There is an alternative to trinitarianism/ non-trinitarianism.

[Runningman]

You are mistaken.
"Without Him nothing was created that was created"

One God the Father "from" whom "all things came"
One Lord Jesus Christ "through" whom all things came.

Clearly the beginning is at the very least the beginning of the creation of God.

For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. 17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

Jesus didn't create the truth or grace according to John 1:17 so that doesn't refer to literally all things. The context is about the church still. Jesus is himself created, an "image" of the invisible God. The invisible God is the only God. Colossians 1:15, 1 Tim. 1:17.

You have someone created being the creator of the universe?

Look at John 1:9,10 where it says the True Light was coming into the world after Jesus was already a man. The world was created by the True Light which isn't Jesus according to John 1:9,10.

 

[Runningman]

Yes, like worshipping a golden calf and calling it YHWH, not only at mount sinai, but carried out through the period of the Israelite kings, which eventually resulted in Israel’s down fall, first the northern kingdom, the southern kingdom, this Samaritan woman in Jn. 4 was a living testimony to that.

How about Acts 17:22-32 where the Greeks in Athens were worshipping a statue to the "Unknown God" and Paul said that they didn't know what they were worshipping, but that they were actually worshipping the Lord of heaven and earth but that the Divine Being Himself is not something like stone or a human?

 

[Randy]

Jesus didn't create the truth or grace according to John 1:17 so that doesn't refer to literally all things. The context is about the church still. Jesus is himself created, an "image" of the invisible God. The invisible God is the only God. Colossians 1:15, 1 Tim. 1:17.

You have someone created being the creator of the universe?

The Deity that was pleased to dwell in Christ was not created. It was gifted. That Deity created by Him.

Look at John 1:9,10 where it says the True Light was coming into the world after Jesus was already a man. The world was created by the True Light which isn't Jesus according to John 1:9,10.

His testimony about Jesus was nothing that was made was made "without Him". That the world was brought into existence by God through Him.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

How about Acts 17:22-32 where the Greeks in Athens were worshipping a statue to the "Unknown God" and Paul said that they didn't know what they were worshipping, but that they were actually worshipping the Lord of heaven and earth but that the Divine Being Himself is not something like stone or a human?

Wait a minute, I thought we were discussing worship in the OT period, how did you jump to Ancient Greece? Nice diversion, though, doesn’t work here.

 

[Runningman]

Wait a minute, I thought we were discussing worship in the OT period, how did you jump to Ancient Greece? Nice diversion, though, doesn’t work here.

You said "like worshipping a golden calf and calling it YHWH" and then Paul said their worship of a statue called the "Unknown God" was actually their worship of the Lord of heaven and earth. We are still discussing the same topic, but I am just poking holes in your theory. The Lord of heaven and Earth is the Father in Matthew 11:25.

 

[Runningman]

The Deity that was pleased to dwell in Christ was not created. It was gifted. That Deity created by Him.

His testimony about Jesus was nothing that was made was made "without Him". That the world was brought into existence by God through Him.

Sounds like you don't believe Jesus is the Creator then. Think of everyday life. The creation comes "from" the creator "through" an instrument, right? The tool isn't the actual creator but is itself created.

 

[Randy]

Sounds like you don't believe Jesus is the Creator then. Think of everyday life. The creation comes "from" the creator "through" an instrument, right? The tool isn't the actual creator but is itself created.

From the Father and through the Son puts Jesus at that beginning.
Just as God spoke to us by His Son shows the Son was involved just not the source. The Word of the Father.(God)

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

You said "like worshipping a golden calf and calling it YHWH" and then Paul said their worship of a statue called the "Unknown God" was actually their worship of the Lord of heaven and earth. We are still discussing the same topic, but I am just poking holes in your theory. The Lord of heaven and Earth is the Father in Matthew 11:25.

No, we’re not discussing the same topic. Greeks were worshipping all kinds of pagan idols, they were not worshiping YHWH; the “unknown god” was just another idol added onto their pantheon, none of that is remotely comparable. Paul used that as a starter of his sermon. He preached Jesus in 17:31 -

“Because He has appointed a day on which He will judge the world in righteousness by the Man whom he has ordained. He has given assurance of this by raising Him from the dead.”

 

[LeviR]

Sounds like you don't believe Jesus is the Creator then. Think of everyday life. The creation comes "from" the creator "through" an instrument, right? The tool isn't the actual creator but is itself created.

“But 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 Cor 8:6

“The Father loves the Son, and has given all things into His hand.” John 3:35

Instead of making stuff up like “eternal son”, just read the scripture.

 

[Free]

Jesus didn't create the truth or grace according to John 1:17 so that doesn't refer to literally all things.

This is a category error. Truth and grace are not created things; they are part of God's nature. When the Bible says, in several places, that the Son created, or was involved in the creation of, all things, it literally means all things that were created; all things that came into existence. That, of course, necessarily precludes the Son himself.

The context is about the church still.

This has been refuted several times, as the context clearly shows otherwise.

Look at John 1:9,10 where it says the True Light was coming into the world after Jesus was already a man. The world was created by the True Light which isn't Jesus according to John 1:9,10.

This has been refuted more than once. The true light is referring only to Jesus, as the context indicates.

 

[Free]

What do you think the dozens of translators were doing in the miscellaneous versions they translated? Do you realize that people with credentials, experience, and expertise translated the Bible? They're all wrong and you're right?

The thing is, I am basing everything on those with the relevant expertise; you're not. You have only given your opinion which is based on poor reasoning, as I have shown before and will show again. Of course, 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," I have pointed out before the error of that reasoning which is based on willful 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 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. Fourth, logos is masculine, which according to you means the logos is a "he," and cannot be a mere personification.‘

And we see in John 14:16-17:

First, look at verse 16, where parakletos is masculine, which, according to your reasoning, means the Helper is a he. Again, which is it? Is the Holy Spirit a "he" or an "it"? Second, as I already stated in response to your use of this verse, context matters, which is what you say here. Again, when we look at the context, which includes verse 16, and the meanings of parakletos--Advocate, Counselor, Comforter, Helper--those are actions of personal agency only. The Holy Spirit is another parakletos because Jesus is the first (1 John 2:1). And we see many actions of personal agency attributed to the Holy Spirit throughout the NT. I did give many verses in support, but you left them unaddressed.

Third, "spirit," ruach, in Hebrew is feminine, but masculine in Aramaic. Which are you going to go with? Jesus said that "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me," which, according to you, shows that the Spirit is neuter. But that is a quote from Isa 61:1, where Spirit is feminine. So, again, which is it?

To sum, then, it is clear that your argument that the word of life is an "it" because the neuter gender is used, is fallacious; it is factually incorrect. Also, in 1 John 1:1-3, John uses some language from John 1:1-18 in alluding to the entire life and ministry of Jesus, and indirectly refers to the Word, in whom “was life, and the life was the light of men” (John 1:4). John refers to the empirical evidences that proved the Son was the eternal life “which was with the Father.”

That's about Word being something in God's heart, i.e., in the bosom of the Father (John 1:18) that existed in God's foreknowledge and plan. This should be clear from the reading of John 1:18 that Jesus wasn't literally in God's chest. It's figurative language or do you maintain Jesus pre-existed in God's chest?

What you missed here is that this is in the present tense, not that it matters. It's literal and what it means is better seen in another version:

Joh 1:18 No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father's side, he has made him known. (ESV)

As Albert Barnes says:

"In the bosom of the Father - This expression is taken from the custom among the Orientals of reclining at their meals. . . . It denotes intimacy, friendship, affection. Here it means that Jesus had a knowledge of God such as one friend has of another - knowledge of his character, designs, and nature which no other one possesses, and which renders him, therefore, qualified above all others to make him known."

I have addressed your argument(s) repeatedly. If you feel there is something that has not been addressed then please bring it up here and I will thoroughly refute it on record so we don't come to this misunderstanding again.

There is much you have left unaddressed and I don't think you will address those things. The last time I posted some of the above, this is what you responded with: "1 John 1:1,2 says the word of life is an it. I see it right there on the pages. I am not reading paragraph after paragraph of your workaround to attempt undo that." You're not interested in the truth, as shown by your unwillingness to not only not do your own proper study, but also to not listen to those who have done at least some proper study. So, you're on record as refusing to address my arguments.

 

[LeviR]

1Jo 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;

1Jo 1:2 - (For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and shewunto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us;

1Jo 1:3 - That 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.

1Jo 1:4 - And these things write we unto you, that your joy may be full.

The apostle Paul spoke of the mystery of the gospel being hid from the ages and generations.
This mystery of the gospel “was from the beginning”, and becomes manifest through the resurrection of the dead to immortal life.
This mystery was witness by John and many others when Christ himself was raised from the dead to die no more.
The word of life simply refers to the eternal life that exists within the Father and is manifest to others, including His son, by being raised immortal.

 

[Free]

1Jo 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;

1Jo 1:2 - (For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and shewunto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us;

1Jo 1:3 - That 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.

1Jo 1:4 - And these things write we unto you, that your joy may be full.

The apostle Paul spoke of the mystery of the gospel being hid from the ages and generations.
This mystery of the gospel “was from the beginning”, and becomes manifest through the resurrection of the dead to immortal life.
This mystery was witness by John and many others when Christ himself was raised from the dead to die no more.
The word of life simply refers to the eternal life that exists within the Father and is manifest to others, including His son, by being raised immortal.

Except that the Word is the life and light:

Joh 1:4 In him was life, and the life was the light of men. (ESV)

Jesus also said he was the life:

Joh 6:32 Jesus then said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, it was not Moses who gave you the bread from heaven, but my Father gives you the true bread from heaven.
Joh 6:33 For the bread of God is he who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.”
Joh 6:34 They said to him, “Sir, give us this bread always.”
Joh 6:35 Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst.
Joh 6:36 But I said to you that you have seen me and yet do not believe.
Joh 6:37 All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out.
...
Joh 6:48 I am the bread of life.
Joh 6:49 Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died.
Joh 6:50 This is the bread that comes down from heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die.
Joh 6:51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. And the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh.” (ESV)

Joh 14:6 Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. (ESV)

It is more than just Jesus's resurrection from the dead, it is his entire life and ministry.

 

[LeviR]

Except that the Word is the life and light:

Joh 1:4 In him was life, and the life was the light of men. (ESV)

Jesus also said he was the life:

Joh 6:32 Jesus then said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, it was not Moses who gave you the bread from heaven, but my Father gives you the true bread from heaven.
Joh 6:33 For the bread of God is he who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.”
Joh 6:34 They said to him, “Sir, give us this bread always.”
Joh 6:35 Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst.
Joh 6:36 But I said to you that you have seen me and yet do not believe.
Joh 6:37 All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out.
...
Joh 6:48 I am the bread of life.
Joh 6:49 Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died.
Joh 6:50 This is the bread that comes down from heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die.
Joh 6:51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. And the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh.” (ESV)

Joh 14:6 Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. (ESV)

It is more than just Jesus's resurrection from the dead, it is his entire life and ministry.

Just as the Father has life within Himself, He has given to the son also to have life within himself.
The life that exists with the Father is given to the son. Which proves that that life did not always exist in the son.
It is something given to the son so that others may share in it.
The Light he is is the Light of the glorious gospel of truth.
The bread that he is is the bread which gives eternal life through the gospel.
The gospel is the message.

 

[LeviR]

People get hung up on Jesus’ words and misunderstand them.

When he says he’s the bread of life which comes down from heaven, and they must eat his flesh and drink his blood in order to have life, they get thrown off.
They misunderstand completely. But that’s the purpose. It was to separate them. That’s why he spoke like that.
Now we have people going into buildings every Sunday thinking they are actually eating the literal flesh and blood of Jesus.

What can I say. The blind lead the blind. But I didn’t say it, someone else did.

 

[Runningman]

The thing is, I am basing everything on those with the relevant expertise; you're not. You have only given your opinion which is based on poor reasoning, as I have shown before and will show again. Of course, 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," I have pointed out before the error of that reasoning which is based on willful 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 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. Fourth, logos is masculine, which according to you means the logos is a "he," and cannot be a mere personification.‘

And we see in John 14:16-17:

First, look at verse 16, where parakletos is masculine, which, according to your reasoning, means the Helper is a he. Again, which is it? Is the Holy Spirit a "he" or an "it"? Second, as I already stated in response to your use of this verse, context matters, which is what you say here. Again, when we look at the context, which includes verse 16, and the meanings of parakletos--Advocate, Counselor, Comforter, Helper--those are actions of personal agency only. The Holy Spirit is another parakletos because Jesus is the first (1 John 2:1). And we see many actions of personal agency attributed to the Holy Spirit throughout the NT. I did give many verses in support, but you left them unaddressed.

Third, "spirit," ruach, in Hebrew is feminine, but masculine in Aramaic. Which are you going to go with? Jesus said that "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me," which, according to you, shows that the Spirit is neuter. But that is a quote from Isa 61:1, where Spirit is feminine. So, again, which is it?

To sum, then, it is clear that your argument that the word of life is an "it" because the neuter gender is used, is fallacious; it is factually incorrect. Also, in 1 John 1:1-3, John uses some language from John 1:1-18 in alluding to the entire life and ministry of Jesus, and indirectly refers to the Word, in whom “was life, and the life was the light of men” (John 1:4). John refers to the empirical evidences that proved the Son was the eternal life “which was with the Father.”


What you missed here is that this is in the present tense, not that it matters. It's literal and what it means is better seen in another version:

Joh 1:18 No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father's side, he has made him known. (ESV)

As Albert Barnes says:

"In the bosom of the Father - This expression is taken from the custom among the Orientals of reclining at their meals. . . . It denotes intimacy, friendship, affection. Here it means that Jesus had a knowledge of God such as one friend has of another - knowledge of his character, designs, and nature which no other one possesses, and which renders him, therefore, qualified above all others to make him known."


There is much you have left unaddressed and I don't think you will address those things. The last time I posted some of the above, this is what you responded with: "1 John 1:1,2 says the word of life is an it. I see it right there on the pages. I am not reading paragraph after paragraph of your workaround to attempt undo that." You're not interested in the truth, as shown by your unwillingness to not only not do your own proper study, but also to not listen to those who have done at least some proper study. So, you're on record as refusing to address my arguments.

When something is called a that, which, this, and what then it means it's a thing. There isn't any room for something described this way to be a literal person. Most translations of the Bible capture this with ease. The Word of Life in 1 John 1:1-3 is a thing. That's just how it is. Now that we know for sure apostle John, the one who Jesus loved, doesn't literally believe the Word is God, we have a decent starting point for understanding John 1:1. John 1:1 is in regards to the Word being personified as something godly, not an actual person.

What helps clarify this is that there isn't a pre-existent being known as the Word in Scripture. Nothing about someone there in the OT saying or doing anything called the Word. That's another big clue that the Word isn't a pre-existent person.

On top of that, in Acts 4:24-27 apostle John doesn't believe Jesus is God. He said the Sovereign Lord is the Creator of heaven and earth and that Jesus is His servant. That's it.

Poetically, calling a word or logos a he is call personification. People intuitively know that words aren't a person.

 

[Runningman]

From the Father and through the Son puts Jesus at that beginning.
Just as God spoke to us by His Son shows the Son was involved just not the source. The Word of the Father.(God)

Ok, but not according to Scripture. I accept that those are your beliefs, but they are not found in Scripture. The Old Testament is the foundation for the New Testament. They derived all of their teachings from the OT. The Bereans searched the Scripture daily to see if what Paul said was true. Can you find your beliefs precedented in the OT? If you can then maybe you have something. So far no one has been able to find them.

 

[Runningman]

No, we’re not discussing the same topic. Greeks were worshipping all kinds of pagan idols, they were not worshiping YHWH; the “unknown god” was just another idol added onto their pantheon, none of that is remotely comparable. Paul used that as a starter of his sermon. He preached Jesus in 17:31 -

“Because He has appointed a day on which He will judge the world in righteousness by the Man whom he has ordained. He has given assurance of this by raising Him from the dead.”

Fine, but you mentioned the Samaritan woman being a testament to the downfall of Israel. Did you know Samaritans are not Israeli? She was a gentile saying she worshipped Jesus' God when Jesus is Jewish.

Non-Jewish people could convert to Judaism in the Old Covenant, but there were more restrictions placed on them. They obviously couldn't be ethnic Jews, but religiously they could. There were some miscellaneous restrictions depending on the person.

For example, the Ethiopian eunuch (Acts 8:27-40) had had come to Jerusalem to worship, but he was a eunuch and gentile. Therefore, due to Exodus 23:1, he couldn't enter the assembly or congregation due to being a eunuch. He would have probably worshipped somewhere on the mountainside like the ancestors of the Samaritan woman.

Exodus 12
48And when a stranger shall sojourn with thee, and will keep the passover to the LORD, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it; and he shall be as one that is born in the land: for no uncircumcised person shall eat thereof.

Long story short, the Father who Jesus is saying is seeking true worshippers in John 4 is none other than YHWH Himself from the Old Testament.

 

[Randy]

Ok, but not according to Scripture. I accept that those are your beliefs, but they are not found in Scripture. The Old Testament is the foundation for the New Testament. They derived all of their teachings from the OT. The Bereans searched the Scripture daily to see if what Paul said was true. Can you find your beliefs precedented in the OT? If you can then maybe you have something. So far no one has been able to find them.

They are according to scripture as testified to by the Apostles: As was shown by me and others over and over again, So yes that is my foundation (NT) As well as received wisdom from above I as I ask things of Him in prayer and received answers in regard to that testimony we read.
John 1
Hebrews 1
Col 1:15
1Corth 8:6
And my will has no bearing on the Spirit of Christ me.
The fullness of the Deity of the Father that dwells in the Son acts on Jesus's will to make what He wills so. He is all that the Father is. The only begotten Son to have the Fathers very nature. He is before all things and all those things He was before that were brought into existence by the Father were through/by Him.

 

[Runningman]

They are according to scripture as testified to by the Apostles: As was shown by me and others over and over again, So yes that is my foundation (NT) As well as received wisdom from above I as I ask things of Him in prayer and received answers in regard to that testimony we read.
John 1
Hebrews 1
Col 1:15
1Corth 8:6
And my will has no bearing on the Spirit of Christ me.
The fullness of the Deity of the Father that dwells in the Son acts on Jesus's will to make what He wills so. He is all that the Father is. The only begotten Son to have the Fathers very nature. He is before all things and all those things He was before that were brought into existence by the Father were through/by Him.

Claims to being Spirit led to the truth in a denomination as tremendously fractured as Trinitarianism doesn't carry much weight. There are millions of you who make the same claim and then completely disagree with and contradict each other. If there is a spirit telling you something that contradicts the Bible, and the Bible is for sure the definitive revelation of the Spirit, then you're automatically at the disadvantage.

Yes you keep repeating the same verses, but why have you only settled on just a handful of verses? You literally keep quoting the same ones over and over again and saying you and others are showing me [the truth] over and over, but yet your "truth" doesn't mesh with the entire Bible.

Begin with Genesis 1:1 and preach Jesus to me. Can you do it? I guess not, but I can preach the Father to you using the entire Old Testament. When we get to the prophecies of Jesus, the Messiah, yes we can preach Jesus from there just as Philip did in Acts 8 and others did in the New Testament. Even Jesus only ever referred to the prophecies of himself.

Where are you getting this revelation that not even Jesus or any of the apostles revealed?