John 1:1 - Jesus is the Father or he's not the one true God?

[Behold]

There is a context of, "with God, all things are possible." Otherwise someone might think God can make one the same as three.

Mark 14:36,

And he said, Abba, Father, all things [are] possible unto thee; take away this cup from me: nevertheless not what I will, but what thou wilt.​

Despite Jesus' plea to God, apparently it was not possible for God to redeem mankind without sacrificing His only son. So there are things God can't do. He can't lie either. Better reconsider what all things being possible actually means. Like I said, context is key.

Yes, Jesus was the lamb but is now a lion. That doesn't mean he has to be God. The only reason he can take vengeance is because God granted him that power. I'm pretty sure I asked you how one part of God can grant another part anything, let alone the power to judge. According to the trinity doctrine all "person" are equal." Well, apparently, before God granted Jesus the power to judge, some part of God had more than what another part had. So either we change the trinity doctrine to say not all parts are equal, or we ditch the trinity altogether.

Jesus, fully God, was a man, And a man feels pain, and that Cross was going to be AGONY.
It took hours of bleeding, shock, and strangling to try to keep breathing by pushing against those spikes in His Feet, up and down, to catch a breath, before He finally died for all our sins.
So, on one hand, You have Deity in this situation, but you have also the Man, the Human, who is sweating blood, knowing what's coming, and he was wrestling with his humanity and his own will.

Can "God" have 2 Will's? Sure, One is "thy will be done" and one is "let this cup pass".
Deity and Humanity, found in "the Passion".

Jesus said to you....>"you are from below, and i am from ABOVE"... I am the "Bread come down from HEAVEN".

This is......."Let us make MAN... in OUR image"...

This is the pre-incarnate Word who is God, made Flesh fit for the Cross.

 

[Rich R]

No worries, as once you decided to post:

""""""""In the Greek, 1 Tim 3:16 actually says "which was manifested in the flesh..." The "which" refers to "the mystery of godliness." Not the same thing as God Himself """"""

= RichR, right at that moment You ended any option that can be drawn regarding you that would suggest that you are not a "Pretend" bible corrector who actually does not read K.Greek, but uses other Greek translators to correct the Holy Bible.

Its what you did, and we know you by your deeds (Fruit).

See it?

So, did you want to try to sell us more " K greek" that you can't read to try to prove what isn't true?
Or can you move along now?

Funny that you responded to my saying this is not about me by your continuing to talk about me.

Have you done any research on 1 Tim 3:16? I didn't make up what I said about it. Virtually all scholars, including trinitarain, know that this verse was changed by English translators to promote the trinity. Here's something by Bruce metzger, a well known and respected Greek scholar. By the way, Bruce is Trinitarian.

"The reading which, on the basis of external evidence and transcriptional probability, best explains the rise of the others is [“who,” “which”]. It is supported by the earliest and best uncials (* A*vid C* Ggr) as well as by 33 365 442 2127 syrhmg, pal goth ethppOrigenlat Epiphanius Jerome Theodore Eutheriusacc. to Theodoret Cyril Cyrilacc. to Ps-Oecumenius Liberatus. Furthermore, since the neuter relative pronoun must have arisen as a scribal correction of (to bring the relative into concord with [mystery]), the witnesses that read (D* itd, g, 61. 86 vg Ambrosiaster Marius Victorinus Hilary Pelagius Augustine) also indirectly presuppose as the earlier reading. The Textus Receptus reads [God], with e (this corrector is of the twelfth century) A2 C2 Dc K L P 81 330 614 1739 Byz Lect Gregory-Nyssa Didymus Chrysostom Theodoret Euthalius and later Fathers. Thus, no uncial (in the first hand) earlier than the eighth or ninth century supports [God]; all ancient versions presuppose or and no patristic writer prior to the last third of the fourth century testifies to the reading . The reading arose either (a) accidentally, through the misreading of C as C, or (b) deliberately, either to supply a substantive for the following six verbs, or, with less probability, to provide greater dogmatic precision.” [in other words, to more directly support the doctrine of the Trinity]. (Bruce Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament)."
​

But the real question is, which translation, "God," "which, or "who" agrees with the clear declarations by both Jesus and Paul that only the Father is the true God? We don't want contradictions in the Bible. As a former Trinitarian myself, I know full well Jesus is not the Father.

Speaking of John 17:3 and 1 Cor 18:6, I can't help but notice you haven't said anything about them.

 

[Rich R]

Jesus, fully God, was a man, And a man feels pain, and that Cross was going to be AGONY.
It took hours of bleeding, shock, and strangling to try to keep breathing by pushing against those spikes in His Feet, up and down, to catch a breath, before He finally died for all our sins.
So, on one hand, You have Deity in this situation, but you have also the Man, the Human, who is sweating blood, knowing what's coming, and he was wrestling with his humanity and his own will.

Can "God" have 2 Will's? Sure, One is "thy will be done" and one is "let this cup pass".
Deity and Humanity, found in "the Passion".

Jesus said to you....>"you are from below, and i am from ABOVE"... I am the "Bread come down from HEAVEN".

This is......."Let us make MAN... in OUR image"...

This is the pre-incarnate Word who is God, made Flesh fit for the Cross.

Was the manna "from heaven" also God? John 6:31 says it too came down from heaven.

What is wrong with "our image" referring to the spiritual beings that exist with God? When we see it that way we don't have to explain how Jesus can be God when the scriptures say only the Father is God.

Interesting explanation on how one person can have two diametrically opposed wills. Normally that would indicate a split personality.

 

[Rich R]

No worries, as once you decided to post:

""""""""In the Greek, 1 Tim 3:16 actually says "which was manifested in the flesh..." The "which" refers to "the mystery of godliness." Not the same thing as God Himself """"""

= RichR, right at that moment You ended any option that can be drawn regarding you that would suggest that you are not a "Pretend" bible corrector who actually does not read K.Greek, but uses other Greek translators to correct the Holy Bible.

Its what you did, and we know you by your deeds (Fruit).

See it?

So, did you want to try to sell us more " K greek" that you can't read to try to prove what isn't true?
Or can you move along now?

You know nothing about my deeds or my fruit. Why do you act as though you do? You are a false accuser of the brethren. You should repent. That's all I say on that.

 

[Jack]

I just gave you a post as my reply and you have deliberately decided to act childish and in ignorance. I can see why you might be stunned because you do not know who is the one true God at all, right Jack? No more useful words then to contribute?

If God isn't your Savior you don't have a Savior.
Hosea 13
4 You shall know no God but Me; For there is no Savior besides Me.

 

[Wrangler]

I'm pretty sure I asked you how one part of God can grant another part anything, let alone the power to judge.

I look forward to his erudite reply.

 

[tigger 2]

If God isn't your Savior you don't have a Savior.
Hosea 13
4 You shall know no God but Me; For there is no Savior besides Me.

......................................................

is “saviour” (yasha in Hebrew [Strong‘s # 3467], soter in NT Greek [Strong‘s # 4990]) really an exclusive title for Jehovah, or can it properly be applied to other individuals?

If Jehovah is insisting that no one but himself is ever to be called “saviour,” then He and His inspired Bible writers would never call anyone else by that exclusive title.

So, when we read that Othniel (Judges 3:9) and Ehud (Judges 3:15) are both called “saviour” (same Hebrew word translated “saviour” at Is. 43:11 is translated “deliverer” in KJV - compare ASV), should we really believe they are both Jehovah because “besides [Jehovah] there is no saviour”? If so, we have a new “trinity”: The Father, Ehud, and Othniel!!

“Mystery” religionists and “plural-oneness God” devotees should be interested in Obadiah 21 also. There they can “prove” that all those saviours are Jehovah. Furthermore, they might “prove” that those saviours are Christians who, therefore, will all be Jehovah! For example, if Jehovah alone is saviour, and Jesus is saviour because he saves (Greek: sosei - Matt. 1:21 and soso - John 12:47) men, then Jesus “must” be God. By this same reasoning, since some followers of Jesus also save (Greek: sosei - James 5:20; 1 Tim. 4:16 and soso - 1 Cor. 9:22) men, then they (the saviours of Obadiah 21?) too, must be God!

(This is very similar to the “Forgiveness” silliness that is sometimes used to “prove” the trinity. - “Only God can forgive (aphiemi) sins,” say certain trinitarians, “and Jesus forgave sin, Mark 2:7. Therefore, Jesus must be God!” So, John 20:20-23 “proves” that the disciples also must be God, right?

Also compare "you [God] alone are holy [Gr. hosios: 'loyal' in some translations] - Rev. 15:4, ASV - with the many uses of "holy" (hosios) for other persons and things - esp. Titus 1:8, ASV, (hosios).)

We realize that Jehovah, as the only Almighty and Most High God, is the ultimate Saviour and the only origin of salvation, and, in that sense, and by comparison, there are no others.

However, it is obvious that other individuals can be, and are, saviours in a subordinate sense, if Jehovah so wills it. That means, then, that Jehovah is the only ultimate saviour (or the only ultimate source of salvation), and, in the cases of Ehud and Othniel, for example, Jehovah was saviour through them.

So when we see statements like: “…. Jesus is the savior (gospel), it says that there is no savior other than Jehovah which ties in with Peter saying in Acts 4:10-12 that there is no savior [under heaven] but Jesus”, we know what is intended:

There have been many saviors or deliverers (yasha – Hebrew, and soter – NT Greek) found in scripture who saved others through appointment by or commandment of God. But there is only one most high source of salvation (or only one savior or deliverer [yasha / soter] in the highest sense of the word) – Jehovah, the Father.

 

[Wrangler]

is “saviour” (yasha in Hebrew [Strong‘s # 3467], soter in NT Greek [Strong‘s # 4990]) really an exclusive title for Jehovah, or can it properly be applied to other individuals?

It's just another application of the concept and principle of Agency. All prophets speak God's words. We also have the capacity to speak God's divine words. Just because we repeat these words, it does not make us God.

Given that God is the source of all things, it stand to reason that he is THE ULTIMATE EVERYTHING. He also revealed his method of sending Agents on his behalf. Let me elaborate with a personal story.

Years ago I received what I later learned was Prevenient Grace. The Holy Spirit twice came to me with a message to tell my doctor to delay his trip to Haiti. It was my supreme honor to receive this message and my high honor to OBEY. Confirmation of this Supernatural message came in the form of the doctor receiving ANOTHER unsolicited warning.

I cannot explain why I was chosen to deliver this message. A divine test of my willingness to submit and obey, perhaps? In any event, I do not claim to be the originator of this message. I was merely a conduit, an agent. It doesn't make me God.

 

[Jack]

......................................................

is “saviour” (yasha in Hebrew [Strong‘s # 3467], soter in NT Greek [Strong‘s # 4990]) really an exclusive title for Jehovah, or can it properly be applied to other individuals?

If Jehovah is insisting that no one but himself is ever to be called “saviour,” then He and His inspired Bible writers would never call anyone else by that exclusive title.

So, when we read that Othniel (Judges 3:9) and Ehud (Judges 3:15) are both called “saviour” (same Hebrew word translated “saviour” at Is. 43:11 is translated “deliverer” in KJV - compare ASV), should we really believe they are both Jehovah because “besides [Jehovah] there is no saviour”? If so, we have a new “trinity”: The Father, Ehud, and Othniel!!

“Mystery” religionists and “plural-oneness God” devotees should be interested in Obadiah 21 also. There they can “prove” that all those saviours are Jehovah. Furthermore, they might “prove” that those saviours are Christians who, therefore, will all be Jehovah! For example, if Jehovah alone is saviour, and Jesus is saviour because he saves (Greek: sosei - Matt. 1:21 and soso - John 12:47) men, then Jesus “must” be God. By this same reasoning, since some followers of Jesus also save (Greek: sosei - James 5:20; 1 Tim. 4:16 and soso - 1 Cor. 9:22) men, then they (the saviours of Obadiah 21?) too, must be God!

(This is very similar to the “Forgiveness” silliness that is sometimes used to “prove” the trinity. - “Only God can forgive (aphiemi) sins,” say certain trinitarians, “and Jesus forgave sin, Mark 2:7. Therefore, Jesus must be God!” So, John 20:20-23 “proves” that the disciples also must be God, right?

Also compare "you [God] alone are holy [Gr. hosios: 'loyal' in some translations] - Rev. 15:4, ASV - with the many uses of "holy" (hosios) for other persons and things - esp. Titus 1:8, ASV, (hosios).)

We realize that Jehovah, as the only Almighty and Most High God, is the ultimate Saviour and the only origin of salvation, and, in that sense, and by comparison, there are no others.

However, it is obvious that other individuals can be, and are, saviours in a subordinate sense, if Jehovah so wills it. That means, then, that Jehovah is the only ultimate saviour (or the only ultimate source of salvation), and, in the cases of Ehud and Othniel, for example, Jehovah was saviour through them.

So when we see statements like: “…. Jesus is the savior (gospel), it says that there is no savior other than Jehovah which ties in with Peter saying in Acts 4:10-12 that there is no savior [under heaven] but Jesus”, we know what is intended:

There have been many saviors or deliverers (yasha – Hebrew, and soter – NT Greek) found in scripture who saved others through appointment by or commandment of God. But there is only one most high source of salvation (or only one savior or deliverer [yasha / soter] in the highest sense of the word) – Jehovah, the Father.

If God isn't your Savior you're heading for Hell fire.

Isaiah 43
11 I, even I, am the LORD, And besides Me there is no savior.

Jesus is God!

 

[Wrangler]

If God isn't your Savior you're heading for Hell fire.

Isaiah 43
11 I, even I, am the LORD, And besides Me there is no savior.

Jesus is God!

Not once does the Bible say Jesus is God or the LORD. Not once.

No question, IS 43:1 is referring to YHWH, not Jesus. So, not sure why you keep referencing it.

 

[Jack]

Not once does the Bible say Jesus is God or the LORD. Not once.

You should have read the NT.

Jude 1
25 To God our Savior, Who alone is wise, Be glory and majesty, Dominion and power, Both now and forever. Amen.

I'm sorry that you have no Savior, but you're not in Hell yet.

 

[APAK]

@Jack

Jude opens with the identification of God, who is the Father of his Son and our lord Jesus the Christ, our master, and ends in the same way in verse 25. It should be obvious to you.

(Jud 1:1) Jude, a servant of Jesus Christ and brother of James, to those that are called; beloved in God the Father, and kept for Jesus Christ.(NEV)

(Jud 1:25) to the only God, our Saviour through Jesus Christ our Lord, be glory, majesty, dominion and power, before all time, and now and for always in the future. Amen. (NEV)

The one God, our Father is the true Savior THROUGH his Son, Jesus Christ our lord.

I noticed you used a corrupted version of verse 25, as in a KJV, and of several others, used in about 40 percent of all translations. Yahshua the Christ must be included with his Father when speaking of our salvation and savior, as the Son was used by his Father to perform or execute the 'legal' and justified sacrifice for our salvation.

You might want to take notice or note of this important and critical point.

------------------------------------------------------------

 

[Jack]

@Jack

Jude opens with the identification of God, who is the Father of his Son and our lord Jesus the Christ, our master, and ends in the same way in verse 25. It should be obvious to you.

(Jud 1:1) Jude, a servant of Jesus Christ and brother of James, to those that are called; beloved in God the Father, and kept for Jesus Christ.(NEV)

(Jud 1:25) to the only God, our Saviour through Jesus Christ our Lord, be glory, majesty, dominion and power, before all time, and now and for always in the future. Amen. (NEV)

The one God, our Father is the true Savior THROUGH his Son, Jesus Christ our lord.

I noticed you used a corrupted version of verse 25, as in a KJV, and of several others, used in about 40 percent of all translations. Yahshua the Christ must be included with his Father when speaking of our salvation and savior, as the Son was used by his Father to perform or execute the 'legal' and justified sacrifice for our salvation.

You might want to take notice or note of this important and critical point.

------------------------------------------------------------

If God isn't your Savior you're heading for Hell fire.

 

[Rich R]

I look forward to his erudite reply.

Erudite? I'm thinking it'll be anything but. It'll probably be John 1:1. Just change the word "logos" into "Jesus" and the subject is settled. It just shows the power of tradition to make the word of God of none effect.

 

[Behold]

Funny that you responded to my saying this is not about me by your continuing to talk about me.

Have you done any research on 1 Tim 3:16? I didn't make up what I said about it. Virtually all scholars, including trinitarain, know that this verse was changed by English translators to promote the trinity.

Still correcting the bible with "scholarship" and other such?

RichR....Do you know who first "corrected" God's word?
its was Satan, formally Lucifer. It was in the Garden, and He questioned God's word...."Hath God said"?
And today his owned are still trying to change, question, and cast doubt on the Bible, which is a work of the Devil, by correcting it with "originals" that dont exist or by "scholarship" that sits on a Pride filled Throne looking down their nose upon God's word as they correct it according to what they want it to say., and usually they correct it with "in the original greek" which does not exist.
So, the next time you read or hear someone say....>"a better rendering is found in the Original GREEK", then realize you are listening to a LIAR.
And yet, people follow these liars, and actually try to use their lies to correct the word of God.
Don't you just hate that, RichR?
If not, you should.

And also....about that....>"they all agree"...... stuff.
Its quite obvious that when a group (cult) believes something, they will all believe it, which is why they are in that particular group.
So, what isn't honest is to say that "ALL Scholarship" believes that some verses were altered by Translators, just to cherry pick the one you want.

Here is way to understand the Trinity.

Genesis says.. 'Let US create man, in OUR image".. So, >Us and OUR<, can't be singular, no matter what devil led scholarship tells you otherwise.

So, when you read where Jesus said....>"when you've seen me, you've seen the Father", and "I and the Father are one", and "I am from above and you are from below", and that Jesus said ""HE is (I am) the living bread who came down from Heaven".. its a good idea to believe it, as the Bible does not lie.

= Jesus stated 2x that He and Father are the same.....and then He stated 2x that He came DOWN from Heaven.

Now, we know that Jesus became a man, on earth, with a body, Virgin born, but before He "came down", He said He was "UP there".
So, that was not Jesus in a Body.. UP THERE.. which tells us that Jesus up there, as WHO and WHAT exactly?
He had no body until he was Virgin born on earth, so UP THERE, where He said He came from, ... what was He? and WHO was He?
In General most "scholarship" does not know, so just ignore all that is the best idea, generally speaking.

This is where John 1 comes into play, as it says that Jesus was the WORD..Who was God..

Our"daily bread" is the Scriptures, and Jesus said that He is the "Living Bread". "The WORD made Flesh".
So, where was He located UP THERE?.. .as the WORD, pre-incarnate?
He was IN God.
How do you know?
Well, God is "A" Spirit.......and this is the Holy Spirit.
= Now, when you read Romans 8:9, you'll notice that is says that the Spirit of God and the Spirit of Christ are the SAME SPIRIT. = The Holy Spirit
So, its impossible for the same SPIRIT, to not be the same......= God.
Then you look at 2 Corinthians 3:17, and there it is again... "Jesus the Lord is that SPIRIT". = Holy Spirit.
And what Spirit does God have, who is "A" Spirit? John 4:24...... He is the Holy Spirit.
So, now you have multiple verses that say that Christ was in Heaven, and came down, and is the same Holy Spirit as God..
2 are 1.
And the Holy Spirit is 3.

Thats 3 in One. = Trinity.

Here is one more for you RichR.

In John 20:22, Jesus Gave the 11 Apostles the Holy Spirit, ..Jesus GAVE MEN the HOLY Spirit.
And RichR, and other readers... only GOD can do that......exactly as Adam received it from God in Genesis 2:7

There is GOD as the GOD man JESUS, doing what GOD the Father did..... = Giving the Holy Spirit.
Only GOD can do that, and THEY BOTH(2) did.

So, let no deceiver, and no deceiving Scholarship keep you from the truth, as they will if they can., as that is what "doctrines of Devils" is all about.
Hebrews 13:9

 

[Wrangler]

@Jack

Jude opens with the identification of God, who is the Father of his Son and our lord Jesus the Christ, our master, and ends in the same way in verse 25. It should be obvious to you.

(Jud 1:1) Jude, a servant of Jesus Christ and brother of James, to those that are called; beloved in God the Father, and kept for Jesus Christ.(NEV)

(Jud 1:25) to the only God, our Saviour through Jesus Christ our Lord, be glory, majesty, dominion and power, before all time, and now and for always in the future. Amen. (NEV)

The one God, our Father is the true Savior THROUGH his Son, Jesus Christ our lord.

I noticed you used a corrupted version of verse 25, as in a KJV, and of several others, used in about 40 percent of all translations. Yahshua the Christ must be included with his Father when speaking of our salvation and savior, as the Son was used by his Father to perform or execute the 'legal' and justified sacrifice for our salvation.

You might want to take notice or note of this important and critical point.

------------------------------------------------------------

I eagerly await another erudite reply.

 

[APAK]

I eagerly await another erudite reply.

Right, dream on, as @Rich R already said. Jack will move names and relationships around in a verse or two and call it good. And he will keep judging others in sheer ignorance and who are not of his cloth with direct edicts of fire and brimstone and hellfire.

Trinitarians will always struggle with scripture because they, as you have said many times, try to superimpose their Triune god doctrine into scripture and then onto others, especially Unitarians. And it never truly works because the verses they choose as a 'study' do not jive or harmonize with others when a rigorous comparison and test is made. And don't even bring up contextual study in verses. That concept is really alien for them. It is much easier for them just to verse pick at will.

I think @Jack falls nicely into the same school of non-thought as @Kermos and @theefaith. And Jack might have been set back a class or two because all I hear from him lately are canned marquee-type message posts or responses, like no one is home, or is out to lunch.

 

[theefaith]

How can this be?

John 1:18
No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in thebosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

Why is the verse saying “God the father”?

If only the father is God why give such a description?

why not just God?
Or just the father?

 

[Wrangler]

Right, dream on, as @Rich R already said.

I do dream on. It makes life so much more fun.

 

[theefaith]

Right, dream on, as @Rich R already said. Jack will move names and relationships around in a verse or two and call it good. And he will keep judging others in sheer ignorance and who are not of his cloth with direct edicts of fire and brimstone and hellfire.

Trinitarians will always struggle with scripture because they, as you have said many times, try to superimpose their Triune god doctrine into scripture and then onto others, especially Unitarians. And it never truly works because the verses they choose as a 'study' do not jive or harmonize with others when a rigorous comparison and test is made. And don't even bring up contextual study in verses. That concept is really alien for them. It is much easier for them just to verse pick at will.

I think @Jack falls nicely into the same school of non-thought as @Kermos and @theefaith. And Jack might have been set back a class or two because all I hear from him lately are canned marquee-type message posts or responses, like no one is home, or is out to lunch.

why are you supposedly a new covenant Christian stuck in mosaic covenant faith and practices?
Old creation faith and practices when Christ established the new covenant faith and practices new creation!