ontology of God.

I believe that's a bit of a stretch because having a similar nature to God, something that others besides Jesus can have, doesn't require them becoming God.

Where does the Bible teach that "others besides Jesus can have" "a similar nature to God"? Besides, Jesus doesn't have a similar nature, he has the very same nature, sharing the same essence (John 1:1; 10:30; Phil 2:6) that makes God, God.

How do you figure that if someone has God's divine nature that they are God?

Because only God has the nature that makes him God. This is very basic, straightforward logic. Only humans can have the nature of humans, which is what makes us humans.

 

[BB1956]

If the Son of God fully has divine nature, which is a nature that belongs to God alone, then the Son of God is also truly God. That he preexisted as God and was seen as claiming such, is fully supported by numerous passages, including, but not limited to, John 1:1-3, 10; 3:13, 31; 5:17-18; 8:58; 10:30-33; 17:5, 24; Rom 10:9-13; 1 Cor 8:6; Phil 2:5-8, Col 1:16-17; Heb 1:2, 10-12.

Peter said at 2Peter 1:4-“Through these you may become sharers in divine nature, having escaped from the corruption that is in the world through lust.” (2 Pet. 1:4) So I understand from my study of the scriptures that the hope of first-century Christians was for them to be associated with Jesus Christ in the heavenly kingdom and to be like him. (Roman 8:17) Since the Son is ‘the reflection of God’s glory and the exact representation of his very being,’ all who come to be like Jesus Christ are also like the Father. (Hebrews 1:3) The apostle John wrote at 1John 3:2,3: “Beloved ones, now we are children of God, but as yet it has not been made manifest what we shall be. We do know that whenever he is made manifest we shall be like him, because we shall see him just as he is. And everyone who has this hope set upon him purifies himself just as that one is pure.” So I understand from my study of the scriptures that the apostles of Jesus Christ will have Divine nature like Jesus has divine nature. That doesn't make any of Jesus Christ apostles or disciples God because they have divine nature like Jesus, and neither does it make Jesus Christ God because he has divine nature. I understand that you and I disagree on this matter but you haven't shown me from scripture that I'm wrong in my understanding, so you and I will have to agree to disagree.

 

[Free]

Peter said at 2Peter 1:4-“Through these you may become sharers in divine nature, having escaped from the corruption that is in the world through lust.” (2 Pet. 1:4)

But, what does it actually mean to become a "sharer" or "partaker" of the divine nature, especially within the context of 1 Peter? There is nothing in the whole of Scripture that suggests mere creatures can have the full divine nature, which would mean they become gods. Either one has the full divine nature to begin with, as the Son of God did, and is therefore also truly God, or they don't and will never be a god.

So, what does Peter mean? What is he talking about in that context?

So I understand from my study of the scriptures that the hope of first-century Christians was for them to be associated with Jesus Christ in the heavenly kingdom and to be like him. (Roman 8:17)

Okay, but what does this have to do with the discussion?

Since the Son is ‘the reflection of God’s glory and the exact representation of his very being,’ all who come to be like Jesus Christ are also like the Father. (Hebrews 1:3)

Where is that stated in the verse? And, don't forget further context. First, in verse 2 it says that God "created the world" through the Son. That is speaking of all creation. This agrees with John 1:1-2 that when creation began, the Word, the preincarnate Son, was already in existence, which can only mean he is uncreated. That is then made very clear with John 1:3, the only logical conclusion of which is that the Word was uncreated.

Second, look at what else verse 3 says--"he upholds the universe by the word of his power." That is something God does. Notice that these are things Paul talks about in Col 1:

Col 1:16 For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him.
Col 1:17 And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together.
Col 1:18 And he is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent.
Col 1:19 For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, (ESV)

Verses 16-17 fully agree with John 1:1-3, 10, 1 Cor 8:6, Heb 1:2-3, 10-12. There is only one logical conclusion of "by him all things were created"--he cannot have been something that was created. He is therefore eternal and has always existed. But, notice also that "in him all things hold together" and "in him the fullness of God was pleased to dwell," echoing Heb 1:3. This is also what Phil 2:6-7 is talking about.

Third, when we look at Heb 1:10-12, we see that it is the Father speaking of the Son (from verse 8). However, that is a quote about Yahweh from Psalm 102:25-27. The Father is attributing to the Son a passage about Yahweh creating. It simply cannot be any clearer than that.

The apostle John wrote at 1John 3:2,3: “Beloved ones, now we are children of God, but as yet it has not been made manifest what we shall be. We do know that whenever he is made manifest we shall be like him, because we shall see him just as he is. And everyone who has this hope set upon him purifies himself just as that one is pure.” So I understand from my study of the scriptures that the apostles of Jesus Christ will have Divine nature like Jesus has divine nature. That doesn't make any of Jesus Christ apostles or disciples God because they have divine nature like Jesus, and neither does it make Jesus Christ God because he has divine nature.

There are many ways in which we could be said to be like Christ, including simply having an immortal nature, the spiritual body that Paul mentions in 1 Cor 15. It could also include being sinless and holy. It does not follow that we will also have divine nature, at least not fully. That which is a creature cannot become God.

I understand that you and I disagree on this matter but you haven't shown me from scripture that I'm wrong in my understanding, so you and I will have to agree to disagree.

I have given you numerous verses and passages that show your understanding is incorrect, but, like every other anti-Trinitarian in these forums, you leave the majority of them unaddressed, particularly the most difficult ones. That the Son of God is truly God, co-equal and co-eternal with the Father and the Holy Spirit as the one God, is without question. It is at the heart of the Christian faith.

 

[Runningman]

Not without further clarification that the Word is not the Father. That becomes too reductionist. John is making a clear distinction between God (possibly just the Father) and the Word, who is also God in nature, while maintaining monotheism.


Not at all. One has to completely ignore the Greek, the plain meaning in English, the rest of the immediate context, the greater context of the rest of John, and the greater context of the rest of the NT.


Obviously, because they're yours. But that proves my point that you actually do believe that "a son can be of a completely different nature than his father" despite you saying that "I never claimed otherwise," because you believe the Son is of a completely different nature than the Father. Yet, as I have pointed out, we are the analogues to God. So, since God reveals a Father and Son relationship, that communicates something to us about the nature of the Son, which in turn reveals something about the ontology of God.

Regarding God in John 1:1, there are actually two distinct usages of God that every Bible I have seen disregard. In the Greek, there is the definite "the" article before Theon. So there is "Ton Theon" which is The God and then there is theos which is another god. There are not two definitive Gods, but rather just one. The Word is not God Almighty. Better to think of the Word as either a god, something godly, or a literary device for personification purposes.

Where does the Bible teach that "others besides Jesus can have" "a similar nature to God"? Besides, Jesus doesn't have a similar nature, he has the very same nature, sharing the same essence (John 1:1; 10:30; Phil 2:6) that makes God, God.


Because only God has the nature that makes him God. This is very basic, straightforward logic. Only humans can have the nature of humans, which is what makes us humans.

That would defeat the purpose of Jesus being the Son of God and other children of God having the same title. We are actually supposed to have the nature of God if God is our Father.

Ephesians 4​

24And that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness.​

​

2 Peter 1​

4Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.​

In Philippians 2:5-8, Paul told the Philippians to have the same mind as Jesus and then proceeded to describe the mind of Jesus. The mind of Jesus is in the form of God, but yet Jesus did not consider equality with God something to be grasped. Therefore, Paul taught the Philippians to have the nature of God, not just in their minds, but also visibly in their behavior.

 

[BB1956]

Peter said at 2Peter 1:4-“Through these you may become sharers in divine nature, having escaped from the corruption that is in the world through lust.” (2 Pet. 1:4)

Free said,
"But, what does it actually mean to become a "sharer" or "partaker" of the divine nature, especially within the context of 1 Peter? There is nothing in the whole of Scripture that suggests mere creatures can have the full divine nature, which would mean they become gods. Either one has the full divine nature to begin with, as the Son of God did, and is therefore also truly God, or they don't and will never be a god.

So, what does Peter mean? What is he talking about in that context?"[/QUOTE\]

I understand from my study of the scriptures that 2 Peter 1:4 says those who are Jesus apostles and disciples are to have divine nature. In Romans 8:17 it tells us that the apostles and disciples in the first century have the hope to be associated with Jesus Christ in that heavenly Messianic kingdom that Jesus is king of and these apostles and disciples of Jesus are to be like him. This is because the only begotten Son of God is the reflection of God's glory and the exact representation of his very being, (Hebrews 1:3) so all those apostles and disciples who become like the only begotten Son of God are also like his Father, YHWH God.

The apostle John wrote at 1 John 3: 2, 3- “Beloved ones, now we are children of God, but as yet it has not been made manifest what we shall be. We do know that whenever he is made manifest we shall be like him, because we shall see him just as he is. And everyone who has this hope set upon him purifies himself just as that one is pure.” So, by sharing in the glory of the Son of God, the first century apostles and disciples of Jesus Christ become partakers of “divine nature."

 

[Free]

I understand from my study of the scriptures that 2 Peter 1:4 says those who are Jesus apostles and disciples are to have divine nature.

Where is that stated?

In Romans 8:17 it tells us that the apostles and disciples in the first century have the hope to be associated with Jesus Christ in that heavenly Messianic kingdom that Jesus is king of and these apostles and disciples of Jesus are to be like him. This is because the only begotten Son of God is the reflection of God's glory and the exact representation of his very being, (Hebrews 1:3) so all those apostles and disciples who become like the only begotten Son of God are also like his Father, YHWH God.

Be very careful in taking language used of Christ and applying it to anyone else. Jesus is the unique, one and only, "Son of God" in a way that no one else ever can be or will be.

The apostle John wrote at 1 John 3: 2, 3- “Beloved ones, now we are children of God, but as yet it has not been made manifest what we shall be. We do know that whenever he is made manifest we shall be like him, because we shall see him just as he is. And everyone who has this hope set upon him purifies himself just as that one is pure.” So, by sharing in the glory of the Son of God, the first century apostles and disciples of Jesus Christ become partakers of “divine nature."

And, in context, what does it mean that "we shall be like him"? And, again, what does it mean to be a "sharer" or "partaker" in the context in which Peter wrote?

 

[BB1956]

Since the Son is ‘the reflection of God’s glory and the exact representation of his very being,’ all who come to be like Jesus Christ are also like the Father. (Hebrews 1:3)

Free says,
"Where is that stated in the verse? And, don't forget further context. First, in verse 2 it says that God "created the world" through the Son. That is speaking of all creation. This agrees with John 1:1-2 that when creation began, the Word, the preincarnate Son, was already in existence, which can only mean he is uncreated. That is then made very clear with John 1:3, the only logical conclusion of which is that the Word was uncreated."[/QUOTE\]

2 Peter 1:4 teaches that the first century apostles and disciples of Jesus Christ will be sharers of divine nature, because it's written down at 2 Peter 1:4 that they'll share divine nature.
I also understand that when speaking about God's glory, divine nature has everything to do with YHWH God's glory. So when the scriptures say at Hebrews 1:3 that the only begotten Son of God is the reflection of God's glory and the exact representation of his very being, then that means that the only begotten Son of YHWH God is the reflection and the exact representation of YHWH God's divine nature, and the scriptures say that the apostles and disciples of Jesus are to be sharers in divine nature because in the scriptures they teach that the apostles and disciples of Jesus when they see him as he is they will be like him, that includes his divine nature.
The apostle Paul said at 1 Corinthians 15:50, "This I say, brothers, that flesh and blood cannot inherit God’s kingdom, neither does corruption inherit incorruption.” The apostle Paul also said at 2 Corinthians 5:16, “Even if we have known Christ according to the flesh, certainly we now know him so no more.” So in the “first resurrection” the Kingdom heirs, which means those who will be kings and priests with Jesus in that heavenly Messianic kingdom that Jesus is king of, come into the “divine nature,” not human nature because they have the same resurrection as Jesus.

 

[Randy]

Free says,
"Where is that stated in the verse? And, don't forget further context. First, in verse 2 it says that God "created the world" through the Son. That is speaking of all creation. This agrees with John 1:1-2 that when creation began, the Word, the preincarnate Son, was already in existence, which can only mean he is uncreated. That is then made very clear with John 1:3, the only logical conclusion of which is that the Word was uncreated."[/QUOTE\]

2 Peter 1:4 teaches that the first century apostles and disciples of Jesus Christ will be sharers of divine nature, because it's written down at 2 Peter 1:4 that they'll share divine nature.
I also understand that when speaking about God's glory, divine nature has everything to do with YHWH God's glory. So when the scriptures say at Hebrews 1:3 that the only begotten Son of God is the reflection of God's glory and the exact representation of his very being, then that means that the only begotten Son of YHWH God is the reflection and the exact representation of YHWH God's divine nature, and the scriptures say that the apostles and disciples of Jesus are to be sharers in divine nature because in the scriptures they teach that the apostles and disciples of Jesus when they see him as he is they will be like him, that includes his divine nature.
The apostle Paul said at 1 Corinthians 15:50, "This I say, brothers, that flesh and blood cannot inherit God’s kingdom, neither does corruption inherit incorruption.” The apostle Paul also said at 2 Corinthians 5:16, “Even if we have known Christ according to the flesh, certainly we now know him so no more.” So in the “first resurrection” the Kingdom heirs, which means those who will be kings and priests with Jesus in that heavenly Messianic kingdom that Jesus is king of, come into the “divine nature,” not human nature because they have the same resurrection as Jesus.

The Deity found in the Son is unbegotten but was gifted from the will of another. Col 1:19 Would that other be the one He calls His God and His Father? The only true unbegotten God? The church recognizes the source of the Son's Godhood as the Father as true God "from" true God. I think it should be clear that Deity is and remains the unbegotten Father in the Son though. The Son has the "Fathers very nature not His own" That is the eternal life found in the Son is the Father. To me its God from true God. The only "begotten" Son of the Father that has the very nature of the Father. As in begotten of the Father alone before all things. I see a beginning at some point in history before the word began. I see first begotten rather than eternally begotten. But I agree He has always been the Son who has the Fathers very nature. "Mighty God" That Jesus is all that the Father is and such a being would be God and has the very same Deity of the Father that dwells, lives, resides with Him forever. That they are one God and two persons. As expressed, the throne of God and the lamb forever. Yet Jesus sat down with His Father on His Fathers throne.

You know that the Spirit of Christ in us does not listen to nor act on our will but rather conveys the presence and will of the person of Christ Jesus. As opposed to the Deity found in Christ that acts on His will as if He was the Father Himself. The First and the last. As is presented, "All things are held together by His powerful word" That He will raise us all up on the last day by the will of the Father.

The believer has been given fullness in Christ. The Son has been given all the fullness of the Father. Not quite the same. We are not God nor all that the Father is.

 

[BB1956]

The Deity found in the Son is unbegotten but was gifted from the will of another. Col 1:19 Would that other be the one He calls His God and His Father? The only true unbegotten God? The church recognizes the source of the Son's Godhood as the Father as true God "from" true God. I think it should be clear that Deity is and remains the unbegotten Father in the Son though. The Son has the "Fathers very nature not His own" That is the eternal life found in the Son is the Father. To me its God from true God. The only "begotten" Son of the Father that has the very nature of the Father. As in begotten of the Father alone before all things. I see a beginning at some point in history before the word began. I see first begotten rather than eternally begotten. But I agree He has always been the Son who has the Fathers very nature. "Mighty God" That Jesus is all that the Father is and such a being would be God and has the very same Deity of the Father that dwells, lives, resides with Him forever. That they are one God and two persons. As expressed, the throne of God and the lamb forever. Yet Jesus sat down with His Father on His Fathers throne.

You know that the Spirit of Christ in us does not listen to nor act on our will but rather conveys the presence and will of the person of Christ Jesus. As opposed to the Deity found in Christ that acts on His will as if He was the Father Himself. The First and the last. As is presented, "All things are held together by His powerful word" That He will raise us all up on the last day by the will of the Father.

The believer has been given fullness in Christ. The Son has been given all the fullness of the Father. Not quite the same. We are not God nor all that the Father is.

Yes I think the thing that some are not listening to in Colossians 1:19 is that this scripture is telling us that all the fullness in YHWH God's only begotten son was given to God's only begotten Son by YHWH God. This includes the only begotten Son's divine nature. I understand the divine nature that the true God YHWH has, wasn't given him, but it was given to YHWH's only begotten son. So I disagree with those who try to convince me that the only begotten Son is YHWH God. YHWH God is the Father and God of Jesus Christ.

 

[WalterandDebbie]

Yes I think the thing that some are not listening to in Colossians 1:19 is that this scripture is telling us that all the fullness in YHWH God's only begotten son was given to God's only begotten Son by YHWH God. This includes the only begotten Son's divine nature. I understand the divine nature that the true God YHWH has, wasn't given him, but it was given to YHWH's only begotten son. So I disagree with those who try to convince me that the only begotten Son is YHWH God. YHWH God is the Father and God of Jesus Christ.

8-4-24

Good morning, Great,

Ephesians 4:13-15

​

13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:
14 That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;
15 But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ:
Read full chapter

Love, Walter And Debbie

 

[Randy]

Yes I think the thing that some are not listening to in Colossians 1:19 is that this scripture is telling us that all the fullness in YHWH God's only begotten son was given to God's only begotten Son by YHWH God. This includes the only begotten Son's divine nature. I understand the divine nature that the true God YHWH has, wasn't given him, but it was given to YHWH's only begotten son. So I disagree with those who try to convince me that the only begotten Son is YHWH God. YHWH God is the Father and God of Jesus Christ.

You might reason that the Father poured all that He is into the Firstborn. Therefore Jesus, His Son, is all that the Father is and in that context God.
So, Is Jesus God?
He never dies.
Yes, He is all that the Father is.
No, He has always been the Son.

 

[Runningman]

You might reason that the Father poured all that He is into the Firstborn. Therefore Jesus, His Son, is all that the Father is and in that context God.
So, Is Jesus God?
He never dies.
Yes, He is all that the Father is.
No, He has always been the Son.

According to Scripture, Jesus is never called eternal nor are there any examples of him being such in Scripture. Neither is Jesus is immortal. In Revelation 1:18, it says "I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore..." Therefore since Jesus died he wasn't inherently immortal in the first place.

While Jesus and the Father do share the same nature, they are not the same person or are all that each other are together. For starters, Jesus isn't God so that would be the first and biggest thing he doesn't have in common with the Father. (See John 17:3 where Jesus taught there is no other deity aside from the Father)

Jesus also isn't invisible, which is a defining characteristic of the only God, but rather Jesus is the image of the invisible God.

​

1 Timothy 1​

17Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God, be honour and glory for ever and ever. Amen.​

​

Colossians 1​

15Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:​