Why Trinitarians And Non-Trinitarians Have Different Beliefs?

[Runningman]

In the last days He has spoken to us by His Son
Whom He appointed heir of all things
Through whom He made the ages
The same Son He spoke through is the same Son He appointed Heir and the same Son He created the worlds. It does not mean in these last days God created anything as I believe He rested on the 7th day.

According to Hebrews 1:1,2, God did not even speak through the Son in the past. Therefore the world wasn't made in the past by speaking through the Son. The world wasn't made in the "last days" either. This passage makes no sense unless it is correctly translated to refer to a period of time.

The tempted is inviting you to do evil. The capture or ensnaring is by the evil desires in one's heart. Jesus had a pure heart so Satan had no evil desire to grab on to. Jesus alone is without sin. There was no darkness found in Him.

Jesus is a man who in submission to God decided to trust and obey. He simply chose not to sin and God glorified him for that. While others may have sinned before, Jesus is clear that he believes they can go forward in their life never to sin again. Paul also said the same thing.

When you actually know what sin is versus what something immoral is then avoiding sin is easier than you think. Sin is simply a transgression of God's laws. The laws that are still in effect are codified explicitly in the 10 Commandments.

I highly recommend that you look into commandments 1 & 2 because they're telling you who the only God is. His name is YHWH, a.k.a. the Father.

That doesn't negate what is meant. Jesus is all that the Father is. The image of the invisible God.
Feel free to read all the translations.
Here are several.
The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact expression of his nature.
The Son is the light of God’s glory and the imprint of God’s being
Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person
The Son is the radiance of his glory and the representation of his essence
The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being
He is the reflection of God’s glory and the exact imprint of God’s very being
He is the shining reflection of God’s own glory, the precise expression of his own very being

This version says God is a person, some say being, some say nature, some say essence. These are not all valid translations since these words are not interchangeable.

"Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person"

Is the Son of Man = the Son of God?

In every single witness that testifies about the preexistence of the Son prior to the incarnation you do not hear. You deny, explain away every time.

And yet there are mysteriously no examples of a Son saying or doing anything in the Old Testament. My position that Jesus didn't pre-exist has widespread support due to a total absence of suggestions to the contrary. I will admit that I do believe it's possible Jesus could have pre-existed his literal birth, but absolutely not as God. It's possible Jesus pre-existed as an angel, but the evidence is quite sparse.

Nope.
The seventy-two returned with joy and said, “Lord, even the demons submit to us in your name.”

18He replied, “I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven. 19I have given you authority to trample on snakes and scorpions and to overcome all the power of the enemy; nothing will harm you. 20However, do not rejoice that the spirits submit to you, but rejoice that your names are written in heaven.”

so your belief is that Jesus is alluding to his authority over Satan?

 

[Runningman]

It is a reference as to the nature of the Word, that the Word was God in nature. Since there is only one who is God in nature, which is God, then it is no different than saying the Word was God.

To try and avoid that by saying it is a reference to the "characteristics of God such as godliness," makes little sense. If it includes all the characteristics of God, then again, it can only be God in nature, since only God can have all the characteristics of God. The only way around that is to subjectively pick and choose which characteristics.

In John 1:1 there is an alternative translation that harmonizes better with what John believed. For example, in 1 John 1:1-2, John clearly wrote the "logos of life" is an it. On the other hand, John 1:1 can be translated in a way that allows "God" to be qualitative. In that case, the "word" has the characteristics of God and is being personified, but isn't literally God. For examples, words, a speech, an utterance isn't what God is. God is much more than that.

The common denominator throughout scripture is the word is an it, Jesus is a he, and where Jesus and the word are mentioned within proximity there is a distinction made between the two.

I like this translation from the Revised English Version (REV) translated by Unitarians.

John 1:1​

In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and what God was the word was.​

Additionally, Jesus and the word are clearly distinctive, not the same.

Revelation 1​

2who testifies to everything he saw. This is the word of God and the testimony of Jesus Christ.​

​

Revelation 20​

4Then I saw the thrones, and those seated on them had been given authority to judge. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for their testimony of Jesus and for the word of God, and those who had not worshiped the beast or its image, and had not received its mark on their foreheads or hands. And they came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years.​

​

Finally, more proof that John didn't believe Jesus is God is because he prayed as such in Acts 4:24,27 where he prayed to God the Sovereign Lord and Creator while referring to Jesus as His servant.

 

[Hopeful 2]

But you said, in part regarding 1 Cor 8:6, "The Word, not Jesus." But Paul clearly says Jesus, who is the Son in human flesh.

It wasn't Jesus when He was still the Word.
The Word changed when He took on flesh and lost some of His prior abilities.

The Word and Jesus are both the Son.

Only in hind-sight.
Jesus gave up being the Word so He could experience death for all humanity.

Right. So, it is the Son that is being spoken of in verses 16-17.

The Son, before He was born.
Which was the Word.

What does this have to do with anything?

Paul had the benefit of hind-sight.
He knew that the Word had taken on flesh to die for mankind.
He calls the Word by His new, post-birth, name.

Not really. You believe the Word became the Son in the incarnation.

Correct.

I'm saying, as orthodox Christian belief states, that the Word is the eternal Son, who has always been the Son prior to the incarnation.

From whom was he born ?

Now you're changing what the texts state.

You are implying that the Son was in heaven before a son was even born.
I can't agree.

Then you disagree with historic, orthodox belief. The Son didn't become the Son; the Son always has been in existence. It was the Son, the second person of the Trinity, that took on human flesh.

The Word became the Son at His birth from Mary.

Yes, I've agreed with this already.

Then how could a son exist before a child was born ?

Please study and reread what I wrote. I said it is one word, monogenes, that is translated as "only begotten," even in the KJV. Other versions typically say "only" or "one and only," which is essentially what it means, with the sense of being "unique."

Unfortunately, your interpreters only interpreted "only".

Nowhere have I said or implied that.

That is your implication.

The Son has always existed. John just happens to also call him the Word in his prologue.

The Son of God couldn't exist until the Holy Ghost came over Mary and she conceived the seed.

I have never said otherwise. I've actually stated this and agreed with it.

Hardly.
Look at your line above.

You disagree with the historic, orthodox doctrine of Christianity.

Our perspectives on what is Christianity differ.
But that is a different topic.

Again, nowhere have I disagreed with that. The issue is, they speak of the Son as being involved in creation. Only in John 1:1-3 is the Son also called the Word.

If the Word became Jesus, how could He already be Jesus before He became Jesus ?

Eternally generated or eternally begotten is how the Son's eternal existence is stated.

You're saying the Word was born of God when the Word was the means of creation.
Jesus was the One born of God.

Again, you seem intent on not trying to understand what I am actually writing. This actually seems like you're purposely misrepresenting my position, as I have been very clear. The Word became flesh in the person of Jesus, but the Word is just another name for the Son, used only by John for his purposes.

I won't blend the Word and Jesus together as one, before a Jesus was created.
If Jesus always existed, why did He need to be born ?

 

[Hopeful 2]

Logos is the greek written that is translated into english as "Word"

Yes, I hold Jesus has always been the Son of the Father.

I guess we will agree to disagree.

Yeah.
I see the Word, for lack of a better phrase, morphing into Jesus, at His birth from Mary.

 

[eddif]

Why Trinitarians And Non-Trinitarians Have Different Beliefs?​

Why?
IMHO
The first Adam was made a living soul.
That took care of man till John the Baptist.

The kingdom was preached for 3 1/2 years.

The kingdom stargted at Pentecost.

The one new man started with the gentile inclusion.

I see both the old man without the new heart and mind.

I see the one new man made of Jew and gentile.

Jesus became the 2nd Adam that made a change possible.

Mississippi redneck
eddif

 

[Randy]

According to Hebrews 1:1,2, God did not even speak through the Son in the past. Therefore the world wasn't made in the past by speaking through the Son. The world wasn't made in the "last days" either. This passage makes no sense unless it is correctly translated to refer to a period of time.

Its very clear but you can't hear what God the Father has testified about His Son on anything before Mary.
“But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah,
though you are small among the clans of Judah,
out of you will come for me
one who will be ruler over Israel,
whose origins are from of old,
from ancient times.

Jesus is a man who in submission to God decided to trust and obey. He simply chose not to sin and God glorified him for that. While others may have sinned before, Jesus is clear that he believes they can go forward in their life never to sin again. Paul also said the same thing.

Jesus alone among mankind was without sin. His heart was pure. He experienced the pull to sin but there was no evil in His heart for that pull to latch on to. In Him therefore no darkness was found. Like Father like Son.
Jesus- He who's seen me has seen the Father.

When you actually know what sin is versus what something immoral is then avoiding sin is easier than you think. Sin is simply a transgression of God's laws. The laws that are still in effect are codified explicitly in the 10 Commandments.

All the treasures of wisdom and knowledge are hidden in Christ.

I highly recommend that you look into commandments 1 & 2 because they're telling you who the only God is. His name is YHWH, a.k.a. the Father.

Love is a fulfillment of all the law for love brings no harm to ones neighbor.

This version says God is a person, some say being, some say nature, some say essence. These are not all valid translations since these words are not interchangeable.

God is a living being. While all that He and all that He can do can't even be imagined by our limited minds He can be conceptualized as a person because He is a living being.

"Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person"

The imprint of Gods very being.

Is the Son of Man = the Son of God?

And yet there are mysteriously no examples of a Son saying or doing anything in the Old Testament. My position that Jesus didn't pre-exist has widespread support due to a total absence of suggestions to the contrary. I will admit that I do believe it's possible Jesus could have pre-existed his literal birth, but absolutely not as God. It's possible Jesus pre-existed as an angel, but the evidence is quite sparse.


so your belief is that Jesus is alluding to his authority over Satan?

No, Jesus is stating His past tense witness in regard Satan. "I saw Him fall from heaven"
And He knew from the beginning about that enemy of God because He was alive with the Father in that beginning.
He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies.

 

[Free]

In John 1:1 there is an alternative translation that harmonizes better with what John believed.

No, there is no alternate translation. What John wrote in John 1:1 is plain and clear and it agrees with everything else he wrote, which is that Jesus is truly man and truly God; God in human flesh.

For example, in 1 John 1:1-2, John clearly wrote the "logos of life" is an it.

Again, you would do well to stop using this argument as it has been proven fallacious.

On the other hand, John 1:1 can be translated in a way that allows "God" to be qualitative. In that case, the "word" has the characteristics of God and is being personified, but isn't literally God. For examples, words, a speech, an utterance isn't what God is. God is much more than that.

I've already said that "God" in John 1:1c is qualitative. That means that the Word was God in nature.

The common denominator throughout scripture is the word is an it,

Again, this argument was proven fallacious.

Jesus is a he, and where Jesus and the word are mentioned within proximity there is a distinction made between the two.

The Word took on flesh in the person of Jesus. That is the only way in which they are distinct, but he didn't cease being the Word. If you're saying something different, then please provide clarity as well as Scripture to support your position.

I like this translation from the Revised English Version (REV) translated by Unitarians.

John 1:1​

In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and what God was the word was.​

Interesting how they add words to the last clause, don't you think? The word order in the Greek is, "and God was the Word." John is telling us who the Word is by telling us of his nature.

Of course, even the REV suggests the same with its poor translation. If "the word was" "what God was," then it follows that the Word is also God. It cannot be otherwise. If it is argued that the word isn't God in nature, then it is false that the word was what God was. Straightforward, simple logic.

In John 1:1a, the Word was in the beginning when the beginning began. That is, the Word has absolute existence. John 1:1b tells us that the Word was in intimate, interpersonal relationship with God. That is only something persons do. John 1:1c tells us that the Word was God in nature. That supports both of the previous clauses.

All of that is then supported in verses 2 and 3.

Additionally, Jesus and the word are clearly distinctive, not the same.

Revelation 1​

2who testifies to everything he saw. This is the word of God and the testimony of Jesus Christ.​

​

Revelation 20​

4Then I saw the thrones, and those seated on them had been given authority to judge. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for their testimony of Jesus and for the word of God, and those who had not worshiped the beast or its image, and had not received its mark on their foreheads or hands. And they came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years.​

You're conflating two meanings or uses of "word." Context wins every time:

Rev 1:2 who bore witness to the word of God and to the testimony of Jesus Christ, even to all that he saw.
Rev 1:3 Blessed is the one who reads aloud the words of this prophecy, and blessed are those who hear, and who keep what is written in it, for the time is near.
...
Rev 1:9 I, John, your brother and partner in the tribulation and the kingdom and the patient endurance that are in Jesus, was on the island called Patmos on account of the word of God and the testimony of Jesus.

Rev 2:1 “To the angel of the church in Ephesus write: ‘The words of him who holds the seven stars in his right hand, who walks among the seven golden lampstands.
...
Rev 2:8 “And to the angel of the church in Smyrna write: ‘The words of the first and the last, who died and came to life.
...
Rev 2:18 “And to the angel of the church in Thyatira write: ‘The words of the Son of God, who has eyes like a flame of fire, and whose feet are like burnished bronze.

Rev 3:1 “And to the angel of the church in Sardis write: ‘The words of him who has the seven spirits of God and the seven stars. “‘I know your works. You have the reputation of being alive, but you are dead.
...
Rev 3:7 “And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write: ‘The words of the holy one, the true one, who has the key of David, who opens and no one will shut, who shuts and no one opens.

Rev 3:14 “And to the angel of the church in Laodicea write: ‘The words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of God's creation.

Rev_6:9 When he opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of those who had been slain for the word of God and for the witness they had borne.

Rev_20:4 Then I saw thrones, and seated on them were those to whom the authority to judge was committed. Also I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for the testimony of Jesus and for the word of God, and those who had not worshiped the beast or its image and had not received its mark on their foreheads or their hands. They came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years.

Rev 22:6 And he said to me, “These words are trustworthy and true. And the Lord, the God of the spirits of the prophets, has sent his angel to show his servants what must soon take place.”
Rev 22:7 “And behold, I am coming soon. Blessed is the one who keeps the words of the prophecy of this book.”
...
Rev 22:9 but he said to me, “You must not do that! I am a fellow servant with you and your brothers the prophets, and with those who keep the words of this book. Worship God.”
Rev 22:10 And he said to me, “Do not seal up the words of the prophecy of this book, for the time is near.

So, it is easy to see that what is meant by "the word of God" in all these passages is not at all what John was speaking of in John 1:1-18. Here it means either the spoken words given in his revelation, which he writes down, or the gospel in general. More importantly is a passage I've previously provided and you left unaddressed, just as you didn't post it here:

Rev 19:11 Then I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse! The one sitting on it is called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he judges and makes war.
Rev 19:12 His eyes are like a flame of fire, and on his head are many diadems, and he has a name written that no one knows but himself.
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.

(All ESV.)

The last passage is clearly speaking of Jesus, whose name is The Word of God, which is exactly what John is telling us in the prologue to his gospel. That is not at all what all the previous passages in Revelation are referring to.

Finally, more proof that John didn't believe Jesus is God is because he prayed as such in Acts 4:24,27 where he prayed to God the Sovereign Lord and Creator while referring to Jesus as His servant.

You are confusing function and nature. As I have stated numerous times, "difference in function does not indicate inferiority of nature" (James R. White). Jesus was God's servant, just read Phil 2:5-8 or Isa 53, but in no way does that preclude him from also being God.

 

[Free]

It wasn't Jesus when He was still the Word.

How many more times would you like me to tell you that Jesus was God incarnate? I've agreed with this more than once. But prior to the incarnation the Word was still the Son.

The Word changed when He took on flesh and lost some of His prior abilities.

Of course. I've never state otherwise.

Only in hind-sight.
Jesus gave up being the Word so He could experience death for all humanity.

God cannot cease to be God. Some of Jesus's abilities were limited due to his human nature and he hid his glory, but that doesn't mean he "gave up being the Word."

Rev 19:11 Then I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse! The one sitting on it is called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he judges and makes war.
Rev 19:12 His eyes are like a flame of fire, and on his head are many diadems, and he has a name written that no one knows but himself.
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. (ESV)

If his name is The Word of God, then he cannot have ceased being the Word.

The Son, before He was born.
Which was the Word.

Again, Word is a name given to the Son by John. It is a very involved discussion as to what is meant.

From whom was he born ?

In a sense, the Father; that whole "only begotten Son" bit. He is eternally begotten or rather eternally generated.

You are implying that the Son was in heaven before a son was even born.
I can't agree.

Then you don't agree with historic, orthodox Christian belief. The ontological Trinity, the Trinity as it has always existed in and of itself, is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

The Word became the Son at His birth from Mary.

The eternal Son became the Son of Man, which has already been pointed out to you.

Then how could a son exist before a child was born ?

Who was the Father before Jesus was born? What was he called?

Unfortunately, your interpreters only interpreted "only".

Oh my. Please do some actual study on this before making this claim again.

That is your implication.

It absolutely isn't. Stop misrepresenting what I believe.

The Son of God couldn't exist until the Holy Ghost came over Mary and she conceived the seed.

The Son of Man couldn't.

Hardly.
Look at your line above.

Why are you not even trying to understand what I am saying? You're taking everything out of context and not as a whole. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised, as it is precisely why you have some of the beliefs you do. Take things as a whole; altogether, not piecemeal.

If the Word became Jesus, how could He already be Jesus before He became Jesus ?

Nowhere have I said that. I've even clearly argued against that. You actually seem to be deliberately trying not to understand what I am saying.

You're saying the Word was born of God when the Word was the means of creation.
Jesus was the One born of God.

You really don't know much about this topic, do you? Again, I strongly suggest doing some actual study on what the doctrine of the Trinity is and how it relates to the deity of Jesus.

I won't blend the Word and Jesus together as one, before a Jesus was created.
If Jesus always existed, why did He need to be born ?

I never said Jesus always existed; I've very clearly stated more than once that he didn't. The Son existed. It was the Son, the second person of the Trinity, whom John, and only John, also calls the Word, that came down and took on human flesh in the person of Jesus.

 

[Hopeful 2]

How many more times would you like me to tell you that Jesus was God incarnate? I've agreed with this more than once. But prior to the incarnation the Word was still the Son.


Of course. I've never state otherwise.


God cannot cease to be God. Some of Jesus's abilities were limited due to his human nature and he hid his glory, but that doesn't mean he "gave up being the Word."

Rev 19:11 Then I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse! The one sitting on it is called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he judges and makes war.
Rev 19:12 His eyes are like a flame of fire, and on his head are many diadems, and he has a name written that no one knows but himself.
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. (ESV)

If his name is The Word of God, then he cannot have ceased being the Word.


Again, Word is a name given to the Son by John. It is a very involved discussion as to what is meant.


In a sense, the Father; that whole "only begotten Son" bit. He is eternally begotten or rather eternally generated.


Then you don't agree with historic, orthodox Christian belief. The ontological Trinity, the Trinity as it has always existed in and of itself, is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.


The eternal Son became the Son of Man, which has already been pointed out to you.


Who was the Father before Jesus was born? What was he called?


Oh my. Please do some actual study on this before making this claim again.


It absolutely isn't. Stop misrepresenting what I believe.


The Son of Man couldn't.


Why are you not even trying to understand what I am saying? You're taking everything out of context and not as a whole. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised, as it is precisely why you have some of the beliefs you do. Take things as a whole; altogether, not piecemeal.


Nowhere have I said that. I've even clearly argued against that. You actually seem to be deliberately trying not to understand what I am saying.


You really don't know much about this topic, do you? Again, I strongly suggest doing some actual study on what the doctrine of the Trinity is and how it relates to the deity of Jesus.


I never said Jesus always existed; I've very clearly stated more than once that he didn't. The Son existed. It was the Son, the second person of the Trinity, whom John, and only John, also calls the Word, that came down and took on human flesh in the person of Jesus.

Our opinions differ.

 

[7thMoon]

And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness:
God was manifested in the flesh,
Justified in the Spirit,
Seen by angels,
Preached among the Gentiles,
Believed on in the world,
Received up in glory.
1 Timothy 3:16.


Who became flesh, the Father or the Son?

1 Timothy 3:16 does not say anything had became flesh. The passage is not about the son, but about God.

 

[WalterandDebbie]

1 Timothy 3:16 does not say anything had became flesh. The passage is not about the son, but about God.

Sir, How do you view the word Manifest?

Walter

 

[Free]

Our opinions differ.

They certainly do. But there are still two questions I asked which I would like an answer to: Who was the Father before Jesus was born? What was he called?

Found this which supports what I was saying:

“The doctrine of eternal Sonship simply affirms that the second Person of the triune Godhead has eternally existed as the Son. In other words, there was never a time when He was not the Son of God, and there has always been a Father/Son relationship within the Godhead. This doctrine recognizes that the idea of Sonship is not merely a title or role that Christ assumed at some specific point in history, but that it is the essential identity of the second Person of the Godhead. According to this doctrine, Christ is and always has been the Son of God.
…
Throughout church history the doctrine of eternal Sonship has been widely held, with most Christians believing that Jesus existed as God’s eternal Son before creation. It is affirmed in the Nicene Creed (325 A.D.) . . . It was also later reaffirmed in the fifth century in the Athanasian Creed.“

https://www.gotquestions.org/eternal-Sonship.html

 

[7thMoon]

Sir, How do you view the word Manifest?

Walter

Anything perceived is manifested. Certainly everytime the star child did god's miracles, it was manifest in or at his flesh.

 

[WalterandDebbie]

Anything perceived is manifested. Certainly everytime the star child did god's miracles, it was manifest in or at his flesh.

Really we were looking at the word manifest as: https://christianforums.net/threads...le-meaning-jesus-said-god-is-a-spirit.102587/

Also:

Bible Study - The Deity Of Christ

Tuesday 11-22-22 3rd. Day Of The Weekly Cycle, Cheshvan 2565783 62nd. Fall Day John 1:1-2 1, In the beginning, was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. verse 14, 14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only...

christianforums.net

 

[Hopeful 2]

They certainly do. But there are still two questions I asked which I would like an answer to: Who was the Father before Jesus was born?

God.

What was he called?

God, and multiple other names.

Found this which supports what I was saying:
“The doctrine of eternal Sonship simply affirms that the second Person of the triune Godhead has eternally existed as the Son. In other words, there was never a time when He was not the Son of God, and there has always been a Father/Son relationship within the Godhead. This doctrine recognizes that the idea of Sonship is not merely a title or role that Christ assumed at some specific point in history, but that it is the essential identity of the second Person of the Godhead. According to this doctrine, Christ is and always has been the Son of God.
…
Throughout church history the doctrine of eternal Sonship has been widely held, with most Christians believing that Jesus existed as God’s eternal Son before creation. It is affirmed in the Nicene Creed (325 A.D.) . . . It was also later reaffirmed in the fifth century in the Athanasian Creed.“

I can't agree.
If Jesus was always a "son", then God would have had to create Him.
The Word was not created, but Jesus was born of a woman.

 

[Runningman]

Its very clear but you can't hear what God the Father has testified about His Son on anything before Mary.
“But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah,
though you are small among the clans of Judah,
out of you will come for me
one who will be ruler over Israel,
whose origins are from of old,
from ancient times.

Keep reading past Micah 5:2 to get more of the context. The person being talked about isn't God. He's God's servant, and his God is YHWH Himself, a.k.a. the Father. That means he isn't God.

Micah 5
4He will stand and shepherd His flock
in the strength of the LORD,
in the majestic name of the LORD His God.
And they will dwell securely,
for then His greatness will extend
to the ends of the earth.

Jesus alone among mankind was without sin. His heart was pure. He experienced the pull to sin but there was no evil in His heart for that pull to latch on to. In Him therefore no darkness was found. Like Father like Son.
Jesus- He who's seen me has seen the Father.

People are born without sin so it isn't an indicator of being God. On the point of being susceptible to temptation it plainly means Jesus isn't God.

All the treasures of wisdom and knowledge are hidden in Christ.

Love is a fulfillment of all the law for love brings no harm to ones neighbor.

Yes and the commandments are required Jesus explicitly said so himself. Again, look at Commandments 1 & 2 as these are vitally important for you. Idolatry, i.e., worshipping a human being as God, is a grievous sin.

Matthew 19
16Just then a man came up to Jesus and inquired, “Teacher, what good thing must I do to obtain eternal life?”
17“Why do you ask Me about what is good?” Jesus replied. “There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, keep the commandments.”

God is a living being. While all that He and all that He can do can't even be imagined by our limited minds He can be conceptualized as a person because He is a living being.

According to Got Questions, God meets all of the requirements for being a person, i.e., God isn't an it.

The imprint of Gods very being.

No, Jesus is stating His past tense witness in regard Satan. "I saw Him fall from heaven"
And He knew from the beginning about that enemy of God because He was alive with the Father in that beginning.
He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies.

None of those statements require Jesus pre-existing to say them though.

 

[Runningman]

No, there is no alternate translation. What John wrote in John 1:1 is plain and clear and it agrees with everything else he wrote, which is that Jesus is truly man and truly God; God in human flesh.


Again, you would do well to stop using this argument as it has been proven fallacious.


I've already said that "God" in John 1:1c is qualitative. That means that the Word was God in nature.


Again, this argument was proven fallacious.


The Word took on flesh in the person of Jesus. That is the only way in which they are distinct, but he didn't cease being the Word. If you're saying something different, then please provide clarity as well as Scripture to support your position.


Interesting how they add words to the last clause, don't you think? The word order in the Greek is, "and God was the Word." John is telling us who the Word is by telling us of his nature.

Of course, even the REV suggests the same with its poor translation. If "the word was" "what God was," then it follows that the Word is also God. It cannot be otherwise. If it is argued that the word isn't God in nature, then it is false that the word was what God was. Straightforward, simple logic.

In John 1:1a, the Word was in the beginning when the beginning began. That is, the Word has absolute existence. John 1:1b tells us that the Word was in intimate, interpersonal relationship with God. That is only something persons do. John 1:1c tells us that the Word was God in nature. That supports both of the previous clauses.

All of that is then supported in verses 2 and 3.


You're conflating two meanings or uses of "word." Context wins every time:

Rev 1:2 who bore witness to the word of God and to the testimony of Jesus Christ, even to all that he saw.
Rev 1:3 Blessed is the one who reads aloud the words of this prophecy, and blessed are those who hear, and who keep what is written in it, for the time is near.
...
Rev 1:9 I, John, your brother and partner in the tribulation and the kingdom and the patient endurance that are in Jesus, was on the island called Patmos on account of the word of God and the testimony of Jesus.

Rev 2:1 “To the angel of the church in Ephesus write: ‘The words of him who holds the seven stars in his right hand, who walks among the seven golden lampstands.
...
Rev 2:8 “And to the angel of the church in Smyrna write: ‘The words of the first and the last, who died and came to life.
...
Rev 2:18 “And to the angel of the church in Thyatira write: ‘The words of the Son of God, who has eyes like a flame of fire, and whose feet are like burnished bronze.

Rev 3:1 “And to the angel of the church in Sardis write: ‘The words of him who has the seven spirits of God and the seven stars. “‘I know your works. You have the reputation of being alive, but you are dead.
...
Rev 3:7 “And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write: ‘The words of the holy one, the true one, who has the key of David, who opens and no one will shut, who shuts and no one opens.

Rev 3:14 “And to the angel of the church in Laodicea write: ‘The words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of God's creation.

Rev_6:9 When he opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of those who had been slain for the word of God and for the witness they had borne.

Rev_20:4 Then I saw thrones, and seated on them were those to whom the authority to judge was committed. Also I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for the testimony of Jesus and for the word of God, and those who had not worshiped the beast or its image and had not received its mark on their foreheads or their hands. They came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years.

Rev 22:6 And he said to me, “These words are trustworthy and true. And the Lord, the God of the spirits of the prophets, has sent his angel to show his servants what must soon take place.”
Rev 22:7 “And behold, I am coming soon. Blessed is the one who keeps the words of the prophecy of this book.”
...
Rev 22:9 but he said to me, “You must not do that! I am a fellow servant with you and your brothers the prophets, and with those who keep the words of this book. Worship God.”
Rev 22:10 And he said to me, “Do not seal up the words of the prophecy of this book, for the time is near.

So, it is easy to see that what is meant by "the word of God" in all these passages is not at all what John was speaking of in John 1:1-18. Here it means either the spoken words given in his revelation, which he writes down, or the gospel in general. More importantly is a passage I've previously provided and you left unaddressed, just as you didn't post it here:

Rev 19:11 Then I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse! The one sitting on it is called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he judges and makes war.
Rev 19:12 His eyes are like a flame of fire, and on his head are many diadems, and he has a name written that no one knows but himself.
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.

(All ESV.)

The last passage is clearly speaking of Jesus, whose name is The Word of God, which is exactly what John is telling us in the prologue to his gospel. That is not at all what all the previous passages in Revelation are referring to.


You are confusing function and nature. As I have stated numerous times, "difference in function does not indicate inferiority of nature" (James R. White). Jesus was God's servant, just read Phil 2:5-8 or Isa 53, but in no way does that preclude him from also being God.

The logos is an it and Jesus and the logos aren't the same throughout scripture. I am going with what the Bible says. John didn't believe Jesus is God one moment then an it the next moment. John never even prayed to Jesus in Acts 4. No one prayed to Jesus in the entire Bible. Never is the word "prayer" used in talking to Jesus. Jesus was never worshipped as God. Jesus never said he's God and he even denied it.

 

[Randy]

God.

God, and multiple other names.

I can't agree.
If Jesus was always a "son", then God would have had to create Him.
The Word was not created, but Jesus was born of a woman.

It was reasoned at Nicene to deaf ears if Jesus was begotten of the Father, then He has a beginning.
A born Son of the Father even if He was the firstborn of all creation as in before all things. The firstborn of God. The Firstborn and you will read, "The church of the Firstborn in Hebrews", which would be a beginning at some point in history before the world began. We also do read in Him the fullness was pleased to dwell. All the fullness of God from the will of another. The Father in the Son and the Son in the Father. "Oneness" As in one God and one Lord in a distinction made. From whom all things came vs through whom all things came as another distinction made.

And stating one from another as in a Son of another without a starting point to establish "from" does seem like an impossibility in any meaning of the word from or only begotten Son of "another". Such a foundation is a "mystery".

You disagree from another point not that He had a beginning but He wasn't a Son of the Father in the beginning. The word wasn't identified as the Father and the Father wasn't identified as the Word so how are they one God in your thinking? As is reasoned by Free then the one known as the Father wouldn't be known as that either. What are you naming Him in that beginning?
The Church states true God from true God eternally begotten of the Father. Begotten without a beginning. The only begotten unbegotten Son. Isn't that reasonable to all? Come on, get with the program.

Jesus didn't seem to get confused on who He was as in He is the very same person not something newly recreated. That "He" came down from heaven. Though the church states He had a rational soul and a human body. So, soul and body were made human in Mary's womb. One may then ask what part of Him was God if body and soul were human and also ask what part of Him actually came down from heaven? One might reason the Son who was, His Spirit, was in that body not that He had a human soul but the soul of the Firstborn in that body with the Deity of the Father dwelling in Him. But again, that would suggest a beginning and God forbid we can't have that can we? The Church states all of Him was God and all of Him was human. But that wasn't really explained as just stated so. Again, another Mystery.

"Father into your hands I commit My spirit."

A foundation of Mystery.

Your line of thought, "He could not exist as Son because for them ‘the Son had a beginning, namely, at the Incarnation, thus ‘the term Son always has reference to the Incarnation, to the humanity in which God dwelt and revealed Himself’" while not unique to you is a deviation from orthodoxy. May God have mercy on your soul. (smile)

 

[Randy]

Keep reading past Micah 5:2 to get more of the context. The person being talked about isn't God. He's God's servant, and his God is YHWH Himself, a.k.a. the Father. That means he isn't God.

Micah 5
4He will stand and shepherd His flock
in the strength of the LORD,
in the majestic name of the LORD His God.
And they will dwell securely,
for then His greatness will extend
to the ends of the earth.

People are born without sin so it isn't an indicator of being God. On the point of being susceptible to temptation it plainly means Jesus isn't God.


Yes and the commandments are required Jesus explicitly said so himself. Again, look at Commandments 1 & 2 as these are vitally important for you. Idolatry, i.e., worshipping a human being as God, is a grievous sin.

Matthew 19
16Just then a man came up to Jesus and inquired, “Teacher, what good thing must I do to obtain eternal life?”
17“Why do you ask Me about what is good?” Jesus replied. “There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, keep the commandments.”


According to Got Questions, God meets all of the requirements for being a person, i.e., God isn't an it.


None of those statements require Jesus pre-existing to say them though.

I know the comings and goings of Gods anointed ruler were before the world began which would be the very distant past. I believe as with many others and indeed the orthodoxy of the Christain churches Jesus was the Word who became flesh who was stated with the Father in the beginning. Through Him and by Him God brought all things into existence and in Him dwells all the fullness of the Fathers Deity. The imprint of Gods very being. As one from above who came down from heaven and testified to what He saw and heard. The one who is above all except His Father. It doesn't matter how many scriptures I post that allude to or directly state so you explain away or deny. Again, I have to wonder if God were your Father how can you not hear those testimonies about His Son in the beginning?

It seems we always will disagree. What did you think would follow in your joining a Christain forum and posting "biblical unitarian doctrines" with a stated intent of outreach? Certainly not unity but discord. You enjoy sowing discord?

 

[Runningman]

I know the comings and goings of Gods anointed ruler were before the world began which would be the very distant past.

Please quote me something he said or did in the Old Testament.

I believe as with many others and indeed the orthodoxy of the Christain churches Jesus was the Word who became flesh who was stated with the Father in the beginning.

Please give me an example of what you believe a Christian church is.

Through Him and by Him God brought all things into existence and in Him dwells all the fullness of the Fathers Deity.

Just refers to the context of the church. There are too many examples of Jesus not being the creator or God not speaking through the Son for that to be literal. Yes, it's true that the writers in the Bible did exaggerate sometimes because they are speaking about a context. The furthest thing from their mind is that somehow people would completely misunderstand a human being as God. It goes without saying that a human like Jesus isn't God and doesn't require an explanation.

The imprint of Gods very being. As one from above who came down from heaven and testified to what He saw and heard. The one who is above all except His Father. It doesn't matter how many scriptures I post that allude to or directly state so you explain away or deny. Again, I have to wonder if God were your Father how can you not hear those testimonies about His Son in the beginning?

Please pay particularly close attention to what the passage below says. The "Son of Man" refers to Jesus being a human. This is how the language of son of man is used throughout the Bible; it's in regards to being a human. Jesus didn't literally exist in heaven as a human being.

See the comparison being made between Jesus and what Moses did. God told Moses to create an image of a snake and put it on a pole. If someone got bitten by a snake and looked at this snake image, they would get better and live. This story was a hint about Jesus sacrificing himself in the future. Jesus wasn't literally crucified by Romans in heaven before the world existed. Jesus is referring to what God had planned for him.

John 3
13No one has ascended into heaven except the One who descended from heaven—the Son of Man. 14Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the wilderness, so the Son of Man must be lifted up, 15that everyone who believes in Him may have eternal life.

It seems we always will disagree. What did you think would follow in your joining a Christain forum and posting "biblical unitarian doctrines" with a stated intent of outreach? Certainly not unity but discord. You enjoy sowing discord?

There are others who agree with me and I with them. I came here to fellowship with Christians and discuss the Bible. What did you come here for?