No, that isn't so. He is claiming unity with GOD and having come out from GOD; being of GOD; even the Light and Word of GOD, is still not being wholly GOD almighty in and of self. Who spoke the word? Who created the light?
This is begging the question. You are presuming that God is only one person and then using that to conclude there is only one person who is God and it isn't the Word, the Son. However, what Jesus says in John 8:58 goes far beyond merely "claiming unity with God." Using God's personal name for himself is to claim to be God, or it was blasphemy.
To claim that two other beings are coeternal with the GOD almighty and also GOD almighty themselves is wholly contrary to the texts.
I agree that "To claim that two other beings are coeternal with the GOD almighty and also GOD almighty themselves is wholly contrary to the texts." It's not two other beings; one being, three persons. The language used is purposeful and very important.
Not his. He was a mortal man. He was very obviously speaking about the Word and Spirit He received of GOD.
Joh 8:56 Your father Abraham rejoiced that he would see
my day. He saw it and was glad.”
Joh 8:57 So the Jews said to him, “
You are not yet fifty years old, and have
you seen Abraham?”
Joh 8:58 Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly,
I say to you, before Abraham
was, I am.” (ESV)
Again, that does not at all fit the context. To say that "He was very obviously speaking about the Word and Spirit He received of GOD," is to read something into the text that isn't there. He was in a discussion with the Jews about what he saw, and so was referring only to himself. That is the plain reading. There is no need to posit anything else.
The texts say plainly that he set aside his glory and became as a man in every way. Is a man GOD? Maybe don't answer that.
He set aside his glory, which is to say that he chose not to appear in his glory, but that is not to say he set aside his divine nature. God cannot cease to be God. And, yes, he became truly man, but he also remained truly God. He was, is, and ever will be the only God-man.
This is supported by the present participle "being," the Greek word
hyparchon, in Phil 2:6--"
being in the form of God." It means that Christ being in the form of God is something that was, is, and continues to be. In other words, his "being in the form of God" did not change when he became human, when he took "the form of a servant."
Exactly. What does the flesh profit again? What gathers around the carcass?
So how do you explain the Word having set aside HIS glory; and receiving it back again upon ascension? If Jesus as man was literally wholly utterly GOD almighty as He walked the earth then why did He pray to GOD almighty? Why did he exclaim that only GOD knew the time of His return? Why did he exclaim that He could not grant the two men their wish to be at His right and left hand when He returned to nearness with GOD?
You're assuming that the setting aside of the glory of his preexistent state means that he ceased to be in nature God. But that is not so, as I have shown above. He chose to not appear in his glorious state, so as not to exploit his divine nature for his own ends.
And this fits the context:
Php 2:3 Do nothing from selfish ambition or conceit, but in humility count others more significant than yourselves.
Php 2:4 Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others.
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)
Note what Paul has done here.
First, Paul tells his readers to "Do nothing from selfish ambition or conceit, but in humility count others more significant than yourselves," and "Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others."
Then, he gives the supreme example, which is that of Christ, "who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men," "And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross."
In other words, Jesus did "nothing from selfish ambition or conceit" and looked "not only to his own interests." It would have been easy for him to use his equality with God to his own advantage, but that would have been selfish ambition and looking to his own interests. Instead, he empties "himself, by taking the form of a servant," and humbles "himself by becoming obedient to the point of death." In this way, he has "in humility count[ed] others more significant than [himself]," and looked "to the interests of others."
He humbled himself in his incarnate state, becoming dependent on and subject to the Father, for the purpose of the salvation of humans and redemption of creation.
The Spirit of GOD, which is GOD, in no way ceased being GOD when HE sent HIS Word and Light out into the world. How would you even conclude such? As if GOD is limited in any way or capacity
I don't understand what your point is. I said that "God cannot cease to be God," which you seem to disagree with while agreeing with it.
You have to side step a whole lot of scripture in order to conclude that there are three coeternal, coequal, separate, distinct god almighties. I can't do that. I'm sure you believe your argument is compelling; but to me three isn't one, and the bible doesn't lie about there being none beside HIM, no saviour apart from HIM. You wanna think there are three or 13 spirits that are all god almighty then maybe I can't stop you. But the bible is clear.
I agree that the Bible is clear, which is why I have never made the case, nor would I, "that there are three coeternal, coequal, separate, distinct god almighties." Again, language matters. There was, is, and always will be only one God, but that one God exists as three coeternal, coequal, consubstantial persons. The NT consistently keeps the three distinct while showing how they are all involved with each other in our salvation, and we should do the same.
And none of that is sidestepping scripture. I wouldn't believe it if the totality of the evidence didn't show it to be the case.
There is One GOD; One Spirit.
I, too, believe there is one God, as all Trinitarians do.
It is self evident that all things were spoken into existence through GOD speaking HIS Word.
Which clearly wasn't my point. In quote you quoted, I said: "We see a repeat of verse 1 with the use of
en,
pros, and God with the article, reaffirming the timeless preexistence of the Word who was in active communion with someone other than himself, namely, the Father." The Greek grammar is the argument in verses 1 and 2 that you need to address.
Not so. The Word wasn't so much made as "spoken" all things that were created were spoken into existence according to Genesis.
The point is that anything that has ever come into existence, came into existence through the Word. Simple logic forces us to conclude that the Word cannot have been something that came into existence. Not to mention that if there was a time when the Word did not exist, that would contradict verses 1 and 2.
How do you know that there there wasn't some time in eternity past before GOD created or spoke? Is it outside the capacity of GOD to not speak?
He couldn't have created in eternity past or that would have been the beginning of space and time, which is exactly what Gen 1:1 and John 1:1 point to. But the Word was already in existence at that point,
before the creation of space and time.
