There is an alternative to trinitarianism/ non-trinitarianism.

[Free]

Yet you have not mentioned John 6 where Jesus compares himself to the manna which came from heaven. That doesn't mean the manna from heaven is above all or that the manna is God. It refers to those in the kingdom of heaven being greater than those of Earth, but not that being from heaven makes someone or something God.

But I have addressed this already, HERE and HERE.

What Jesus is saying is he was sent by God as the New Testament repeatedly says. Not that Jesus is himself God. See John 3:16,17 and John 17:3.

He says both. You have not addressed the verses where he clearly states he came from heaven. That he is called the Son of God implies his deity.

Joh 3:12 If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how can you believe if I tell you heavenly things?
Joh 3:13 No one has ascended into heaven except he who descended from heaven, the Son of Man.
...
Joh 3:31 He who comes from above is above all. He who is of the earth belongs to the earth and speaks in an earthly way. He who comes from heaven is above all. (ESV)

So, within the context of John 3:16-17, which you appeal to, Jesus says he "descended from heaven." That was the basis which Jesus appeals to for his knowledge of "heavenly things." John then repeats what Jesus said by saying Jesus is "above all" because "He . . . comes from above" and "He . . . comes from heaven."

And, yet again, with John 17:3, as with all the passages, context is important. First, note that eternal life is to know both the Father and the Son. Second, we have verse 5:

Joh 17:5 And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed.(ESV)

This is clearly a claim to preexistence and deity.

 

[Free]

Is The Word a name of Jesus?

Yes, actually it is:

Rev 19:13 He is clothed in a robe dipped in blood, and the name by which he is called is The Word of God.
Rev 19:14 And the armies of heaven, arrayed in fine linen, white and pure, were following him on white horses.
Rev 19:15 From his mouth comes a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations, and he will rule them with a rod of iron. He will tread the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God the Almighty.
Rev 19:16 On his robe and on his thigh he has a name written, King of kings and Lord of lords. (ESV)

It's also worth noting he is also called "King of kings and Lord of lords." Yet:

1Ti 6:15 which he will display at the proper time—he who is the blessed and only Sovereign, the King of kings and Lord of lords, (ESV)

Highly problematic if Jesus isn't also truly God.

 

[Consecrated Life]

Look, you choose to reject what even Trinitarian biased translations don’t. Omit the text if you choose.

No need to omit when the Risen Lord's proclamation is as plain as the noonday sun.

Mat 28:18
All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.

So in your exemption theology that the risen Lord having been given "ALL POWER" in the universe with the exception of having the knowledge of the "Day and the Hour" , is there any other Almighty Power the risen & glorified Jesus is neglecting to admit Is still above His paygrade , to your knowledge ?

 

[Randy]

nstead of using Latin, or Greek, or whatever, how about just using English.
What is Logos in English ?

Sorry, Logos is geek translated to English as Word.

From His memory, OK.
Though I wouldn't bet money on Jesus being the only witness.

Not sure what you mean here.

The Word preexisted Jesus.

Still the same person as John writes:
That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched—this we proclaim concerning the Word of life. 2 The life appeared; we have seen it and testify to it, and we proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and has appeared to us. 3 We proclaim to you what we have seen and heard, so that you also may have fellowship with us. And our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son, Jesus Christ. 4 We write this to make our[ joy complete.I am glad He did !

Jesus Himself, the Son of Man, testifies as the very one who existed from the distant past.
Jesus said to them, "I tell you the solemn truth, before Abraham came into existence, I am!"
And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began.

I am also glad we can do His will too, since the resurrection of Christ Jesus.

 

[GodsGrace]

(Follow the aroma !) LOL

It can also mean "envision", which requires no definity. (?)
With Abraham, he could "envision" what was to eventually happen, without proof. (John 8:56)
That is why it is accounted to faithfulness.

No prob'.
Threads have a way of getting "frayed" over the span of several days.

Right. I don't have a lot of time to post and it could be a problem.
Sometimes I think I should just stop altogether. (just moderate).
I'm really a little confused here.
Do you want to explain better?
Foresee = Envision
OK
Now why is John 8:56 referring to your point?

I don't really believe that Foresee and Envision mean exactly the same,
but you know I hate debating a word.
Could you just post on John 8:56 and what Abraham envisioned?

(feeling a bit slow right now!)

 

[Consecrated Life]

There are a good number of things that have either been given or granted to the Jesus. You may see John 17:2 where the Father gave Jesus power to give eternal life. Or Matthew 9:4-8 where the Father gave Jesus and men authority to forgive sins.

That power and/or authority was given to Jesus, it follows that it was bestowed upon him by a higher authority which would of course be God the Father. Jesus had a mission to fulfill and he, along with his disciples, needed to be empowered by someone greater than themselves, Lord God Almighty.

So we should understand that in being "given" power that it follows Jesus didn't possess it inherently.

So what do you make of Jesus Saying ALL POWER IN HEAVEN AND ON EARTH ?
What you just described is the divested piecemeal Power of the afflicted Man of Sorrows. and what Jesus proclaimed as the risen & Glorified Christ is the multiplied ALL inclusive Power of the King of Kings and Lord of Lords .
I would be disappointed when I meet Jesus to find that He was lying when He proclaimed that ALL POWER IN HEAVEN AND ON EARTH was His.
How very strange it is that you are happily satisfied in your belief that the Glorified Christ had lied in HIs Claim of having ALL POWER IN HEAVEN & IN EARTH
It seems you are in good company.
Satan himself must be just as delighted as yourself to learn that the Glorified Christ had lied in His boast of having "ALL POWER IN HEAVEN AND ON EARTH"

Mat 28:18
"All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth."

 

[Hopeful 2]

Right. I don't have a lot of time to post and it could be a problem.
Sometimes I think I should just stop altogether. (just moderate).
I'm really a little confused here.
Do you want to explain better?
Foresee = Envision
OK
Now why is John 8:56 referring to your point?

John 8:56..."Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad."
For Abe' to have actually seen the days of Jesus, he would have had to go into the future.
He didn't.
He could, however, envision that which the Spirit made known to Him was to come.
The same scenario plays out in 1 Peter 1:10-11..."Of which salvation the prophets have enquired and searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace that should come unto you:
11 Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow."

1 Peter 3:8-10 give us more of the same "envisioning"..."...but quickened by the Spirit:
19 By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison; (grave),
20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah,..."
The Spirit made it known what was to eventually come.

Get better

 

[LeviR]

Yes, actually it is:

My question was, “Is the Word a name of Jesus?”

You said, “Yes, actually it is”

Then replace “Jesus” for “the Word” in the following:

In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God.

Case closed.

 

[Randy]

Yet you have not mentioned John 6 where Jesus compares himself to the manna which came from heaven. That doesn't mean the manna from heaven is above all or that the manna is God. It refers to those in the kingdom of heaven being greater than those of Earth, but not that being from heaven makes someone or something God.

What Jesus is saying is he was sent by God as the New Testament repeatedly says. Not that Jesus is himself God. See John 3:16,17 and John 17:3.

Does this offend you? Then what if you see the Son of Man ascend to where He was before?

John 6
Does this offend you? 62 Then what if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before!

 

[Free]

My question was, “Is the Word a name of Jesus?”

You said, “Yes, actually it is”

Then replace “Jesus” for “the Word” in the following:

In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God.

Case closed.

No, look at what your question is: “Is the Word a name of Jesus?” I provided a verse which states Jesus has the name “The Word of God.”

Now you move the goalposts back to prior to Jesus’s existence, but that nullifies your question. John 1:1 shows who the Word is and verse 14 then says “the Word became flesh,” in the person of Jesus. The Word doesn’t stop being the The Word in the person of Jesus, hence why The Word of God is a name of Jesus.

 

[Randy]

My question was, “Is the Word a name of Jesus?”

You said, “Yes, actually it is”

Then replace “Jesus” for “the Word” in the following:

In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God.

Case closed.

The nature of the Word is the Fathers. (God) The eternal life with the Father in this case is referred to as the Word. In others as the Word of Life or the Word of God. (The Father) It's clear testimony of the One who became the Son of Man.

In the beginning was the Word of God and the Word of God was with God and God was the Word of God.
In the beginning was the Word of life and the Word of life was with God and God was the Word of life.

That life appeared who they saw and heard and touched.
The eternal life who was with the Father in the beginning.

They saw and heard and touched Jesus yet He is still referred to as the eternal life which was with the Father in the beginning. Life is always associated with the living not "things". Jesus was, is and shall always be a living being who has been testified as one who has the Fathers nature, (God was the Word), and from the beginning with the Father.
That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched—this we proclaim concerning the Word of life. 2 The life appeared; we have seen it and testify to it, and we proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and has appeared to us. 3 We proclaim to you what we have seen and heard, so that you also may have fellowship with us. And our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son, Jesus Christ. 4 We write this to make our joy complete.

But as I stated if you are a biblical unitarian there will be a continuous state of disagreement as this is not a unitarian forum.

 

[GodsGrace]

No, look at what your question is: “Is the Word a name of Jesus?” I provided a verse which states Jesus has the name “The Word of God.”

Now you move the goalposts back to prior to Jesus’s existence, but that nullifies your question. John 1:1 shows who the Word is and verse 14 then says “the Word became flesh,” in the person of Jesus. The Word doesn’t stop being the The Word in the person of Jesus, hence why The Word of God is a name of Jesus.

Free
Would you be adverse to saying that The Word is a title?

 

[Free]

Free
Would you be adverse to saying that The Word is a title?

I would because Rev 19:13 says it’s the rider’s name. Also, making it a title would likely be cause it to be conflated with the rest of the uses of “the word of God” in the NT, appearing to make the Word in John 1:1 a mere declaration or literal words of God, not a person, as at least one here has done.

 

[GodsGrace]

I would because Rev 19:13 says it’s the rider’s name. Also, making it a title would likely be cause it to be conflated with the rest of the uses of “the word of God” in the NT, appearing to make the Word in John 1:1 a mere declaration or literal words of God, not a person, as at least one here has done.

Interesting.
Never thought of this.

 

[LeviR]

No, look at what your question is: “Is the Word a name of Jesus?” I provided a verse which states Jesus has the name “The Word of God.”

Now you move the goalposts back to prior to Jesus’s existence, but that nullifies your question. John 1:1 shows who the Word is and verse 14 then says “the Word became flesh,” in the person of Jesus. The Word doesn’t stop being the The Word in the person of Jesus, hence why The Word of God is a name of Jesus.

The scripture says the Word is a name of Jesus. “His name is called the Word of God”.
Therefore, the Word that was with God, is a name called the Word. And the name was with God. And that name was God.

When the Word becomes flesh, Jesus takes on that name.

Once you know this, it becomes easy to understand.
The Word was with the Father(God), and the Word was the Father(God).

When the Word(the Father) becomes flesh, Jesus takes the name the Word.

“I have come in the name of my Father” says Jesus.

 

[Free]

The scripture says the Word is a name of Jesus. “His name is called the Word of God”.
Therefore, the Word that was with God, is a name called the Word. And the name was with God. And that name was God.

When the Word becomes flesh, Jesus takes on that name.

Once you know this, it becomes easy to understand.
The Word was with the Father(God), and the Word was the Father(God).

When the Word(the Father) becomes flesh, Jesus takes the name the Word.

“I have come in the name of my Father” says Jesus.

No. Your own statements work against you: "The Word was with the Father(God), and the Word was the Father(God)." But that is nonsensical. What is being expressed by John is intimate union and interpersonal relationship between the Word and God. It never makes sense to say that a person is "with" someone and "is" that someone.

I've posted this many times before and I'll post it again:

Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (ESV)

Looking at the first clause, "In the beginning" is clearly a reference to Gen 1:1. The word "was" is the Greek, en, which is a form of eimi (I Am), and speaks of continuous action in the past; that is, absolute preexistence before any creation. What that statement means is that when the beginning began, the Word was already in existence, and hence, there was never a time when he did not exist. The very same applies to the Father, who has absolute preexistence.

In the second clause, "and the Word was with God," it is the Greek pros that is translated as "with." But it isn't merely speaking of being together or near. It is in the accusative and expresses “direction towards,” as in relationship and communion, implying intimacy. It is important to note here that in the Greek the article is present, so it literally reads, "the Word was with [the] God." So, God is a reference to someone other than the Word, at a minimum it is a reference to the Father.

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 was in the preceding clause. If the article had been present then "Word" and "God" become interchangeable, and they are 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. Therefore, it can only have a qualitative meaning, that is, that the Word was divine in nature, or deity.

Joh 1:2 He was in the beginning with God. (ESV)

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, loving relationship with the Father. It makes no sense to say that the Word (the Son) was with the Father for eternity in an intimate, personal relationship, but they are both one and the same person.

The Greek grammar John uses absolutely rules out the Word being the Father. The continual distinction in between the Father and the Son (and the Holy Spirit), and indeed in the rest of the NT, makes no sense if the Father is the Son.

Not to mention that the whole idea of a father being his own son is also completely nonsensical. We are the analogues to God, not the other way around. And, God communicates to us, including about himself, in language that we can understand. If the Father is the Son and the Son is the Father, then that communicates nothing to us about who God is; it is meaningless.

It is also worth pointing out again that a unitarian view of God is deficient and cannot be the God of the Bible. When we look at the nature of God, we see in 1 John 4:8, 16 that "God is love." That is, to say God is love, is to make a statement about his essence, his nature, and not merely the idea that he is loving; He cannot not love.

Look at what Jesus says:

Joh 17:24 Father, I desire that they also, whom you have given me, may be with me where I am, to see my glory that you have given me because you loved me before the foundation of the world. (ESV)

That is exactly why John says what he does in John 1:1--the Word was in intimate, interpersonal relationship with God. Everything John says about the Son and the Father is based on Jesus's own words.

Looking once again at what Jesus says:

Mar 12:29 Jesus answered, “The most important is, ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one.
Mar 12:30 And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’
Mar 12:31 The second is this: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.” (ESV)

Joh 15:13 Greater love has no one than this, that someone lay down his life for his friends. (ESV)

So, what then is love? At its fullest, it is both a healthy love of self and an outward expression towards others. We should fully expect then, that if God is love, that his love must have the fullest expression and necessarily includes love of others from before creation of all time and space, from eternity past. However, if God is a monad, then to say that “God is love” means 1) that God loved himself, and 2) that the fullest and proper expression of his love is dependent on creation. This contradicts the statement that “God is love” and leaves His love incomplete and deficient.

When we consider the Trinity, however, it all works. There are three persons each being truly and fully God, equally possessing the full and undivided essence (one being that is God), having been in and intimate and loving relationship and communion for eternity past. Only now we can truly say that God is love. Diversity within the unity.

 

[Free]

Interesting.
Never thought of this.

I hadn't either until you asked.

 

[Free]

While I'm at it, I'll throw this in as well since I've asked twice and no one has answered. Looking at what Jesus said:

Joh 17:5 And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed. (ESV)

But, what did Yahweh say?

Isa 48:11 For my own sake, for my own sake, I do it, for how should my name be profaned? My glory I will not give to another. (ESV)

Is Jesus contradicting what Yahweh said? Let's look at what John said:

Joh 12:36 While you have the light, believe in the light, that you may become sons of light.” When Jesus had said these things, he departed and hid himself from them.
Joh 12:37 Though he had done so many signs before them, they still did not believe in him,
Joh 12:38 so that the word spoken by the prophet Isaiah might be fulfilled: “Lord, who has believed what he heard from us, and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?”
Joh 12:39 Therefore they could not believe. For again Isaiah said,
Joh 12:40 “He has blinded their eyes and hardened their heart, lest they see with their eyes, and understand with their heart, and turn, and I would heal them.”
Joh 12:41 Isaiah said these things because he saw his glory and spoke of him. (ESV)

Who does John say Isaiah saw in "his glory and spoke of him"? Clearly, John is meaning that Isaiah saw the glory of Jesus, or rather, the Son. So, either no one bothered to look up the context of what Isaiah said and so didn't answer me previously, or they did look it up and saw the strong implication:

Isa 6:1 In the year that King Uzziah died I saw the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up; and the train of his robe filled the temple.
Isa 6:2 Above him stood the seraphim. Each had six wings: with two he covered his face, and with two he covered his feet, and with two he flew.
Isa 6:3 And one called to another and said: “Holy, holy, holy is the LORD of hosts; the whole earth is full of his glory!”
Isa 6:4 And the foundations of the thresholds shook at the voice of him who called, and the house was filled with smoke.
Isa 6:5 And I said: “Woe is me! For I am lost; for I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips; for my eyes have seen the King, the LORD of hosts!”
…
Isa 6:8 And I heard the voice of the Lord saying, “Whom shall I send, and who will go for us?” Then I said, “Here I am! Send me.”
Isa 6:9 And he said, “Go, and say to this people: “‘Keep on hearing, but do not understand; keep on seeing, but do not perceive.’
Isa 6:10 Make the heart of this people dull, and their ears heavy, and blind their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their hearts, and turn and be healed.” (ESV)

So, who did Isaiah actually see? He saw Yahweh in all his glory. Once again, John supports what he said in John 1:1--that the Word was in intimate, interpersonal relationship with God for all eternity past, meaning that the Word is also God in nature.

Throughout the entire book of John, from beginning to end, there is one message about who Jesus, the Son of God, is--God in human flesh, both truly man and truly God, who, in becoming flesh subjected himself to the will of the Father for our salvation and the redemption of creation.

 

[LeviR]

No. Your own statements work against you: "The Word was with the Father(God), and the Word was the Father(God)." But that is nonsensical. What is being expressed by John is intimate union and interpersonal relationship between the Word and God. It never makes sense to say that a person is "with" someone and "is" that someone

You claim what I’m saying is nonsensical, because you can’t hear what I’m saying. I know the Trinitarian argument, I’ve listened, I’ve studied, I know all the text.
iI also know it’s incomprehensible, as Trinitarian scholars admit.

Do you think you have it in you to at least listen to what I’m saying so that you may at least understand the Unitarian view?

Again, I know the orthodox doctrine of Trinity and can tell anyone what it is.
Where you fail is to look at the Unitarian view, in full, and therefore can tell no one what it is.

If you had been listening, in order to learn, then you would have already knew what It means to me that “the Word was with God”

I’m not going to explain over and over again to someone who fail to comprehend what I’ve said.

If you understand what I’ve been explaining on John 1:1 then tell me.

 

[GodsGrace]

While I'm at it, I'll throw this in as well since I've asked twice and no one has answered. Looking at what Jesus said:

Joh 17:5 And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed. (ESV)

But, what did Yahweh say?

Isa 48:11 For my own sake, for my own sake, I do it, for how should my name be profaned? My glory I will not give to another. (ESV)

Is Jesus contradicting what Yahweh said? Let's look at what John said:

Joh 12:36 While you have the light, believe in the light, that you may become sons of light.” When Jesus had said these things, he departed and hid himself from them.
Joh 12:37 Though he had done so many signs before them, they still did not believe in him,
Joh 12:38 so that the word spoken by the prophet Isaiah might be fulfilled: “Lord, who has believed what he heard from us, and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?”
Joh 12:39 Therefore they could not believe. For again Isaiah said,
Joh 12:40 “He has blinded their eyes and hardened their heart, lest they see with their eyes, and understand with their heart, and turn, and I would heal them.”
Joh 12:41 Isaiah said these things because he saw his glory and spoke of him. (ESV)

Who does John say Isaiah saw in "his glory and spoke of him"? Clearly, John is meaning that Isaiah saw the glory of Jesus, or rather, the Son. So, either no one bothered to look up the context of what Isaiah said and so didn't answer me previously, or they did look it up and saw the strong implication:

Isa 6:1 In the year that King Uzziah died I saw the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up; and the train of his robe filled the temple.
Isa 6:2 Above him stood the seraphim. Each had six wings: with two he covered his face, and with two he covered his feet, and with two he flew.
Isa 6:3 And one called to another and said: “Holy, holy, holy is the LORD of hosts; the whole earth is full of his glory!”
Isa 6:4 And the foundations of the thresholds shook at the voice of him who called, and the house was filled with smoke.
Isa 6:5 And I said: “Woe is me! For I am lost; for I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips; for my eyes have seen the King, the LORD of hosts!”
…
Isa 6:8 And I heard the voice of the Lord saying, “Whom shall I send, and who will go for us?” Then I said, “Here I am! Send me.”
Isa 6:9 And he said, “Go, and say to this people: “‘Keep on hearing, but do not understand; keep on seeing, but do not perceive.’
Isa 6:10 Make the heart of this people dull, and their ears heavy, and blind their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their hearts, and turn and be healed.” (ESV)

So, who did Isaiah actually see? He saw Yahweh in all his glory. Once again, John supports what he said in John 1:1--that the Word was in intimate, interpersonal relationship with God for all eternity past, meaning that the Word is also God in nature.

Throughout the entire book of John, from beginning to end, there is one message about who Jesus, the Son of God, is--God in human flesh, both truly man and truly God, who, in becoming flesh subjected himself to the will of the Father for our salvation and the redemption of creation.

Great post!
:nod