Jesus never said he was God Almighty

[101G]

Phoneman777:

(Isa 9:6) For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder, and his name shall be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.(ESV)

Point 1. Jesus is never called the “Everlasting Father” anywhere else in Scripture.

Point 2. The actual translation to the Greek was the word ‘eon’ and should have been translated ‘age’ or ‘the ages to come’ or ‘the world to come.’ There was never any word that translated to ‘everlasting’ or ‘without end.’ It is a serious mistranslation. Fortunately, half of the English Bible versions have corrected it.

Point 3. So, Jesus would be called father of the coming age.

And father is appropriate as it means specifically that he will be the first of the new believers of God. He actually fathered it and was the originator of the new people of God as new believers of the new Kingdom.

Point 4. We should also note that Jesus will be giving back the Kingdom to his father after the last age is completer per scripture.

See nothing to get worked up about.

It’s all good, there is no Jesus equating to God here.

Bless you,

APAK

in conjunction to all that you have said, I would like to ask you one simple question from scripture.
Revelation 1:1 "The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John".

one question, "Who sent (HIS) angel to John?".

was it the one whom you call the Father?
or is it the one whom you call the Son.

but before you answer the question. read Revelation 22:6 first. the angel there tells us exactly who sent him. I'll be looking for your answer.

PCY.

 

[Naomi25]

1/2+

Naomi:

The point I made or was making last time is a little different from your take away. Eventhough the expression “I AM” has variations for reasons noted, and therefore can be ambiguous in its PRECISE English reading, like many in scripture, the MEANING is NEVER ambiguous to most people if no additional new meanings are deliberately attached to it. In modern language it can readily understood as ‘it is me’ or ‘it is really me (and no one else).’ The meaning of which has NO relationship to DIVINTY or God or Jesus as the expression. Any meaning that is really another secondary meaning as the prevalent thought is deliberately installed for a specific agenda and is false. That is my next point.

I may still be misunderstanding you here...but...

What does today's usage of "I AM" have to do with the proposed divinity behind the claim?


When the Lord saw that he turned aside to see, God called to him out of the bush, “Moses, Moses!” And he said, “Here I am.” 5 Then he said, “Do not come near; take your sandals off your feet, for the place on which you are standing is holy ground.” 6 And he said, “I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.” And Moses hid his face, for he was afraid to look at God.- Ex 3:4-6


We can see here that both Moses and God use 'I am' in the usual way...as you or I would in referring to ourselves in everyday conversation. And yet, just seconds later God says this:


Then Moses said to God, “If I come to the people of Israel and say to them, ‘The God of your fathers has sent me to you,’ and they ask me, ‘What is his name?’ what shall I say to them?” 14 God said to Moses, “I am who I am.” " And he said, “Say this to the people of Israel: ‘I am has sent me to you.’” - Ex 3:13-14


Clearly the usage here is different. He is using it as a name, as a description of who he is to his people.


Here is a quote from C. Kingsely:

"If I say "I am," I say what is not true of me. I must say "I am something — I am a man, I am bad, or I am good, or I am an Englishman, I am a soldier, I am a sailor, I am a clergyman." — and then I shall say what is true of me. But God alone can say "I AM" without saying anything more. And why? Because God alone is. Everybody and everything else in the world becomes: but God is."


It is with this understanding that the Jews looked to that phrase. It was not merely an affectation of language that anyone might use in conversation, because no one else could claim to just...be. This is why when Jesus claimed to be "I AM"...with nothing after that statement, the Jews picked up rocks to hurl at him. They would not have done so if he had just put up his hand and gone, "hi guys, I'm me, I'm here, what's up?". No...their was weight in what he said. Divine weight.

But...even if it didn't, and his usage was normal...can you then explain why what he said caused those gathered to nearly pop a socket? You need to do some explaining if what you claim is true...that what he said had no particular meaning. Because clearly everyone there thought he had said something of magnitude....

 

[Naomi25]

1/2+

Now let me try and respond to your second paragraph.

I don’t not agree with your premise at all that ties the 1st commandment to not only God but also Jesus. Is this a new commandment I’m not aware of? The telling part is when you said “if Jesus was not also God..” I believe Jesus the Christ was not God Almighty, ever.

If it were true, I would agree with everything you said and even go further like many people do that believe this premise.

I would change nearly every word or at least footnote the entire Bible and say where ever you read God, Lord, YHWH etc. it also means Jesus, Yeshua etc. I’ve already read posts on this site that suggest some have bought into this incredible idea.

Yes, I believe that scripture, especially in the NT is riddled with the performance of all those acts you mentioned in the name of Jesus, or by using his mind or spirit in us, except for a few.

We are to only worship God Almighty as the 1st commandment states. We are to show respect, reverence as the son of God deserves as God’s only begotten son. We do not glorify Jesus, we glorify God Almighty, his and our Father.

Now in my mind, we are making an idol of Jesus when we equate Jesus with his Father.

I see a major roadblock here Naomi. Every time you mention God you apparently see Jesus as the same being, most probably in your mind and in your reading of scripture. That is the unfortunate impasse. We cannot agree on who the person Jesus and God, his and our Father.

I reckon you also believe that Jesus created the world as it is not written in Genesis. It is only possible if you imagine that Jesus is written in Genesis 1:1 rather that God. Words and symbols do have specific meanings.

You know I went to school at a RCC Convent school. You would have thought the nuns would have taught the trinity. I never knew of it. I remember one morning I was called out when the class was in session. I was talking in class. The nun instructor raised her tone, slapped down her cane on her front desk and called me out. She said what does Genesis 1:1 say! I correctly said that God made the heavens and the earth. I read it that God Almighty was the creator and not Jesus Christ. I had no reason to believe otherwise. Even when I decided to leave the RCC religion, I always believed in God as separate from Jesus, while Jesus was on earth and in heaven. I cannot imagine seeing God Almighty in heaven, although I can Jesus, as the son, the image of God and our Lord and savior. By the way, Lord here does not mean God Almighty. It means a title of high reverence and a respect as given to an earthy King by a peasant or a servant.

Naomi, continue on.....change thee approach..do whatever...let me know..it's all good

Bless you,



APAK

Ok...a lot of points in that one. I probably won't get to cover them all, and will try and just sum...

Very briefly about my 1st commandment point: the 1st commandment is: "You shall have no gods before me". This fits with God being a jealous God, and my point in saying that he claims to be One. So...my point was, if Jesus is NOT part of the Trinity, part of this same, One God, then The Father, in essence, has broken his own rule all throughout the NT when he asks people to put their faith and love in Jesus. And you cannot possible believe that loving and having such faith in Jesus does not equal worship, because it just does. You cannot have one without the other. So...if we are to worship Christ, and The Father sent Christ, either Christ must be God, or else The Father has broken the 1st commandment and is now no longer jealous for his peoples worship. We know that God does not change, and does not break his own rules: thus rational logic, if nothing else, leads us to the conclusion that Jesus is more than you would claim. He is God. He is part of the Trinity, three persons, One God.

And....I am wondering at this point if you truly understand the teaching of the Trinity. God and Jesus are not "the same being". They belong to the same Godhead, but are separate personalities within that Godhead. As is the Spirit. They function separately (although in perfect unity and harmony). That's why in scripture we see God the Father blessing God the Son as he was baptized and God the holy Spirit coming down to anoint him....the three together. That's why Jesus says that those who see him, have also seen the Father...and yet, no one can see the Father in these sinful bodies and yet still live! It is something that we can only touch on the edge of understanding, and I don't think that is a roadblock to our beliveing of it: God is supposed to be beyond our comprehension. I would not want a God I could fully understand...would you?

As far as Jesus being "in the beginning"...again, it clearly depends on how you read your bible. You've already indicated you find what it says less than believable in this aspect, but I ask you...in light of everything else, is this not one more thing that weighs in our advantage?

"In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters. And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. And God saw that the light was good. And God separated the light from the darkness. God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day." - Gen 1:1-5

Here is the creation account. No mention of Jesus...by name. But we see God speaking. And from his very word, things come into being. We might not think any more of that, except:


"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life, "and the life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it...
And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son "from the Father, full of grace and truth." - John 1:1-2,14

Now...I know you have already dismissed this passage, but you cannot so easily. This passage has not been propped up by lies by Church Fathers trying to cover their doctrinal mistakes. No, it is most clear. John...he who was closest to Christ...he "whom Jesus loved", tells us that Jesus 'was' in the beginning. That he was with God, and was God. That is a peculiar way to say that God 'had a son' later on, don't you think? Unless Jesus is, in fact, God...a member of the Trinity, who was present at the creation of the world and in his function as "Word of God" had a hand in making what we see, just as John tells us.

 

[APAK]

I may still be misunderstanding you here...but...

What does today's usage of "I AM" have to do with the proposed divinity behind the claim?


When the Lord saw that he turned aside to see, God called to him out of the bush, “Moses, Moses!” And he said, “Here I am.” 5 Then he said, “Do not come near; take your sandals off your feet, for the place on which you are standing is holy ground.” 6 And he said, “I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.” And Moses hid his face, for he was afraid to look at God.- Ex 3:4-6


We can see here that both Moses and God use 'I am' in the usual way...as you or I would in referring to ourselves in everyday conversation. And yet, just seconds later God says this:


Then Moses said to God, “If I come to the people of Israel and say to them, ‘The God of your fathers has sent me to you,’ and they ask me, ‘What is his name?’ what shall I say to them?” 14 God said to Moses, “I am who I am.” " And he said, “Say this to the people of Israel: ‘I am has sent me to you.’” - Ex 3:13-14


Clearly the usage here is different. He is using it as a name, as a description of who he is to his people.


Here is a quote from C. Kingsely:

"If I say "I am," I say what is not true of me. I must say "I am something — I am a man, I am bad, or I am good, or I am an Englishman, I am a soldier, I am a sailor, I am a clergyman." — and then I shall say what is true of me. But God alone can say "I AM" without saying anything more. And why? Because God alone is. Everybody and everything else in the world becomes: but God is."


It is with this understanding that the Jews looked to that phrase. It was not merely an affectation of language that anyone might use in conversation, because no one else could claim to just...be. This is why when Jesus claimed to be "I AM"...with nothing after that statement, the Jews picked up rocks to hurl at him. They would not have done so if he had just put up his hand and gone, "hi guys, I'm me, I'm here, what's up?". No...their was weight in what he said. Divine weight.

But...even if it didn't, and his usage was normal...can you then explain why what he said caused those gathered to nearly pop a socket? You need to do some explaining if what you claim is true...that what he said had no particular meaning. Because clearly everyone there thought he had said something of magnitude....

Hi again Naomi..
Mr. Kingsley if a bit off....I do agree with him on one part, that God alone is (exists)...

The single ‘I AM’ or ‘I am he’ as I pointed out earlier is for anyone that wants to clearly identify themselves and with emphasis, that it is only me and no one else. It is not commonly used at the beginning of a sentence adjoining an adverb or verb. The expression is applicable to all beings including, angels, men, Jesus and our even our Lord God.

When it is used twice (a double I am) as in Exodus, it the expression that not only is it me and no one else, it is me and there is no one else like me you can choose or compare with. It is not God’s name, it is God’s unique character, he is one and only one that exists, and there is no else besides him (YHWH). Only God can use this double expression not as his name or title, it is who he is!

YHWH exists!... tell this to the people

(Exo 3:14) And Elohim said to Mosheh, “I am that which I am.”a And He said, “Thus you shall say to the children of Yisra’ěl, ‘I am has sent me to you.’ ” Footnote: aThe Heḇrew text reads: ’eheyeh ’asher ’eheyeh, the word ’eheyeh being derived from hayah which means to be, to exist, but the Aramaic text here in v. 14 reads: ayah ashar ayah. (Scriptures 2009)

I can say to Naomi, if you do not believe I am, who is writing to you then you might believe I’m using a ghost writer.

Jesus can say to Naomi, it is my Father and I that brought you salvation. If you don’t believe I AM you will die in your sins.

God can say to Naomi, it is your Lord God that you must love with all your heart, being and mind as I am because I am…there is no other existence.

See the diff….

Bless you,

APAK

 

[APAK]

Ok...a lot of points in that one. I probably won't get to cover them all, and will try and just sum...

Very briefly about my 1st commandment point: the 1st commandment is: "You shall have no gods before me". This fits with God being a jealous God, and my point in saying that he claims to be One. So...my point was, if Jesus is NOT part of the Trinity, part of this same, One God, then The Father, in essence, has broken his own rule all throughout the NT when he asks people to put their faith and love in Jesus. And you cannot possible believe that loving and having such faith in Jesus does not equal worship, because it just does. You cannot have one without the other. So...if we are to worship Christ, and The Father sent Christ, either Christ must be God, or else The Father has broken the 1st commandment and is now no longer jealous for his peoples worship. We know that God does not change, and does not break his own rules: thus rational logic, if nothing else, leads us to the conclusion that Jesus is more than you would claim. He is God. He is part of the Trinity, three persons, One God.

And....I am wondering at this point if you truly understand the teaching of the Trinity. God and Jesus are not "the same being". They belong to the same Godhead, but are separate personalities within that Godhead. As is the Spirit. They function separately (although in perfect unity and harmony). That's why in scripture we see God the Father blessing God the Son as he was baptized and God the holy Spirit coming down to anoint him....the three together. That's why Jesus says that those who see him, have also seen the Father...and yet, no one can see the Father in these sinful bodies and yet still live! It is something that we can only touch on the edge of understanding, and I don't think that is a roadblock to our beliveing of it: God is supposed to be beyond our comprehension. I would not want a God I could fully understand...would you?

As far as Jesus being "in the beginning"...again, it clearly depends on how you read your bible. You've already indicated you find what it says less than believable in this aspect, but I ask you...in light of everything else, is this not one more thing that weighs in our advantage?

"In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters. And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. And God saw that the light was good. And God separated the light from the darkness. God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day." - Gen 1:1-5

Here is the creation account. No mention of Jesus...by name. But we see God speaking. And from his very word, things come into being. We might not think any more of that, except:


"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life, "and the life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it...
And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son "from the Father, full of grace and truth." - John 1:1-2,14

Now...I know you have already dismissed this passage, but you cannot so easily. This passage has not been propped up by lies by Church Fathers trying to cover their doctrinal mistakes. No, it is most clear. John...he who was closest to Christ...he "whom Jesus loved", tells us that Jesus 'was' in the beginning. That he was with God, and was God. That is a peculiar way to say that God 'had a son' later on, don't you think? Unless Jesus is, in fact, God...a member of the Trinity, who was present at the creation of the world and in his function as "Word of God" had a hand in making what we see, just as John tells us.

Naomi...Late here..will have to reply to your post when I awake again...APAK

 

[brakelite]

I have been reluctant to contribute to this discussion until I was sure no-one had presented anything that may have changed my mind. I am willing to be taught on this, because we are discussing the very nature of God, a subject essential to salvation, a holy subject upon which we must tread very lightly. Be it far from me to be dogmatic on anything regarding the nature of the Godhead...who can understand God to perfection?
There is one thing however I think is being missed, and which I think essential to our understanding. The apostle John, when he wrote his gospel and his letters, was battling the introduction into Christianity a number of heresies. This is why his gospel isn't categorized as synoptic....it isn't about the life, death, resurrection of Christ but more an affirmation of who Jesus is...the literal Son of the Almighty God. Read through 1 John, and notice the number of times John references the Father and Son as being essential to salvation and faith. He doesn't divide them, he doesn't separate them, John joins them in every reference to us and to each other.
Now John 3:16 says, that God sent His only begotten Son. Now if scripture says He sent His Son, then it must be assumed that God had a Son to send. This is affirmed throughout John's writings. We have two beings...the Father, and His Son. The Son it is confirmed was the vessel the Father used to create all things. Jesus was not Himself created but begotten. Born of the Father, before His incarnation, before creation, thus a Son prior to His appearing in human form. Hebrews says that Jesus is the express image of the Father and is now seated at His Father's right hand. Clearly we have two distinctly separate personalities here. A Father and a Son.
Now I have 3 sons. All 3 are not in the express image of my person, because humanly speaking nothing is a perfect reproduction. But when it comes to God, when He begets something, surely what He begets, His Son, is a perfect reproduction of Himself? If humans beget humans, then surely God begets God? The Son is the Father in the form of His Son. Thus it is entirely reasonable to believe the scripture that says, But unto the Son He saith, "Thy throne O God is for ever and for ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom". Hebrews 1:8. Thus the Father is the universal King and God of all things, the Almighty. The Son is also God because He is His Father's Son. Not because deity is intrinsic to Himself, but because all things were given Him by His Father. That still leaves us with one supreme God. And right after Hebrews 1:8, comes verse 9 which says, again to the Son, "therefore God, even Thy God, hath anointed thee...". Elsewhere, even after the resurrection, Jesus Himself called His own Father His God. This was not an accident, nor was it said in just a human sense. The Father I suggest has always been the God of Jesus, or at least since the time, whenever in eternity that was, when Jesus came forth from the Father.
So, the question I asked myself a long time ago, does such a concept of the Father bringing forth a Son in His express image, harmonize with the trinity? Now the trinity, if you understand it in the orthodox fashion, does not allow for the Son to come forth as a Son at all. It is claimed that He was 'eternally begotten'. That the So is the same 'age' as the Father, that so long as the Father has been, so has the Son. But that destroys all our human conceptual understanding of father son relationships. And that concept was given us of God ...clearly to give us a head start in our understanding of the divine relationship. We may not be the perfect example or image of the divine standard, but an exampe nevertheless.
So I would prefer to stay with the Bible, and call the heavenly power a Godhead not a trinity.
So what else confirms this Father Son relationship as being literal, and therefore not a co-equal co-eternal con-substantial idea as the trinity proposes? The fact that in all things the Son was under His Father's authority. That the Father was first in rank. And in 1 Corinthians 15:24 we read where the Son is going to return all things to the Father, even the kingdom.
Thus Jesus is equal to the Father in nature, in power, in character, in all things except in rank. This is what I believe was the accepted belief of John and the other disciples and apostles, and is evident throughout their writings. Look at all the greetings of Paaul in his epistles. Here is an example...
Romans 1:7 To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.
8 First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for you all, that your faith is spoken of throughout the whole world.
Who is Paul's God according to the above? Who is John's God according to...?
1 John 4
1 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.
2 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:
3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.....
....
9 In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him.
10 Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.

So, I do not accept the trinity as taught by the churches. But I do accept the divinity and deity of Christ, because He is the Son of God.

As to the holy Spirit. It is the Spirit of God. Nowhere is it suggested that the Spirit works independantly of wither the Father or the Son. The Son was filled with the Spirit of His Father, which the Son then shares with us. It is, was, and always be the Spirit OF God. NOot a separate personality, but belonging to God. And God as we know is Spirit. Thus when He is sharing with us His Spirit, He is sharing with us Himself! Thus is completely met the whole wonderful idea and promise of Jesus when He said,
John 14:20 At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you.

I truly think that to go beyond what I have shared here, is to dive into the realms of assumption. And that is what the trinity is, pure assumption.

 

[brakelite]

BTW bro @Phoneman777 , good to see you back.

 

[Miss Hepburn]

Brakelite...that was some post!

 

[brakelite]

Brakelite...that was some post!

Thank you. I would like to add this....

John 17:1-3
1 These words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee:
2 As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him.
3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

Now above is Jesus speaking to His Father. In His own words Jesus, the son of God, is calling His Father the only true God. Who are we to think that we can formulate God into a corner as the trinity doctrine brazenly accomplishes, in direct contradistinction to the very words of God's only Son? I mean, if anyone knows the truth, the Son would don't you think?

Allow me to add this...that Jesus has a derived existence can be seen from

John 5:25-30
25 Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live.
26 For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself;
27 And hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man.
28 Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice,
29 And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.
30 I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me.

There is a clear and distinct sense of subordination in the relation of the Son to the Father. Other words from the lips of Jesus Himself confirm this. What Jesus is...His very life even is derived from the Father. His attributes and power, although equal to the Father's own, came from the Father. This does not make Jesus any less God, because the attributes of the Son are precisely those same attributes the Father has...the Father didn't give His Son anything less that what the Father has, nor is Jesus anything less than what the Father is...except in rank and that sense of subordination.
So, if one would ask me to share my understanding of the trinity, because I find no concept in scripture, I would answer that I cannot give any understanding of it. But as to the being of God, I answer as the Bible reveals Him. Father, Son, and their Spirit. If I knew what you meant by the trinity, I may be able to answer you. But because no-one who believes in it or professes it, even from the days of Athanasius, has been able to define the indefinable nor make any sense of the incomprehensible, then why could I? I guess that is why it is called the 'mystery of the trinity'. No creature can understand the Almighty to perfection. The finite mind cannot understand infinity. Therefore in discussions on the trinity, about the nature of God, Christ, or the holy Spirit, are mere manifestations of gross presumption. Sadly, thousands have been put to death because they do not believe in the trinity. Even on some forums, a disbelief in the trinity is tantamount to inciting a riot resulting in expulsion. Non-trinitarians are anathematized because they don't believe in a formula that is not understood by those who do believe in it, nor can express it in terms that anyone else can understand it.

 

[APAK]

I have been reluctant to contribute to this discussion until I was sure no-one had presented anything that may have changed my mind. I am willing to be taught on this, because we are discussing the very nature of God, a subject essential to salvation, a holy subject upon which we must tread very lightly. Be it far from me to be dogmatic on anything regarding the nature of the Godhead...who can understand God to perfection?
There is one thing however I think is being missed, and which I think essential to our understanding. The apostle John, when he wrote his gospel and his letters, was battling the introduction into Christianity a number of heresies. This is why his gospel isn't categorized as synoptic....it isn't about the life, death, resurrection of Christ but more an affirmation of who Jesus is...the literal Son of the Almighty God. Read through 1 John, and notice the number of times John references the Father and Son as being essential to salvation and faith. He doesn't divide them, he doesn't separate them, John joins them in every reference to us and to each other.
Now John 3:16 says, that God sent His only begotten Son. Now if scripture says He sent His Son, then it must be assumed that God had a Son to send. This is affirmed throughout John's writings. We have two beings...the Father, and His Son. The Son it is confirmed was the vessel the Father used to create all things. Jesus was not Himself created but begotten. Born of the Father, before His incarnation, before creation, thus a Son prior to His appearing in human form. Hebrews says that Jesus is the express image of the Father and is now seated at His Father's right hand. Clearly we have two distinctly separate personalities here. A Father and a Son.
Now I have 3 sons. All 3 are not in the express image of my person, because humanly speaking nothing is a perfect reproduction. But when it comes to God, when He begets something, surely what He begets, His Son, is a perfect reproduction of Himself? If humans beget humans, then surely God begets God? The Son is the Father in the form of His Son. Thus it is entirely reasonable to believe the scripture that says, But unto the Son He saith, "Thy throne O God is for ever and for ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom". Hebrews 1:8. Thus the Father is the universal King and God of all things, the Almighty. The Son is also God because He is His Father's Son. Not because deity is intrinsic to Himself, but because all things were given Him by His Father. That still leaves us with one supreme God. And right after Hebrews 1:8, comes verse 9 which says, again to the Son, "therefore God, even Thy God, hath anointed thee...". Elsewhere, even after the resurrection, Jesus Himself called His own Father His God. This was not an accident, nor was it said in just a human sense. The Father I suggest has always been the God of Jesus, or at least since the time, whenever in eternity that was, when Jesus came forth from the Father.
So, the question I asked myself a long time ago, does such a concept of the Father bringing forth a Son in His express image, harmonize with the trinity? Now the trinity, if you understand it in the orthodox fashion, does not allow for the Son to come forth as a Son at all. It is claimed that He was 'eternally begotten'. That the So is the same 'age' as the Father, that so long as the Father has been, so has the Son. But that destroys all our human conceptual understanding of father son relationships. And that concept was given us of God ...clearly to give us a head start in our understanding of the divine relationship. We may not be the perfect example or image of the divine standard, but an exampe nevertheless.
So I would prefer to stay with the Bible, and call the heavenly power a Godhead not a trinity.
So what else confirms this Father Son relationship as being literal, and therefore not a co-equal co-eternal con-substantial idea as the trinity proposes? The fact that in all things the Son was under His Father's authority. That the Father was first in rank. And in 1 Corinthians 15:24 we read where the Son is going to return all things to the Father, even the kingdom.
Thus Jesus is equal to the Father in nature, in power, in character, in all things except in rank. This is what I believe was the accepted belief of John and the other disciples and apostles, and is evident throughout their writings. Look at all the greetings of Paaul in his epistles. Here is an example...
Romans 1:7 To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.
8 First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for you all, that your faith is spoken of throughout the whole world.
Who is Paul's God according to the above? Who is John's God according to...?
1 John 4
1 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.
2 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:
3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.....
....
9 In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him.
10 Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.

So, I do not accept the trinity as taught by the churches. But I do accept the divinity and deity of Christ, because He is the Son of God.

As to the holy Spirit. It is the Spirit of God. Nowhere is it suggested that the Spirit works independantly of wither the Father or the Son. The Son was filled with the Spirit of His Father, which the Son then shares with us. It is, was, and always be the Spirit OF God. NOot a separate personality, but belonging to God. And God as we know is Spirit. Thus when He is sharing with us His Spirit, He is sharing with us Himself! Thus is completely met the whole wonderful idea and promise of Jesus when He said,
John 14:20 At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you.

I truly think that to go beyond what I have shared here, is to dive into the realms of assumption. And that is what the trinity is, pure assumption.

brakelite: I give your post a thumbs up as I support generally 95 % of it. There is one part though that I differ and have to take exception with, and that clearly distances myself from at least 95% of those considered Christians.

The disagreement is: "The Son it is confirmed was the vessel the Father used to create all things. Jesus was not Himself created but begotten. Born of the Father, before His incarnation, before creation, thus a Son prior to His appearing in human form."

Good job bro!

I KNOW I will be sharing why I believe differently on this area, before too long and I will gladly do so,,,

hint: expressions of 'being sent' or' came down for heaven' etc., are not to be considered literal meanings. They are common loose expressions and we have them today. Also, Jesus is the creator of things since his ascension, DIFFERENT from God's creative powers and creation early creation.

And I also do not believe in the invented concept of incarnation that the OT would have considered of pagan origin and has no business even being associated with scripture. The apostles would have never understood this concept. Jesus did not exist before his literal birth. He was the last Adam as scripture says. If this has meaning in the truest sense then he was not pre-existent, as the first Adam also had an initial creation date.

Bless you,

APAK

 

[brakelite]

brakelite: I give your post a thumbs up as I support generally 95 % of it. There is one part though that I differ and have to take exception with, and that clearly distances myself from at least 95% of those considered Christians.

The disagreement is: "The Son it is confirmed was the vessel the Father used to create all things. Jesus was not Himself created but begotten. Born of the Father, before His incarnation, before creation, thus a Son prior to His appearing in human form."

Good job bro!

I KNOW I will be sharing why I believe differently on this area, before too long and I will gladly do so,,,

hint: expressions of 'being sent' or' came down for heaven' etc., are not to be considered literal meanings. They are common loose expressions and we have them today. Also, Jesus is the creator of things since his ascension, DIFFERENT from God's creative powers and creation early creation.

And I also do not believe in the invented concept of incarnation that the OT would have considered of pagan origin and has no business even being associated with scripture. The apostles would have never understood this concept. Jesus did not exist before his literal birth. He was the last Adam as scripture says. If this has meaning in the truest sense then he was not pre-existent, as the first Adam also had an initial creation date.

Bless you,

APAK

Late here, so tomorrow I will deal with you(r) post above.

 

[Stranger]

God is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The Son always existed with the Father. He was neither created or begotten. The word 'begotten' speaks to the time when the Son was given a body, Who we know as Jesus Christ.

The Son had no beginning. The Son as a Man, Jesus Christ, did.

Most heresies will center on the Person of Jesus Christ and Who He is. Some will say He was just a man and not God. Some will say He was just God and not man. The truth is He was both God and Man, the God/Man.

Stranger

 

[GodsGrace]

I have been reluctant to contribute to this discussion until I was sure no-one had presented anything that may have changed my mind. I am willing to be taught on this, because we are discussing the very nature of God, a subject essential to salvation, a holy subject upon which we must tread very lightly. Be it far from me to be dogmatic on anything regarding the nature of the Godhead...who can understand God to perfection?
There is one thing however I think is being missed, and which I think essential to our understanding. The apostle John, when he wrote his gospel and his letters, was battling the introduction into Christianity a number of heresies. This is why his gospel isn't categorized as synoptic....it isn't about the life, death, resurrection of Christ but more an affirmation of who Jesus is...the literal Son of the Almighty God. Read through 1 John, and notice the number of times John references the Father and Son as being essential to salvation and faith. He doesn't divide them, he doesn't separate them, John joins them in every reference to us and to each other.
Now John 3:16 says, that God sent His only begotten Son. Now if scripture says He sent His Son, then it must be assumed that God had a Son to send. This is affirmed throughout John's writings. We have two beings...the Father, and His Son. The Son it is confirmed was the vessel the Father used to create all things. Jesus was not Himself created but begotten. Born of the Father, before His incarnation, before creation, thus a Son prior to His appearing in human form. Hebrews says that Jesus is the express image of the Father and is now seated at His Father's right hand. Clearly we have two distinctly separate personalities here. A Father and a Son.
Now I have 3 sons. All 3 are not in the express image of my person, because humanly speaking nothing is a perfect reproduction. But when it comes to God, when He begets something, surely what He begets, His Son, is a perfect reproduction of Himself? If humans beget humans, then surely God begets God? The Son is the Father in the form of His Son. Thus it is entirely reasonable to believe the scripture that says, But unto the Son He saith, "Thy throne O God is for ever and for ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom". Hebrews 1:8. Thus the Father is the universal King and God of all things, the Almighty. The Son is also God because He is His Father's Son. Not because deity is intrinsic to Himself, but because all things were given Him by His Father. That still leaves us with one supreme God. And right after Hebrews 1:8, comes verse 9 which says, again to the Son, "therefore God, even Thy God, hath anointed thee...". Elsewhere, even after the resurrection, Jesus Himself called His own Father His God. This was not an accident, nor was it said in just a human sense. The Father I suggest has always been the God of Jesus, or at least since the time, whenever in eternity that was, when Jesus came forth from the Father.
So, the question I asked myself a long time ago, does such a concept of the Father bringing forth a Son in His express image, harmonize with the trinity? Now the trinity, if you understand it in the orthodox fashion, does not allow for the Son to come forth as a Son at all. It is claimed that He was 'eternally begotten'. That the So is the same 'age' as the Father, that so long as the Father has been, so has the Son. But that destroys all our human conceptual understanding of father son relationships. And that concept was given us of God ...clearly to give us a head start in our understanding of the divine relationship. We may not be the perfect example or image of the divine standard, but an exampe nevertheless.
So I would prefer to stay with the Bible, and call the heavenly power a Godhead not a trinity.
So what else confirms this Father Son relationship as being literal, and therefore not a co-equal co-eternal con-substantial idea as the trinity proposes? The fact that in all things the Son was under His Father's authority. That the Father was first in rank. And in 1 Corinthians 15:24 we read where the Son is going to return all things to the Father, even the kingdom.
Thus Jesus is equal to the Father in nature, in power, in character, in all things except in rank. This is what I believe was the accepted belief of John and the other disciples and apostles, and is evident throughout their writings. Look at all the greetings of Paaul in his epistles. Here is an example...
Romans 1:7 To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.
8 First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for you all, that your faith is spoken of throughout the whole world.
Who is Paul's God according to the above? Who is John's God according to...?
1 John 4
1 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.
2 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:
3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.....
....
9 In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him.
10 Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.

So, I do not accept the trinity as taught by the churches. But I do accept the divinity and deity of Christ, because He is the Son of God.

As to the holy Spirit. It is the Spirit of God. Nowhere is it suggested that the Spirit works independantly of wither the Father or the Son. The Son was filled with the Spirit of His Father, which the Son then shares with us. It is, was, and always be the Spirit OF God. NOot a separate personality, but belonging to God. And God as we know is Spirit. Thus when He is sharing with us His Spirit, He is sharing with us Himself! Thus is completely met the whole wonderful idea and promise of Jesus when He said,
John 14:20 At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you.

I truly think that to go beyond what I have shared here, is to dive into the realms of assumption. And that is what the trinity is, pure assumption.

Jesus is the Son of God. He became the Son, in the flesh, when He was born of Mary.

But He was always the 2nd person of the Trinity.

Also, in the O.T. the spirit was understood as the spirit of God.
In the N.T. we understand the Holy Spirit to be a separate person.
God did not reveal Himself all at one time, the revelation came about slowly and Jesus was the ultimate revelation.

Jesus said He would send the Holy Spirit to us.
Also, He told the Apostles to baptize in the NAME of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Three distinct persons.
At the baptizm of Jesus, three were present, Jesus, the Holy Spirit, God Father.

 

[APAK]

@Naomi25 ....

Finally got to it...Hello Naomi...glad to be back

3/3+ (part 2)..right into it...refer back to your last response

On the one hand we are speaking of God as ONE being and of one existence, and on the other we are talking of loving and having faith in Jesus, the Christ and son of the ONE God.

God, ours, also Jesus’ Father has not broken any rule regarding that we must (highly recommended…suggested) believe and love Jesus our Lord and savior. Jesus was/is his loving son and he was pleased with his son especially when he accepted his Baptism as part of the salvation plan for us, because of his deep love for his Father and us.

Now when you add ‘the worship of Jesus’ you have made an emotional and hasty leap that violates God’s 1st commandment. God the I AM that I AM now becomes null and void. This is the impasse again. I do not think in terms of 3 personalities as being the ONE God. I think as an ‘old’ Israelite, not under the law, under grace of BOTH our Lord God and Jesus Christ today.

They are also two distinct beings. The Father is always greater that the son, always.

I have to say Naomi that the picture of the Trinity being displayed in Christ’s Baptism scene is just wishful thinking to somehow envision that elusive trinity in actually in scripture. Let me explain:

When John and Jesus performed Baptism his Father in heaven approved of his son’s decision. His Father said he was pleased with him. Now how can God Almighty say he is pleased with himself is Jesus is all the same one person. Also, the spirit that descended on Jesus was the presence and power of his Father and not of himself. The spirit was of his Father, period. There is no 3-personality construct here in the Baptismal scene.

Naomi, I also must differ with your meaning of John 14:9

Jesus says that those who see him, have also seen the Father.

Let me explain:

(Joh 14:7) If you had known me, you would have known my Father also. From now on you do know him and have seen him.”
(Joh 14:8) Philip said to him, “Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us.”
(Joh 14:9) Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you so long, and you still do not know me, Philip? Whoever has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’?
(Joh 14:10) Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own authority, but the Father who dwells in me does his works.
(Joh 14:11) Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father is in me, or else believe on account of the works themselves.
(Joh 14:12) “Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever believes in me will also do the works that I do; and greater works than these will he do, because I am going to the Father. (ALL ESV)

Verses 10 and 11 really exposed verse 9 and its meaning. Jesus is in close communion and inseparable fellowship with his Father. He works closely in purpose with his Father and the Father with him. Their individual spirits work as one, toward the completion of the plan of salvation and the Kingdom. Although, the Father does all the works as Jesus yielded his will in obedience for his to do so. We, as believers also allow the spirit Christ within our spirits to work miracles within us to complete us, to complete the plan of perfection and realization of our salvation when we are raised up.

Note: the term ‘in’ Christ or even ‘out’ for that matter, was used as an indication you were in or out of the new Covenant.

One critical area you raised that the spirit of God came on the Jesus to anoint him. It is much more than to single him out as the one to become of special service to his Father. His Father’s spirit dwelt within him in ‘full.’ Most people do not grasp this critical point. His Father spoke and did all the works through Jesus. Of course, there were times that Jesus showed his own mind and will. This was obvious, especially when he prayed to his Father and when his Father incrementally over time, gave him authority to forgive sin, and other miracles until he gave Jesus all authority on earth and in heaven. All the while his Father’s spirit allowed all these to occur because of his presence in Jesus.

Now for the last section you presented: It is the best part…

John was a quite different writer and of a different mind that the others that wrote or spoke words that landed in scripture.

John was more spiritual, poetic and symbolic in his thoughts, words and writings. I do believe that in his preamble of Chapter one, he was conveying to his readers that God oversaw everything we know, can know, or will know and thus what we will know of him as well.

Yes, he brought the expression, ‘in the beginning’ from Genesis to get our minds focused on how God worked: by planning and doing everything. God planned and acted to reorder and recreate a fallen or dark physical world. Now John was making a parallel with this and fallen mankind. God from the beginning planned and performed not only for the physical earth, also for the restoration of fallen mankind to himself once again. It was genius.

What is more, John added another meaning or third meaning of the expression ‘in the beginning’ to his writings. This third meaning was the obvious and common meaning shared with the other reporters of the Gospel. When the gospel was first spoken.


So, John presented to the reader:

- In the beginning was when God planned and restored the physical world

- In the beginning was when God planned and restored mankind to himself through the work of his son on the cross

- In the beginning of reporting, was when God planned and spoke the good news of the gospel through his man, John the Baptist


Now the Greek word ‘logos” always means the plan, purpose or actions of God. It has never meant Jesus or any other person until the RCC translated scripture.


In the beginning God planned (via his logos) for the restoration of ‘fallen’ mankind. Jesus was not the actual logos he was the person or instrument used as part of the logos(plan), the human sacrifice for all of us. He was crucial to God’s plan(Logos) of salvation.

Bless you,


APAK

 

[Nomad]

Now the Greek word ‘logos” always means the plan, purpose or actions of God. It has never meant Jesus or any other person until the RCC translated scripture.

I see that you continue to contradict yourself and Scripture. Once again, you assert that "logos" never refers to Jesus while at the same time admitting the exact opposite in your OP. Here's what you said in your first post:

Yes, Jesus is called the ‘word of God’ in a couple of places in scripture...

John does, in fact, refer to Jesus as "the word" more than once.

Joh 1:14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory...

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.

John also says very clearly that "the word" is God. Case closed -- your philosophical hang-ups regarding this topic notwithstanding.

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

 

[APAK]

I see that you continue to contradict yourself and Scripture. Once again, you assert that "logos" never refers to Jesus while at the same time admitting the exact opposite in your OP. Here's what you said in your first post:



John does, in fact, refer to Jesus as "the word" more than once.

Joh 1:14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory...

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.

John also says very clearly that "the word" is God. Case closed -- your philosophical hang-ups regarding this topic notwithstanding.

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

Please do not twist my words!

This is from my OP as you cited...
"Yes, Jesus is called the ‘word of God’ in a couple of places in scripture..."

I would be very careful in what you write and misinterpret in my writings. I NEVER said Jesus = word. I said referring to Revelation 19:13 that Jesus is the 'word of God'..Big difference! I wonder if you have the brain to figure it out....Jesus is the PLAN (at least the crucial part of the Plan) of God...DIG IT!

APAK

 

[APAK]

@Nomad ..
Here's the rest of that paragraph of my OP you twisted.and deliberately failed to include.

"Yes, Jesus is called the ‘word of God’ in a couple of places in scripture, although this simply means he was the instrument to execute and complete the ‘plan’ logos of salvation originated by God."

What a prankster...

 

[Nomad]

Please do not twist my words!

This is from my OP as you cited...
"Yes, Jesus is called the ‘word of God’ in a couple of places in scripture..."

I would be very careful in what you write and misinterpret in my writings. I NEVER said Jesus = word. I said referring to Revelation 19:13 that Jesus is the 'word of God'..Big difference! I wonder if you have the brain to figure it out....Jesus is the PLAN (at least the crucial part of the Plan) of God...DIG IT!

APAK

Nope. You contradicted yourself. Here it is again:

Now the Greek word ‘logos” always means the plan, purpose or actions of God. It has never meant Jesus or any other person until the RCC translated scripture.

Yes, Jesus is called the ‘word of God’ in a couple of places in scripture...

 

[Nomad]

@APAK

Now that your attempted red herring has failed, let's see how you get around my main argument. You know -- the one you conveniently left out of your complaint. Here it is again:

John does, in fact, refer to Jesus as "the word" more than once.

Joh 1:14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory...

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.

John also says very clearly that "the word" is God. Case closed -- your philosophical hang-ups regarding this topic notwithstanding.

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

 

[APAK]

@APAK

Now that your attempted red herring has failed, let's see how you get around my main argument. You know -- the one you conveniently left out of your complaint. Here it is again:

John does, in fact, refer to Jesus as "the word" more than once.

Joh 1:14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory...

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.

John also says very clearly that "the word" is God. Case closed -- your philosophical hang-ups regarding this topic notwithstanding.

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

Nomad:

So, you are now attempting to be honest with me, I presume?

There was and is no red herring in my words. There was never any attempt to misdirect. Anyone can read the OP and see what I believe on this subject. I think you are just a little unnerved that I covered a possible crack in my arguments that you might want to exploit concerning the ‘logos’ as not meaning Jesus.

That’s ok Nomad you don’t believe in what I wrote, most are in your camp anyway, if that’s any comfort to you.

I just wish you would have just come out with this last post of yours from the start.

I can deal with upfront much better….

Thanks for letting me know what’s on your mind. I just do not agree with you.

I’ve posted some serious writings to Naomi25 recently, and its ongoing I believe. You can get more details of my beliefs by reading them.



Bless you,



APAK