Irrefutable proof that Jesus is God.

[BARNEY BRIGHT]

I believe that you are simply willfully blind to what the scriptures are saying in these verses; for they clearly say, "God and His Father." question 1) who is God's Father, and 2) who is God here.

you can believe what you want. All the scriptures you have shown me are proof of what I said, that Jesus has a Father and a God. The difference between us is that when I say Jesus has a Father and a God I'm saying the scriptures are saying to us that Jesus who is the Only Begotten Son of God has a Father and a God, but since you believe Jesus to be God you are blind to what the scriptures are actually saying.

 

[mjrhealth]

you can believe what you want. All the scriptures you have shown me are proof of what I said, that Jesus has a Father and a God. The difference between us is that when I say Jesus has a Father and a God I'm saying the scriptures are saying to us that Jesus who is the Only Begotten Son of God has a Father and a God, but since you believe Jesus to be God you are blind to what the scriptures are actually saying.

His father is God, because the seed that fertilized Mary was from God , so God is His father, and when we receive His Spirit HE becomes "our father who art in Heaven".

 

[BARNEY BRIGHT]

Barney....it does not say in Col 2:9 that Jesus was given a "divine nature".

Can't you see what you are doing with your rebuttal of mass commentary regarding Col 2:9?

It explicitly says every bit of the GODHEAD is embodied inside Jesus, not "God's nature" in Jesus.

Think about what your beliefs are doing to the demotion of Jesus.

Yes, he has a God, but his God is nowhere to be found outside Jesus' body per the verse.

You have a midget messiah.

At Colossians 2:9 the word in Greek that the New World Translation renders “divine quality” is theotes, and this is the only use of the word in the Christian Greek Scriptures. The same is true of a similar Greek word, theiotes, which appears only at Romans 1:20, and which the New World Translation renders theiotes as “Godship,” as follows: “For his invisible qualities are clearly seen from the world’s creation onward because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship so that they are inexcusable.”

The way these two words have been rendered in the New World Translation has given rise to the charge that the New World Bible Translation Committee let their religious beliefs influence them. That charge is true, but they did not do so wrongly, or unduly. The meaning that is to be given to these two Greek words depends upon what the entire Bible has to say about Jehovah God and Jesus Christ.

How so? In that, there is a basis for translating these words either as “Deity,” “Divinity” or “Godhead” and so attributing personality to them, or as “Divine Nature,” “divine quality,” “Godship,” and having them merely denote qualities. Thus those who believe in the trinity will attach a personality to these words, whereas those who do not will render them as qualities in view of the way God and Christ are described in the Scriptures and so as to harmonize the words with the rest of God’s Word. This emphasizes the fact that one simply cannot properly and accurately translate the Bible unless one clearly understands its teachings.

That the New World Bible Translation Committee was perfectly right in rendering these words the way they did is apparent from what Greek authorities have to say about them. Thus Parkhurst’s A Greek and English Lexicon (1845) defines theiotes as “Godhead” (page 261) and theotes as “Deity, godhead, divine nature” (page 264). Note the definition “divine nature” as well as “Godhead.”

Liddell and Scott's A Greek-English Lexicon, in its new ninth edition, completed in 1940 and reprinted in 1948, Volume I, defines the two terms in the light of ancient usages apart from the Scriptures. theiotes it defines as “divine nature, divinity” (page 788). Theótes it defines in exactly the same way, as “divinity, divine nature,” and then cites as an example Colossians 2:9.

Thus the New World Translation is fully justified in rendering Colossians 2:9 to show that Christ has in him all the fullness, not of God himself, the Deity, the Godhead, but of the divine quality dwelling bodily, and this in behalf of the spiritual body of Christ, so that this body of Christ’s followers is possessed of a fullness by means of him: “It is in [Christ] that all the fullness of the divine quality dwells bodily. And so you [Christians] are possessed of a fullness by means of him, who is the head of all government and authority.” (Colossians 2:9,10)

It is also of interest to note that both Weymouth and An American Translation render the passage, “the fullness of God’s nature.”

To get an objective view of the matter, in exploring questions such as these it is best to use the nonsectarian and nonreligious Hebrew-English and Greek-English dictionaries, instead of those that have been produced by some religious denomination.

 

[mjrhealth]

At Colossians 2:9 the word in Greek that the New World Translation renders “divine quality” is theotes, and this is the only use of the word in the Christian Greek Scriptures. The same is true of a similar Greek word, theiotes, which appears only at Romans 1:20, and which the New World Translation renders theiotes as “Godship,” as follows: “For his invisible qualities are clearly seen from the world’s creation onward because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship so that they are inexcusable.”

The way these two words have been rendered in the New World Translation has given rise to the charge that the New World Bible Translation Committee let their religious beliefs influence them. That charge is true, but they did not do so wrongly, or unduly. The meaning that is to be given to these two Greek words depends upon what the entire Bible has to say about Jehovah God and Jesus Christ.

How so? In that, there is a basis for translating these words either as “Deity,” “Divinity” or “Godhead” and so attributing personality to them, or as “Divine Nature,” “divine quality,” “Godship,” and having them merely denote qualities. Thus those who believe in the trinity will attach a personality to these words, whereas those who do not will render them as qualities in view of the way God and Christ are described in the Scriptures and so as to harmonize the words with the rest of God’s Word. This emphasizes the fact that one simply cannot properly and accurately translate the Bible unless one clearly understands its teachings.

That the New World Bible Translation Committee was perfectly right in rendering these words the way they did is apparent from what Greek authorities have to say about them. Thus Parkhurst’s A Greek and English Lexicon (1845) defines theiotes as “Godhead” (page 261) and theotes as “Deity, godhead, divine nature” (page 264). Note the definition “divine nature” as well as “Godhead.”

Liddell and Scott's A Greek-English Lexicon, in its new ninth edition, completed in 1940 and reprinted in 1948, Volume I, defines the two terms in the light of ancient usages apart from the Scriptures. theiotes it defines as “divine nature, divinity” (page 788). Theótes it defines in exactly the same way, as “divinity, divine nature,” and then cites as an example Colossians 2:9.

Thus the New World Translation is fully justified in rendering Colossians 2:9 to show that Christ has in him all the fullness, not of God himself, the Deity, the Godhead, but of the divine quality dwelling bodily, and this in behalf of the spiritual body of Christ, so that this body of Christ’s followers is possessed of a fullness by means of him: “It is in [Christ] that all the fullness of the divine quality dwells bodily. And so you [Christians] are possessed of a fullness by means of him, who is the head of all government and authority.” (Colossians 2:9,10)

It is also of interest to note that both Weymouth and An American Translation render the passage, “the fullness of God’s nature.”

To get an objective view of the matter, in exploring questions such as these it is best to use the nonsectarian and nonreligious Hebrew-English and Greek-English dictionaries, instead of those that have been produced by some religious denomination.

Would be rather easier to ask Jesus, but would would believe you can, men than wont be able to boast of how clever they think they are, which is what religion is all about . "self".

 

[BARNEY BRIGHT]

Just admitted to me that you doubt Thomas.

Don't forget, Jesus NEVER rebuked Thomas for the first Apostolic decree that Jesus is God.

I haven't doubted anyone except in the mind of Trinitarians. I honestly don't worry about what Trinitarians think, believe, or say about me.

 

[BARNEY BRIGHT]

You really do doubt Thomas.

And all these years, you heard folks make fun of "doubting Thomas", when all along, you doubted Thomas the Apostle yourself.[/QUOTE\]

Think whatever you want about me.

 

[BARNEY BRIGHT]

Would be rather easier to ask Jesus, but would believe you can, men than wont be able to boast of how clever they think they are, which is what religion is all about . "self".

I find it interesting that when I disagree with someone about what the scriptures are saying some people strike out against religion in some way.

 

[justbyfaith]

@BARNEY BRIGHT,

"God and His Father"

God has a Father; why can't you see that?

Jesus is obviously God.

I hope that you realize that if you continue to deny this, you will die in your sins (John 8:24).

 

[2 Chr. 34:19]

John 20
28 And Thomas answered and said to Him, “My Lord and my God!”

29 Jesus said to him, “Thomas, because you have seen Me, you have believed. Blessed arethose who have not seen and yet have believed.”

 

[mjrhealth]

I find it interesting that when I disagree with someone about what the scriptures are saying some people strike out against religion in some way.

Jesus did all the time and how He was hated for it, He stood outside and wept for those inside, He still does today, people just flatly refuse to leave there religions for Him, prefer the wide way.

 

[Cooper]

@BARNEY BRIGHT,

"God and His Father"

God has a Father; why can't you see that?

Jesus is obviously God.

I hope that you realize that if you continue to deny this, you will die in your sins (John 8:24).

I like to think that Jesus had a Father for 33 years only while he was in the flesh, for God to make himself visible to us, not forgetting he had other work to do as well, essential work, reconciling the world to himself. Those who do not believe in Him for whom he really is and who he said he was, will miss out. Then when he returned to heavens glory and sent the Comforter, which only God can do, he became who he was before, the Alpha and Omega, the WORD who created all things.

The only difference between Father and Son is the flesh, and that was so God could be made manifest on earth. Jesus said where two or three are gathered together, there am I in the midst. Jesus can only do this because He and the Father are literally One, even on earth, for God is with us now in spirit, and although invisible, woe betide those who reject his appearing 2,020 years ago.
.

 

[Truther]

Nothing personal....

Thing is, you simply need to agree with the very first Apostle that Jesus ordained with the others, that He revealed who he was after the resurrection..God.

In Mark 16, Peter was the first to be revealed by God that Jesus was the Christ prophesied in the O.T.

In John 20, Thomas was the first to be revealed by God that Jesus was made God after Thomas saw Him massacred in a Roman meat grinder.

Thomas is exactly right, and in the next verse, Jesus only admonished his faith in Him, now that he knew Jesus was resurrected. Jesus never stopped him from calling Him his God.

I have one lesson for you to prove you are aligned with Thomas....

Just say right here and right now, "Jesus, you are my Lord and my God".

If you cannot openly say it, you disagree with Thomas the Apostle.

 

[Truther]

I haven't doubted anyone except in the mind of Trinitarians. I honestly don't worry about what Trinitarians think, believe, or say about me.

Are you a Biblical unitarian?

 

[Truther]

At Colossians 2:9 the word in Greek that the New World Translation renders “divine quality” is theotes, and this is the only use of the word in the Christian Greek Scriptures. The same is true of a similar Greek word, theiotes, which appears only at Romans 1:20, and which the New World Translation renders theiotes as “Godship,” as follows: “For his invisible qualities are clearly seen from the world’s creation onward because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship so that they are inexcusable.”

The way these two words have been rendered in the New World Translation has given rise to the charge that the New World Bible Translation Committee let their religious beliefs influence them. That charge is true, but they did not do so wrongly, or unduly. The meaning that is to be given to these two Greek words depends upon what the entire Bible has to say about Jehovah God and Jesus Christ.

How so? In that, there is a basis for translating these words either as “Deity,” “Divinity” or “Godhead” and so attributing personality to them, or as “Divine Nature,” “divine quality,” “Godship,” and having them merely denote qualities. Thus those who believe in the trinity will attach a personality to these words, whereas those who do not will render them as qualities in view of the way God and Christ are described in the Scriptures and so as to harmonize the words with the rest of God’s Word. This emphasizes the fact that one simply cannot properly and accurately translate the Bible unless one clearly understands its teachings.

That the New World Bible Translation Committee was perfectly right in rendering these words the way they did is apparent from what Greek authorities have to say about them. Thus Parkhurst’s A Greek and English Lexicon (1845) defines theiotes as “Godhead” (page 261) and theotes as “Deity, godhead, divine nature” (page 264). Note the definition “divine nature” as well as “Godhead.”

Liddell and Scott's A Greek-English Lexicon, in its new ninth edition, completed in 1940 and reprinted in 1948, Volume I, defines the two terms in the light of ancient usages apart from the Scriptures. theiotes it defines as “divine nature, divinity” (page 788). Theótes it defines in exactly the same way, as “divinity, divine nature,” and then cites as an example Colossians 2:9.

Thus the New World Translation is fully justified in rendering Colossians 2:9 to show that Christ has in him all the fullness, not of God himself, the Deity, the Godhead, but of the divine quality dwelling bodily, and this in behalf of the spiritual body of Christ, so that this body of Christ’s followers is possessed of a fullness by means of him: “It is in [Christ] that all the fullness of the divine quality dwells bodily. And so you [Christians] are possessed of a fullness by means of him, who is the head of all government and authority.” (Colossians 2:9,10)

It is also of interest to note that both Weymouth and An American Translation render the passage, “the fullness of God’s nature.”

To get an objective view of the matter, in exploring questions such as these it is best to use the nonsectarian and nonreligious Hebrew-English and Greek-English dictionaries, instead of those that have been produced by some religious denomination.

Got it.

You are a JW.

Now, notice that you are working hard to debunk the KJV like all the trinitarian theologians do?

You use modern Greek redefinitions and translations at will, to hopefully make it say Jesus is a little man now with only a thought process of God in his wee little body.

All this redefinition you bought into comes straight out of trinitarian seminaries.

And the root of this redefinition comes from the RCC.

So, you are teaching their RCC sourced materials originating as incarnationism with a JW twist.

Test the origins of your materials, Barney.

 

[101G]

GINOLJC, to all. I know you will not read all of this post, nor anyone else who read it...... but it's to your benfit to read it all as i did your post.

The Scriptures say the Holy Spirit "conceived" Jesus. Fathering a human being through sexual reproduction is not what God did, and therefore is not comparable.
Shame on you for comparing it this way! You make God into a man?

No, shame on you, the scriptures never said the Holy Ghost concieved "JESUS", (smile, lol), see your carnal thinking. and then you went further to show your carnality, by saying, "Fathering a human being through sexual reproduction is not what God did", see again you are in ERROR, the scripture never said God had sexual union with mary, the scriptures said that the Holy Spirit "OVERSHADOW" her, see how carnal you're. listen, Luke 1:35 "And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God." what was "BORN?" flesh, and YES the Holy Spirit conceived that Holy Thing/Flesh, for God is not a THING, our bodies is. and that child/the body of flesh is a it, in Mary's womb, (see Matthews 1:20), but you don't know how God DID it. but one thing for sure, it was the Holy Ghost who conceived that body of Flesh in Mary's womb. and you can't believe the scriptures because you're carnal in nature. if you was not carnal, you would not have mention, "Fathering a human being through sexual reproduction is not what God did, and therefore is not comparable" for you would have given us the answer as to how God concieved thge child in Mary's womb, but you didn't. but gave an off the cuff answer which makes no sense, carnally or spiritually.

He produced Jesus from His own personality, and thereby produced a 2nd Person representing Himself.

Another BIG ERROR on your part, #1. Jesus who is the ETERNAL SPIRIT is never produce, another mistake on your part. #2. personality is an abstract concept, the Lord Jesus is "CONCRETE".... LOL, see your ERROR again. understand, character, or characteristics are abstract. so you can take that notion, "He produced Jesus from His own personality" to the door and throw it out.

Jesus and the Father are therefore not "each other." They are distinct just as that which is revealed is distinct from the One who reveals it.

ANOTHER ERROR, #1. there is no SECOND PERSON, do you believe the bible? maybe or not, for Isaiah 44:24 states the LORD the ordinal First was "Alone", and "BY HIMSELF" when he made all things. now if there was a second person, he would not have been alone because God is everywhere. so that notion of a second person can be taken to the door also and thrown out too.

In the same way, God produced a revelation of the man Jesus, who must be distinguished from Him who produced this revelation. And the two cannot be confused. God is no way "fathered" Jesus in the way men do, but rather, produced Jesus *by revelation.*

Another ERROR on your Part. there is no confusion from God he is clear. the Revelation is Jesus the Christ God himself in flesh. listen, 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:"
do you think for a moment that this is two distinct persons in this verse? ... (smile)..Lol. no, it's only ONE PERSON, who is revealing himself in person in a glorified Body. to prove that point, in Revelation chapter 4 & 5 there is one who sits on the throne. and in chapter 5 the one on the throne is also standing before the very same throne. he who is standing before the one who sits is the same one person. you have no knowledge of this. but we will clearly explain it later in the post when we speak of the Father.

The Scriptures say that "God is not a man,"

another ERROR on your part, get the scripture RIGHT, Numbers 23:19 "God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?"
see your carnality again. he's not a man that he should "LIE" like men lie....

and the Last one,

And he was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit, and not by the Holy Spirit having sexual relations with Mary--which is not what I think you're suggesting regardless. I just wish you to see the absurdity of your argument.

here is the absurdity of your argument. "you don't believe the bible", for the scriptures clearly states, that it is the Holy Spirit who is the conceiver of that Child/fleshwith bone and blood, not the spirit, which is given .... (smile), but the thing is YOU DON"T KNOW HOW GOD DID IT. that your absurdity, because you argument is from igorance.

see, you argue from igorance by calling a title a person. and you don't believe the bible when it says the Holy Ghost conceived the body that JESUS came in, (see Hebrews 10:5), because you don't know how. we suggest you look up "overshadow". you argue from igorance by saying that Jesus is just a personality, or as some say a thought. well thoughts, nor Personalities walk and talk, and eat food. again, you argue from igorance by saying God is not a man when God clearly say his "ANOTHER"/Fellow is a man as describe in Zechariah 13:7 who is Jesus the Christ, God himself in flesh..
in post 215 you said, "I went through the same gyrations--way back in the mid-70s! And I was as "determined" as you to make sense of all this". well it appears you have not yet picked up your diploma, so let us help you out a bit.

see it is the Holy Spirit who is "Father", and yes, it was not the old biological way, (between and Man and a woman)... Lol,. since you say you, .... "went through the same gyrations".. (smile), add this to your academic accolades, what do "FATHER" means? we will teach you by carnal means, then spiritual.
father carnal, Genesis 4:20 "And Adah bare Jabal: he was the father of such as dwell in tents, and of such as have cattle.". other words he was the "FIRST" one to live in a tent. lets see it.
H1 אָב 'ab (awɓ) n-m. father.
{in a literal and immediate, or figurative and remote application}
[a primitive word. Compare names beginning with "Abi-"]
KJV: chief, (fore-)father(-less), X patrimony, principal.
See also: G5

chief mans "FIRST", well as Principle, when used as an adjective, Being of principal rank, status or importance. when "STATUS" is used as a noun, it means A particular class or type of person or thing it means "NATURE"... JUST WHAT G243 ALLOS states in the Greek, (smile). and as for the term, "ORDER" hold that thought.

Now the Spiritual,
Father, meaning "FIRST", in "order?", scripture, Deuteronomy 6:4 "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD:" one is,
H259 אֶחָד 'echad (ech-awd') adj.
1. (properly) united, i.e. one.
2. (as an ordinal) first.
[a numeral from H258]
KJV: a, alike, alone, altogether, and, any(-thing), apiece, a certain, (dai-)ly, each (one), + eleven, every, few, first, + highway, a man, once, one, only, other, some, together.
Root(s): H258

there is our word, "FIRST", and as an adj, ordinal: relating to a thing's position in a series. a number defining a thing's position in a series, such as “first,” “second,” or “third.”
series: a number of things, events, or people of a similar kind or related nature coming one after another.
principle: first in order of importance; main.
position: a place where someone or something is located or has been put. as in, (John 1:1 in the beginning) what do "beginning" in John 1:1 means? G746 ἀρχή arche (ar-chee') n.
1. (properly abstract) a commencement.
2. (concretely) chief (in various applications of order, time, place, or rank).
[from G756]
KJV: beginning, corner, (at the, the) first (estate), magistrate, power, principality, principle, rule
Root(s): G756

can you believe this? the same words keep coming up over and over, is God trying to tell us something? ... YES.

KNOWING these definition above, now the Spiritual side,
spiritual: God, JESUS, is the "First"/Beginning, Chief, the ordinal "First", meaning "FATHER". and he is the Last, ... Adam, the ordinal Last, as a man (per Zechariah 13:7), meaning "Son", Last in ordinal position. and Isaiah 41:4, Isaiah 44:6, and Isaiah 48:12 which clearly Identiifies only "ONE" Person as the "First/Father", and the, "LAST/Son"... did you not hear Jesus out of his own mouth? see, (Revelation 1:17, 2:8, and 22:13), ...... BINGO.

I hope you read all of this post, if so you will now know that the First and the last is the same "ONE" person, meaning that he is the Father and the Son. as in Revelation 1:1, John 1:1, and Genesis 1:1.... (smile). if you didn't read this then you're still in darkness and your responses will still be from ignorance.

if you have any question... just ask.

PICJAG.[/QUOTE]

 

[Randy Kluth]

GINOLJC, to all. I know you will not read all of this post, nor anyone else who read it...... but it's to your benfit to read it all as i did your post.

No, shame on you, the scriptures never said the Holy Ghost concieved "JESUS", (smile, lol), see your carnal thinking. and then you went further to show your carnality, by saying, "Fathering a human being through sexual reproduction is not what God did", see again you are in ERROR, the scripture never said God had sexual union with mary, the scriptures said that the Holy Spirit "OVERSHADOW" her, see how carnal you're. listen, Luke 1:35 "And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God." what was "BORN?" flesh, and YES the Holy Spirit conceived that Holy Thing/Flesh, for God is not a THING, our bodies is. and that child/the body of flesh is a it, in Mary's womb, (see Matthews 1:20), but you don't know how God DID it. but one thing for sure, it was the Holy Ghost who conceived that body of Flesh in Mary's womb. and you can't believe the scriptures because you're carnal in nature. if you was not carnal, you would not have mention, "Fathering a human being through sexual reproduction is not what God did, and therefore is not comparable" for you would have given us the answer as to how God concieved thge child in Mary's womb, but you didn't. but gave an off the cuff answer which makes no sense, carnally or spiritually.

Calling me "carnal" does not help your argument. If your argument rests upon name-calling, then it is a weak argument indeed!

The reason I argued that this was not about divine use of sexual reproduction was to prove that God's "fatherhood" was different from *man's* fatherhood, and so should be understood differently than the way you were presenting it. Your Modalism is indeed confusing! And it is clearly an aberrant view, with respect to the doctrinal orthodoxy established by the councils of the church in history. So you might as well call all of Christianity, except yourself and modalists, "carnal?"

Another BIG ERROR on your part, #1. Jesus who is the ETERNAL SPIRIT is never produce, another mistake on your part. #2. personality is an abstract concept, the Lord Jesus is "CONCRETE".... LOL, see your ERROR again. understand, character, or characteristics are abstract. so you can take that notion, "He produced Jesus from His own personality" to the door and throw it out.

"Personality" is *not* an abstract concept! If your argument is based on that, you have a weak argument indeed!

That Jesus was "produced" as a *revelation* is clear from Scripture inasmuch as Jesus was called "the Word of God." That refers to a divine revelation, something that is produced by the mouth of God.

ANOTHER ERROR, #1. there is no SECOND PERSON, do you believe the bible? maybe or not, for Isaiah 44:24 states the LORD the ordinal First was "Alone", and "BY HIMSELF" when he made all things. now if there was a second person, he would not have been alone because God is everywhere. so that notion of a second person can be taken to the door also and thrown out too.

You are in error. There is not only a "2nd Person" but God is portrayed not as alone, but as being *with the Word of God.*

John 1.1 the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Clearly, God was not "alone!" He was *with the Word!* This is why your doctrine is heretical, because God's Word is eternal, along with God the Father. The Word is produced by God, and yet is revealed *from eternity.* That is, it is being spoken by the eternal God.

Another ERROR on your Part. there is no confusion from God he is clear. the Revelation is Jesus the Christ God himself in flesh. listen, 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:"
do you think for a moment that this is two distinct persons in this verse? ... (smile)..Lol. no, it's only ONE PERSON, who is revealing himself in person in a glorified Body. to prove that point, in Revelation chapter 4 & 5 there is one who sits on the throne. and in chapter 5 the one on the throne is also standing before the very same throne. he who is standing before the one who sits is the same one person. you have no knowledge of this. but we will clearly explain it later in the post when we speak of the Father.

The revelation of Jesus is distinct from the Person of the Father in the same way God's Word is distinct from God who speaks that Word. And when that Word was designed to be formed into a human person, yes the distinction of Father and Son became perfectly clear. The Son did not talk to himself when he addressed his Father. They were two distinct Persons in the Trinity.

see, you argue from igorance by calling a title a person.

No, the NT Scriptures mention the Father--a person, the Son--a person, and the Spirit--a person. These are not titles, but persons.

see it is the Holy Spirit who is "Father"

The NT Scriptures never identify the Holy Spirit as the Father. Nowhere is the Son referred to as the Father (there is a vague passage in Isaiah that sounds like that, but is distinct from these NT concepts). You are using extra-biblical vocabulary and then trying to prove it is Scriptural. Doesn't work with me. Shouldn't work with anybody, because what you say actually contradicts Scripture. Scripture proves 3 real Persons are mentioned, each identified as the one Deity. And the Word is indeed identified as eternally together in existence with the Father. They are thus Scripturally portrayed as distinct Persons!

 

[2 Chr. 34:19]

John 20
28 And Thomas answered and said to Him, “My Lord and my God!”

29 Jesus said to him, “Thomas, because you have seen Me, you have believed. Blessed arethose who have not seen and yet have believed.”

Notice how Jesus didn’t correct/rebuke Thomas :)

 

[101G]

Calling me "carnal" does not help your argument. If your argument rests upon name-calling, then it is a weak argument indeed!

The reason I argued that this was not about divine use of sexual reproduction was to prove that God's "fatherhood" was different from *man's* fatherhood, and so should be understood differently than the way you were presenting it. Your Modalism is indeed confusing! And it is clearly an aberrant view, with respect to the doctrinal orthodoxy established by the councils of the church in history. So you might as well call all of Christianity, except yourself and modalists, "carnal?"



"Personality" is *not* an abstract concept! If your argument is based on that, you have a weak argument indeed!

That Jesus was "produced" as a *revelation* is clear from Scripture inasmuch as Jesus was called "the Word of God." That refers to a divine revelation, something that is produced by the mouth of God.



You are in error. There is not only a "2nd Person" but God is portrayed not as alone, but as being *with the Word of God.*

John 1.1 the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Clearly, God was not "alone!" He was *with the Word!* This is why your doctrine is heretical, because God's Word is eternal, along with God the Father. The Word is produced by God, and yet is revealed *from eternity.* That is, it is being spoken by the eternal God.



The revelation of Jesus is distinct from the Person of the Father in the same way God's Word is distinct from God who speaks that Word. And when that Word was designed to be formed into a human person, yes the distinction of Father and Son became perfectly clear. The Son did not talk to himself when he addressed his Father. They were two distinct Persons in the Trinity.



No, the NT Scriptures mention the Father--a person, the Son--a person, and the Spirit--a person. These are not titles, but persons.



The NT Scriptures never identify the Holy Spirit as the Father. Nowhere is the Son referred to as the Father (there is a vague passage in Isaiah that sounds like that, but is distinct from these NT concepts). You are using extra-biblical vocabulary and then trying to prove it is Scriptural. Doesn't work with me. Shouldn't work with anybody, because what you say actually contradicts Scripture. Scripture proves 3 real Persons are mentioned, each identified as the one Deity. And the Word is indeed identified as eternally together in existence with the Father. They are thus Scripturally portrayed as distinct Persons!

you are still carnal.

Good day

PICJAG.

 

[justbyfaith]

I like to think that Jesus had a Father for 33 years only while he was in the flesh, for God to make himself visible to us, not forgetting he had other work to do as well, essential work, reconciling the world to himself. Those who do not believe in Him for whom he really is and who he said he was, will miss out. Then when he returned to heavens glory and sent the Comforter, which only God can do, he became who he was before, the Alpha and Omega, the WORD who created all things.

The only difference between Father and Son is the flesh, and that was so God could be made manifest on earth. Jesus said where two or three are gathered together, there am I in the midst. Jesus can only do this because He and the Father are literally One, even on earth, for God is with us now in spirit, and although invisible, woe betide those who reject his appearing 2,020 years ago.
.

The reality is that Jesus Christ is (not has) come in the flesh.

He said that He would not drink of the fruit of the vine again until He would drink it new with us in His father's kingdom. And this indicates that He has and will have a physical body throughout eternity.

 

[Cooper]

The reality is that Jesus Christ is (not has) come in the flesh.

He said that He would not drink of the fruit of the vine again until He would drink it new with us in His father's kingdom. And this indicates that He has and will have a physical body throughout eternity.

Jesus did come in the flesh, but he returned to the Father, that is why I used the past tense.
.